Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent statements on November 14 in Armenia’s National Assembly, where he described Armenia’s “social mentality” as anti-state, reveal numerous fundamental issues related to his views on statehood and social psychology. His speech suggests an attempt to link Armenia’s historical experiences to present challenges. However, this interpretation lacks academic grounding and appears intended to deflect responsibility for his administration’s policy failures.
During a parliamentary committee session on October 28, Pashinyan stated that the state should serve as a “tool for earning bread,” an expression indicating a simplistic and instrumental view of governance. His reference to the phrase “here is bread, here is shelter,” as opposed to the popular saying “where there is bread, there is shelter,” reflects an intention to discourage citizens from leaving for work abroad. However, such rhetoric overlooks the deeper systemic issues that push citizens towards emigration and fails to address the government’s responsibility in creating viable economic opportunities at home.
In academic terms, “social psychology” examines how societal structures influence individual behaviors and attitudes, drawing from data-driven analyses rather than subjective perceptions. Pashinyan’s use of the term lacks this academic rigor, relying instead on his own interpretations, potentially informed by advisors, which distorts the actual academic field. His labeling of Armenia’s collective mindset as “anti-state” disregards the contributions of those who, for centuries, have fought for Armenian sovereignty and statehood, particularly during pivotal moments like the Sardarapat and Bash-Aparan battles and the Karabakh movement of the 1990s.
Pashinyan also claimed that the nation’s approach to money and the tax code is “anti-state,” once again demonstrating a misinterpretation. The tax system and circulation tax are tools created by the state for revenue collection, not mechanisms meant to encourage growth directly. Policies that could support development, such as reduced tax burdens, tax incentives, minimized bureaucracy, state-supported programs, and subsidies, are actual tools for economic encouragement. Furthermore, currency is fundamentally a matter of public trust in government, backed by monetary and fiscal policies, not a reflection of an “anti-state” mindset among citizens.
Thus, Pashinyan’s statements reflect a pattern of rhetoric driven by personal perceptions rather than grounded economic analysis. If the tax code is indeed ineffective or discouraging, responsibility lies with the current administration, which has the authority to implement changes but chooses not to.
Ultimately, Pashinyan’s approach in the National Assembly exemplifies a tendency to assign blame and justify his administration’s shortcomings by deflecting onto the public. Rather than unifying the nation around a shared vision for statehood, his remarks divide and stigmatize. Addressing statehood requires solutions based on accountability and constructive policies, not rhetoric that further distances citizens from their government.
