In recent weeks, a recurring narrative has intensified within Armenia’s political discourse: that the absence of the ruling “Civil Contract” party from power could trigger a new war. This thesis, articulated by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and senior officials, has become a central theme in media analyses and political debates, viewed as a foundational element of pre-election security branding-often framed by outlets like Factor TV as an “either us or war” ultimatum.
Official Statements and Clarifications (2026)
The latest wave of this rhetoric was driven by explicit high-level statements during the spring of 2026:
- March 15 – During a visit to Goris, PM Nikol Pashinyan stated that deviating from the established peace agenda effectively implies “war for the sake of a better peace,” calling such logic absurd.
- March 19 – In a press briefing, the Prime Minister framed the dilemma more starkly: “Either Civil Contract secures a constitutional majority, or there will be war,” warning of potential escalation if the current peace path is compromised. This echoes his 2024 warning to border residents, where he noted that refusing specific concessions could lead to war “by the end of the week.”
- March 23 – Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan clarified that the remarks should be interpreted as a political assessment rather than literal blackmail. He argued that if opposition forces-whose ideologies include territorial claims against almost all neighbors-come to power, Armenia’s existence as an independent state could be severely compromised.Expert․Perspectives and the “Politics of Fear”
This approach is not unique to the current administration. A historical review of Armenia’s electoral history reveals a consistent pattern where security guarantees and the threat of war are utilized as primary campaign tools by successive governments, while opposition forces invariably counter by accusing incumbents of manufacturing fear.
During the 2008 and 2013 presidential elections, the ruling team emphasized unresolved conflict risks and regional instability to argue that “experienced leadership” and “maintaining stability” were vital, while opponents like Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Raffi Hovhannisyan charged that the elite was exploiting existential fears to retain power. Following the 2016 April War, the 2017 parliamentary elections heavily prioritized a “strong state” narrative, which opposition figures (including Nikol Pashinyan at the time) labeled as a manipulation to mask governance failures. By the 2021 extraordinary elections, the roles reversed: the newly incumbent Pashinyan campaigned strictly on a “peace agenda” to prevent future conflicts, while opposition leader Robert Kocharyan branded the government as defeatist, arguing that institutional weakness invites aggression and calling instead for a “peace with honor.”
Expert Perspectives and the “Politics of Fear”
Opposition figures, including Armenia’s second President Robert Kocharyan, have branded this recent rhetoric as a classic “politics of fear,” designed to force a psychological ultimatum on the electorate. Political analysts and conflict resolution experts similarly note that framing elections as a referendum on “war versus peace” fundamentally alters public prioritization:
- Hrayr Balian (CivilNet.am) notes that presenting elections as a choice between war or peace distorts the authentic structure of democratic decision-making.
- Tevan Poghosyan (Factor.am) argues that such rhetoric stems from an existential fear of losing power, effectively resorting to political blackmail to influence voter behavior.
- Hovsep Khurshudyan points out the problematic nature of this binary “black-and-white” framing, which labels all alternative political forces as pro-war. However, he notes that where the PM’s rhetoric implicitly targets the return of former elites, his underlying security concerns possess merit.
Academic Context (The Politics of Fear):
In political science literature, particularly the foundational work of Corey Robin (“Fear: The History of a Political Idea”), fear is analyzed as an actively constructed and managed political tool. By escalating security anxieties, political actors can successfully marginalize complex domestic issues like economic or social challenges, reducing the voter’s choice to a simplified binary: the ruling status quo and stability, or change and imminent chaos.
Ultimately, the statements from the ruling team reflect real, tangible regional security threats on one hand, while simultaneously serving as a classic pre-election methodology designed to shape voter behavior by linking geopolitical outcomes directly to domestic political choices.
Details are available in the Armenian version / Մանրամասները հասանելի են հայերեն տարբերակում:
