Who Handed Over Power to Pashinyan?

By KRIKOR KHODANIAN

The simmering resentment between supporters of Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan has escalated into a full-blown conflict, with both sides publicly accusing each other of “handing over” power to Nikol Pashinyan.

This war of words was ignited when Kocharyan, in his latest press conference, stated that his supporters would not accept Serzh Sargsyan, just as Sargsyan’s supporters would not accept him. By making this statement, Kocharyan effectively encouraged his followers to attack and discredit Sargsyan in the eyes of the opposition supporters. He appears convinced of his superiority and believes Sargsyan must be removed from the political scene before the parliamentary elections next year, allowing Kocharyan to consolidate his position as the sole leader of the opposition. In response, Sargsyan’s supporters accuse Kocharyan of indirectly supporting Pashinyan’s movement during the 2018 events.

Neither Kocharyan nor Sargsyan voluntarily handed over power. Instead, it was the deeply ingrained flaws of their twenty-year rule that led to their downfall. The crony-oligarchic system, economic monopolies, rampant corruption, suppression of freedoms, rigged elections, and a steady decline in living standards over the years pushed the country to the brink of collapse. Adding to this, the tragedies of October 27 and March 1 became catalysts for public outrage, eventually reaching a breaking point.

When Nikol Pashinyan and a small group of his supporters began their march from Gyumri to Yerevan in March 2018, few could have predicted the outcome. However, as more Armenians joined the movement, and Republic Square became the epicenter of nationwide protests, the revolution gained unstoppable momentum. Neither Serzh Sargsyan nor Robert Kocharyan could halt the movement or change the course of history. Their governance failures left them no choice but to relinquish power, and the people, through free elections, entrusted leadership to Pashinyan. Even after the country’s military defeat, he was re-elected in another free vote, reaffirming public support.

After failing to reclaim power through street protests, the opposition now pins its hopes on the upcoming parliamentary elections, believing that Pashinyan’s declining popularity could pave their way back to power. However, their ongoing infighting demonstrates that they have not learned from past mistakes. Rather than engaging in sincere dialogue with the people and addressing their failures, they remain preoccupied with blaming each other—an approach that will ultimately turn their frustration against the public itself.

Kocharyan and Sargsyan are two sides of the same coin, viewing power as a tool for personal enrichment rather than public service. As Armenia approaches the next elections, its citizens bear a critical responsibility: to prevent the return of either Kocharyan or Sargsyan to power, ensuring that the state’s levers are not once again placed in the hands of those who previously led it toward destruction.

“MASSIS”