Op-ed by Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s former foreign minister (1998-2008)
Seven years into Nikol Pashinyan’s premiership, it has become increasingly evident that his administration ranks, by far, among the most incompetent in Armenia’s post-independence history. Worse still, it is marred by corruption and nepotism. Unless the government provides credible explanations regarding the fate of the millions of dollars allocated to ANIF, the more than 100 million dollars in Armenia Fund donations, and the additional seven billion dollars in foreign debt—and these are only a few of the more visible examples—Pashinyan’s government may well earn the distinction of being the most corrupt, by far, since independence.
The once-prevalent narrative—that despite military defeats, territorial losses, national humiliation, and internal turmoil, Armenia was at least governed by honest hands—has collapsed. In its place stands a sobering realization: the cost of leadership devoid of competence is far higher than previously imagined.
This reality gives rise to a difficult but necessary argument: when a nation must choose between a “corrupt” yet capable government and one that is “honest” but inept and incompetent, the former may prove to be the lesser evil. Corruption, while damaging, can be mitigated over time through institutional reforms and prudent management. Monetary losses can be recovered through hard work, effective governance, and judicial processes. Lost lives, territory, damaged reputation, and national humiliation, by contrast, are either unrecoverable or seldom recovered without immense sacrifice—often through war, bloodshed, and enduring trauma.
Governance demands more than good intentions. Integrity is vital, but without the ability to govern effectively, it becomes an empty virtue. Armenia’s recent history under Pashinyan offers a cautionary tale of how incompetence at the highest levels can lead to national calamity. The consequences have been stark and irreversible: the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, the displacement of over 120,000 Armenians, the deaths of thousands of young soldiers, and the erosion of Armenia’s territorial sovereignty. The emotional and psychological toll on the Armenian people has been profound, deepened further by the sense that these tragedies were avoidable.
Pashinyan’s supposed hallmark—an uncompromising fight against corruption—has indeed proven hollow. While new anti-corruption bodies have been established and legislative “reforms” enacted, systemic corruption persists. Nepotism and favoritism flourish, revealing that the state apparatus remains vulnerable to manipulation and private gain. The public’s trust in the integrity of government has been totally eroded.
Perhaps most disheartening is the steady deterioration of Armenia’s democratic institutions. The early promise of the 2018 “Velvet Revolution” has been squandered. What began as a hopeful experiment in participatory governance has devolved into one-man rule. The judiciary is widely viewed as compromised, independent media face increasing pressure, and civil society operates under a climate of suspicion and constraint. The political atmosphere is now defined by polarization and fragmentation, weakening national cohesion at a time when unity is most needed.
Pashinyan’s government’s legacy may well be defined not by the ideals it once championed but by the irreversible damage it has wrought. The illusion of integrity and clean hands has masked a deeper dysfunction. And as we all survey the wreckage of the past seven years, we are left to ponder a harsh but necessary truth: that good governance requires more than clean hands—it demands competence, vision, and the courage to lead with both integrity and effectiveness. Without these, even the noblest ideals can collapse under the weight of reality.
With all due respect, as someone who has worked in Armenia and in NK (the first war) during Soviet times until now, before speaking about the Pashinyan’s government, before evaluating the current government’s actions, it’s essential to reflect on the two preceding administrations where you were foreign minister. One government resorted to violence against its own citizens, while another manipulated the democratic process to extend its hold on power. As CivilNet reported, the time of your tenure coincided with periods widely acknowledged for systemic corruption that infiltrated various sectors, including education, law enforcement, and healthcare, elections (yes, I was a monitor) every crevice of society. This systemic corruption eroded public trust and hindered democratic development.
In contrast, under Pashinyan’s leadership, the establishment of the Anti-Corruption Committee and the adoption of the 2023–2026 Anti-Corruption Strategy demonstrate a commitment to institutional reform. These efforts have led to a notable increase in the detection and prosecution of corruption cases, reflecting both improved enforcement mechanisms and a shift in public willingness to report such offenses. There were people from his own government fired for corruption. And as witnessed throughout his term, people have openly criticized the government. Yes, when they tried to storm the parliament there was aggression, but please tell me any other Western government who wouldn’t do the same. No tanks, no shooting at the crowd like during your term in office. NGOs actively engage in policy discussions and holding officials accountable. This vibrant civic engagement was scarcely imaginable under previous regimes.
Regarding the NK conflict, it’s crucial to acknowledge that the current administration inherited a complex and unresolved situation. Previous governments failed to secure international recognition for NK and lacked a coherent strategy to address the region’s status. The lack of proactive diplomacy and overreliance on the status quo contributed to the region’s vulnerability. This inaction left NK isolated. What were you doing? Not one international recognition, what was the government doing? What was the NK government doing with all its nationalistic rhetoric about loving their land except accepting money from Armenia and the NGOs and drinking. And of course Western countries knew it was a Russian satellite for Putin, including their constant sabotaging of Pashinyan since he came in office. This cannot be ignored when even at the 11th hour the people of Artsakh still thought Putin was coming to their rescue and ignored Pashinyan’s calls, and yes, I know this as fact. You shock me, Mr. Oskanyan, spewing your venom (maybe from your own plagued guilt) instead of sharing your wisdom as a true diplomat would do.