‘I Am the Government’: Pashinyan’s One-Man Rule Threatens Democratic Consolidation
03.09.2025
By Tigran Grigoryan
#DemocracyWatch - Armenia's Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, has dismissed Liparit Drmeyan, the head of the Office of the Representative for International Legal Affairs. This move follows a public statement by the Prime Minister that Armenia will not comply with an emergency ruling from the Stockholm Arbitration Tribunal. The ruling had ordered Armenia to halt any actions to seize "Electric Networks of Armenia."
The controversy centers on the Electricity Networks of Armenia (ENA), the country’s sole power distributor owned by Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan. Soon after Karapetyan publicly backed the Armenian Apostolic Church in June 2025, parliament rushed through a law enabling ENA’s takeover, allowing regulators to strip its license and appoint state administrators without court approval. Critics see the move as political retaliation, warning it could trigger costly arbitration and further erode Armenia’s investment climate.
In a press conference, Pashinyan stated that any government official who disagrees with his stance on the matter should resign. "I am the government ... no one can have a position that contradicts my position," he said. "If there are people in the government who have a stance that contradicts my own, they should write their resignation and leave the buildings immediately, and if not, I will remove them myself."
The Office of the Representative for International Legal Affairs, which operates under the authority of the Prime Minister, had previously concluded that the international arbitration decision was legally binding.
A Contradiction with Democratic Governance
Pashinyan’s words are not only politically reckless but also legally unfounded. Armenia’s constitution envisions a parliamentary system in which authority is dispersed between institutions, and where the government is collectively responsible before parliament and the public. No single individual - not even the prime minister - can unilaterally embody “the government.” By reducing government to his own person, Pashinyan undermines the very foundations of institutional governance and places himself above the system he is supposed to serve.
Such rhetoric is not merely symbolic. When leaders equate themselves with the state, they erode the distinction between personal will and institutional decision-making. This is a hallmark of personalistic governance, where checks and balances are weakened, dissent is penalized, and policymaking becomes dependent on the moods and preferences of a single figure rather than the broader national interest.
In one of the previous articles published within the Democracy Watch initiative, we delved into different aspects of Pashinyan’s personalistic style of governance. This statement, as well as the dismissal of Liparit Drmeyan, is yet another manifestation of that defining feature of the Armenian government, which exemplifies the lack of institutionalization in the decision-making process.
Shrinking Space for Deliberation
The dismissal of Drmeyan also highlights a broader and more persistent trend in Armenia’s political life: the shrinking space for internal debate and deliberation within the ruling elite. Since the 2020 Second Karabakh War, loyalty to Pashinyan has increasingly become the overriding criterion for remaining in government. Expertise and professional judgment are secondary to demonstrating unquestioned obedience to the Prime Minister’s line.
The fact that the Office of the Representative for International Legal Affairs - a professional body tasked with defending Armenia’s positions in international legal forums - acknowledged the binding nature of the tribunal’s decision should have been an opportunity for constructive discussion within government. Instead, it served as grounds for dismissal, sending a clear message: independent professional assessments that contradict the Prime Minister’s political stance will not be tolerated.
Why This Matters for Democracy
In consolidated democracies, the presence of alternative voices within the system is not only tolerated but valued. Institutions are designed to encourage scrutiny of executive decisions, allowing potential mistakes to be flagged and debated before they become irreversible. This pluralism protects against rash or dubious choices and ultimately strengthens policy outcomes.
Armenia’s trajectory, however, suggests the opposite: the system is being remolded into one where dissent is penalized and where the prime minister’s authority is presented as absolute. This dynamic increases the risk of serious policy errors.
Moreover, Pashinyan’s statement comes at a time when Armenia’s democracy is already under significant stress. The aftermath of the 2020 war, the forced displacement of Nagorno-Karabakh’s population in 2023, and the country’s complicated geopolitical balancing act have all placed extraordinary pressure on the state. At precisely such moments, democracies need strong institutions, rule of law, and open debate to guide them through crisis. Instead, Armenia is consolidating a model where one individual dominates decision-making unchecked.
For Armenia to safeguard its democratic gains, it must resist this slide toward personalistic governance. Rule of law and democratic accountability cannot be sacrificed to political expediency. Institutions must be allowed to function independently, even - and especially - when their conclusions contradict the Prime Minister’s personal preferences. Otherwise, Armenia risks trading the promise of institutional democracy for the perils of one-man rule.
Democracy Watch is a joint initiative of CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security.
This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies