Insults, Labeling, and Ethnic Hatred: Political Discourse in Armenia
23.05.2025
By Aram Tadevosyan
#Democracy Watch - The use of divisive and offensive language by political actors is one of the main problems of Armenia’s political culture. Democracy Watch regularly addresses the use of targeted and insulting rhetoric by both the opposition and the government. Debates over any issue often shift to the personal realm, where mutual accusations begin, not avoiding labeling and insults. In recent weeks, such language has been abundant in Armenia’s public sphere.
Pashinyan’s troubling rhetoric
On May 7, during the National Assembly–Government Q&A session, while responding to a question from Anna Grigoryan, a member of the opposition “Armenia” faction, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan began emotionally listing various labels circulated on certain media platforms about the opposition:
“They write that you’re a foreign spy. Whata are you even doing in this chamber…”
“If we went by media reports, we would’ve hanged you or expelled you from Armenia altogether... If I followed media reports, I’d drag all of you into the basement of the NSS [National Security Service]…” said the Prime Minister.
Beyond the threats of retaliation, it’s also important to address what kind of “media” reports the Prime Minister is referring to. The media labeling the Armenian opposition as “foreign agents” and similar terms is largely controlled by the government, and Pashinyan contrasts this with independent outlets. Anna Grigoryan’s question concerned corruption revelations involving the “Armenian National Interests Fund” (ANIF), which have been investigated by Hetq, Azatutyun, and CivilNet—outlets considered among Armenia’s four independent media organizations, according to Reporters Without Borders.
During the escalating verbal altercation, the Prime Minister told one MP: “Sit down where you belong, you hambal” (an Armenian slang term for someone who is easily manipulated). The Prime Minister later expressed neither regret nor issued an apology for these words. On the contrary, the ruling party began accusing the opposition of provocation. According to National Assembly Speaker Alen Simonyan, opposition MPs should apologize to Pashinyan for their “insolence.”
On May 15, the Corruption Prevention Commission launched proceedings in the National Assembly based on an apparent violation of the code of conduct by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
“Turk” as an Insult
Once again, interethnic hate speech became a source of verbal conflict and rising tension in the National Assembly.
Opposition MP Levon Kocharyan used the ethnonym “Turk” in the same semantic context as the word “traitor.” According to him, Pashinyan has “come to terms with those labels,” whereas he [Kocharyan] considers the word “Turk” to be a gravely offensive insult and responds to anyone who calls him that with multilayered profanity.
Ruling party MP Vahagn Aleksanyan, in one of his speeches, also used language containing elements of ethnic discrimination. He described basic human qualities—such as keeping one’s word or loving one’s parents—as characteristics of an Armenian, Christian man—traits he claimed are not quite familiar to “Robert Kocharyan, who became a communist in Azerbaijan with the backing of Heydar Aliyev” and who “perhaps hasn’t had the chance to thoroughly study Armenian society or get acquainted with our Armenian values and principles.” It should be emphasized that the problematic aspect in this statement is not related to Kocharyan personally, but with a supposed disconnect from Armenian values.
Another ruling party MP, Hakob Arshakyan, responding to Levon Kocharyan’s remark about “what people say about Pashinyan,” cited public discourse around Robert Kocharyan and, from the various narratives, chose the one stating that “his father is a Turk.”
Continuing the trend of ethnic labeling, MP Arsen Torosyan from the Civil Contract faction stated that the word “Turk” can indeed be used as an insult. In turn, he hurled insults at those who called them “Turks.”
Turning gossip about certain individuals’ ethnic origins into a political talking point and using it for mutual labeling among MPs does not align with the values of a democratic country and runs counter to the government’s declared peace agenda.
Anna Hakobyan’s New Vocabulary
Anna Hakobyan, the Prime Minister’s wife—who has previously not refrained from using targeted language—has recently adopted a new stance. On May 17, a post appeared on her Facebook cover photo: “Freedom of speech and the right to express one’s opinion are inalienable rights for everyone. From now on, I will exercise that right.”
What followed was a wave of labeling directed at critics of Hakobyan and the “My Step” Foundation she leads—ranging from critical to misleading publications.
Posting several materials on her platform, Anna Hakobyan expressed her opinions using a wide range of offensive terms: “idiot,” “ignorant,” “illiterate,” “immoral,” “uncivilized,” “vermin,” “donkey,” “peasant.” At times, her insults extend not only to individuals but to entire groups, showing disdain for speech patterns (“peasant accent”) and places of residence (“remote village”).
Hakobyan considers this vocabulary a proportionate response to the offensive language directed at her and her family. In her view, there is no other way to counter such attacks. She argues that the only way to stop the spread of hate speech in Armenia is through education: (“You must educate yourselves. You’re obliged to learn. You’ve rotted; your brains need to be aired out”). Yet, for now, she prefers to respond “in language they understand,” and urges those criticizing her use of labels to “mind their own business.”
Disproportionate Responsibility
The approach of officials responding with equal or greater aggression (i.e., insults) is not only unconstructive but also irresponsible. There can be no equivalence between the speech of a blogger with a limited audience and that of Anna Hakobyan, who calls them “vermin.”
The primary force responsible for combating discriminatory and stigmatizing language—especially one that considers democratization among its major achievements—should be the ruling force. Yet, Armenia is witnessing the opposite trend, where the authorities seem to compete with the opposition over who can use more unacceptable language.
Ahead of the upcoming elections, both the government and the main opposition forces are increasingly resorting to divisive and offensive rhetoric. It appears that neither the ruling Civil Contract party nor the parliamentary opposition is relying on swaying undecided voters. Instead, they create a background that breeds apathy while keeping their loyal base energized.
The more Armenian citizens become convinced that politics is exactly what high-ranking officials and their family members display, the less inclined they’ll be to engage with it.
Democracy Watch is a joint initiative by CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security, a Yerevan-based think tank.