Sexism, Stereotypes, and Insults: Armenia’s Ruling Party’s Troubling Rhetoric

24.03.2025

 

By Tigran Grigoryan

 

In recent weeks, the rhetoric of Armenian politicians, particularly within the ruling party, has raised significant concerns about the use of offensive and politically incorrect language in public discourse. These incidents underscore the need for greater accountability and the protection of democratic values, particularly in the face of growing political polarization.

 

Andranik Kocharyan’s sexist attacks on female journalists

 

Armenian MP Andranik Kocharyan, chairman of the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Defense and Security, has a history of making sexist and degrading remarks toward female journalists. Most recently, he targeted journalist Hripsime Jebejyan by refusing to answer her questions and telling her to “wipe her lips.” When asked to apologize, Kocharyan refused, arguing that his comments did not constitute an insult.

 

This is not the first time Kocharyan has used discriminatory language against women in the media. Years ago, he insulted former Justice Minister Arpine Hovhannisyan in an interview by saying she should “speak with facts, like giving the names of her mother and unknown father.” He also dismissed journalist Ani Gevorgyan’s question with the remark, “Go to a hair salon.”

 

Kocharyan’s comments have sparked widespread criticism from the journalistic community, with calls for media outlets to boycott him and refuse to interview him. This rhetoric reflects a broader issue in Armenian political culture, where sexism is normalized and largely ignored by political elites. Despite calls for accountability, including demands for an Ethics Committee investigation, no official consequences have followed.

 

The case of mayor Tigran Avinyan’s offensive language

 

Further concerns about the tone of political discourse in Armenia emerged during a recent session of the Yerevan City Council, in which Mayor Tigran Avinyan used an offensive stereotype while addressing his political opponents. Avinyan stated that no matter how much the opposition tries to distance itself from previous authorities, it is impossible. “Excuse me, but people are not ‘Kurds with a papakha’ (traditional hat, forming an idiom with a similar meaning to sticking out like a sore thumb).”

 

This remark was not only offensive but also dangerously divisive, invoking ethnic and cultural stereotypes that can contribute to heightened political tensions. While Avinyan’s comment may have been intended to criticize the opposition, it highlights a broader pattern in which political leaders resort to derogatory language to undermine their critics, creating an atmosphere of hostility rather than constructive debate.

 

Gevorg Papoyan’s controversial statement

 

In yet another recent episode, a statement by Armenia’s Minister of Economy Gevorg Papoyan sparked controversy, raising serious concerns about the government’s attitude toward criticism and democratic discourse. In a Facebook post, Papoyan likened government critics to “barking dogs,” using the phrase “The dog barks, but the caravan moves on” while celebrating an investment in the controversial Amulsar mining project. Following widespread backlash from civil society representatives, he later deleted the post but did not apologize.

 

These incidents highlight a troubling trend in Armenian political discourse, where offensive, sexist, and divisive language is used by officials without significant repercussions. Such rhetoric not only undermines democratic values but also deepens political polarization, discourages constructive debate, and alienates marginalized communities. If Armenia is to strengthen its nascent democracy, political leaders must be held accountable for their words and foster a culture of respect in public discourse. Addressing these issues requires both institutional reforms and a societal shift toward demanding higher standards from those in power.

 

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.