It is crucial to understand what constitutes a government’s right to rule—in other words, the basis of its legitimacy. Weeks ago, Armenian society witnessed an extraordinary intra-governmental incident when the individual occupying the prime minister's chair sent a "request" via SMS to several key officials, including two Members of Parliament (MPs), asking them to resign. Out of the nine individuals who received the message, eight submitted their resignations the very next day. Only one MP, an experienced member of the Civil Contract Party, hesitated, requesting additional time to clarify certain circumstances.
During this period, the MP faced unfavorable conditions tied to resigning from his mandate and ultimately could not comply with the prime minister's "request." For this, he was expelled from the party and the Civil Contract faction for allegedly violating party discipline. This "old party member" apparently realized—or was made to realize—that they, along with the other eight who were coerced into resigning, had been treated unfairly and dismissed without justification.
A truly respected leader may, under exceptional circumstances, make staff changes due to extreme necessity. However, such actions should not violate the rights of those affected. In this case, the MP forced to relinquish his mandate stands to lose his salary and bonuses at least until the next election in 2026—unless monetary compensation is provided. This scenario also raises the issue of the leader’s authority, which Nikol Pashinyan evidently lacks. Authority must be founded on substantial achievements, such as notable victories, progress, or other tangible accomplishments. Unfortunately, there is little to take pride in, leaving the incumbent prime minister and the entire Civil Contract regime devoid of legitimate authority. This brings us to a fundamental question: what, then, is the basis of the right to rule in our country?
A brief historical overview sheds light on this issue. In medieval Europe, the basis of power and rule was divine right; monarchs claimed authority from God and were accountable only to Him, typically through the mediation of the Church. With the Age of Enlightenment, the divine foundation of power was challenged. Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed that rulers should govern based on a public contract with the people, giving rise to the concept of the "social contract." This notion likely inspired the Armenian Civil Contract Party, which has, ironically, brought considerable misfortune to the Armenian people.
Over time, the foundations of power and the right to rule have evolved according to the context of each era. For instance, during Napoleon’s reign, military victories became the cornerstone of his legitimacy in France. In the USSR, it was the struggle against the exploitation of the working and peasant classes. Since the 1990s, the global norm has been that legitimate rulers champion fundamental human rights and freedoms.
Returning to Armenia, let us examine the right to rule of the incumbent government—the Civil Contract Party. In 2018, it came to power with two key promises: a) implementing an anti-corruption strategy and returning assets "stolen by the previous regime" to the state budget, b) securing a peace agreement with Azerbaijan. In reality, however, the opposite has occurred. Corruption levels have reached unprecedented heights, and external debt has doubled—from $6 billion to over $12 billion. As for the promised peace agreement, it has effectively been interred, with no tangible progress in sight.
Thus, the incumbent government has exhausted any claim to a legitimate right to rule—a claim that was tenuous at best from the outset. This conclusion, regrettably, requires no further proof.