There has been a noticeable increase in alleged cases of exposing “foreign spies,” “agents of influence,” and “state traitors,” particularly in the period before, during, and after the June parliamentary elections. Do these "exposures" have anything to do with the questionable, actually non-legitimate elections? It turns out they do. Since the topic is purely academic in nature, one of the most influential German and American philosophers and political theorists of the 20th century (1906–1975), Hannah Arendt, will "help" us professionally decipher it.

Her work primarily focused on the analysis of totalitarianism, power, freedom, and human rights. In her book “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” the author presents the idea that totalitarianism is not merely a type of totalitarian or authoritarian rule. It is a form of power that aims to control not only people's behavior, but also the way they think, perception of reality, and the entire structure of the whole society. Such systems, according to Arendt's interpretation, constantly need an enemy. That "enemy" can be a foreign state, internal political opposition, a national, social, or sub-ethnic group, as, for example, Artsakh Armenians in the case of Armenia.

In short, the type of power described above requires the image of an enemy for several reasons: a) to consolidate society around itself; b) to find "guilty parties" when necessary and blame economic and political failures on them; c) to justify emergency measures and restrictions through the image of the enemy (a public that believes the state is under constant threat easily accepts the restriction of freedoms). She argues that totalitarian control succeeds best when people lose their grip on objective reality, making blind loyalty or ideological belief secondary to total confusion. According to Arendt, the "ideal subject" of a totalitarian regime is not a convinced supporter of the order, but rather the person for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, and the distinction between true and false, no longer exists.

In that case, the individuals stop making independent judgments and begin to accept the reality presented to them by the authorities. People can simultaneously believe "everything and nothing." If a citizen is convinced that everyone is lying, he loses the desire to find the truth. According to another key interpretation of Arendt's idea, in dictatorial systems, the struggle never ends. If one "enemy" is eliminated, another appears in its place. After all, the entire political system is anchored in the idea of struggle, and the regime constantly needs a new "enemy" to keep the public consolidated within its sight.

Now let us turn to Armenia, where almost all shades characteristic of totalitarianism and authoritarianism can be found. The "enemies" of the current regime are subjects familiar to all of us: "Artsakh Armenians who fled the war," "corrupt former officials," "spies working for the RF," "perverted clergy," "people taking money to vote for the opposition," and so forth. Similar to many dictatorial systems in the world, the authorities in Armenia also strive to keep all spheres of public life under broad control by misusing judicial bodies, tax authorities, the police, administrative levers, and propaganda tools.

Hannah Arendt's theory manifests in Armenia's public sphere very frequently through accusations of "foreign influence agents," "espionage," "high treason," or "anti-state activity," as well as through the polarization of society and the generation of internal hatred and enmity. Thus, in any society, a dangerous situation arises when political struggle is replaced by an endless search for an "enemy," and the citizen proves powerless to independently analyze facts and consistently demand accountability from their elected officials.

“Hayatsk Yerevanits” Journal