The threat of war as a political message: from Nikol Pashinyan’s statement to the latest parliamentary debates

Security

  1. Security concerns at the heart of the political agenda

Security issues continue to play a key role in Armenia’s political discourse, often becoming one of the main elements of political struggle and electoral technologies. During the recent discussions and debates in the National Assembly, another wave of clashes between the government and the opposition erupted over Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statement during the pre-election period, in which he warned that a “catastrophic war” could occur in September if the “Civil Contract” party did not receive a constitutional majority.

This statement, which was originally made in the heat of the election campaign, has not only lost its relevance months later, but has also become one of the central topics of political analysis, mutual accusations, and parliamentary hearings.

Opposition forces claim that the government used “fear propaganda” to exert psychological pressure on voters and extract votes. Government representatives, on the contrary, declare that it was an open and honest assessment of geopolitical risks, which aimed to prepare society for possible developments.

The question that concerns political scientists and sociologists today is the following:

How did the content and political perception of the declaration of the danger of war change over time , and what impact might it have had on the psychology of post-war society and voter behavior ?

  1. Chronology : The evolution of the statement and the change in emphasis

Election announcement

2026

Nikol Pashinyan stated during a pre-election rally that the failure of the Civil Contract party to obtain a constitutional majority could lead to a “catastrophic war” as early as September. The emphasis was placed on internal political stability and the reproduction of power as the primary factor preventing war.

Change of position after the elections

In the National Assembly and in various speeches, the Prime Minister changed the emphasis, declaring: “If we continue to pursue the peace agenda, we can prevent war.” The emphasis shifted to the field of foreign policy and the “ Crossroads of Peace ”/“ Peace Treaty ” concepts.

Combining statements and causal relationships

The combination of the two statements indicates a structural shift in the political message.

  1. First announcement ( Pre-election period ):
    • Reason : Change of government, lack of victory for the “CIVIL AGREEMENT” party.
    • Consequence : A disastrous war in September.
    • Logic : Domestic political instability is seen as a direct catalyst for external aggression.
  1. Second announcement ( Post-election period ):
    • Reason : Adoption of the Peace Agenda
    • Consequence : Neutralization or reduction of the threat of war.
    • Logic : War prevention is determined not by the outcome of elections, but by the content of foreign policy.
  1. National Assembly Debates : Political Positions and Accusations

Recent parliamentary debates showed that the topic of security continues to be the main point of contention in the government-opposition conflict.

Opposition arguments

  • Opposition MPs claim that the threat of war was made only to cause alarm among voters so that they would vote for the current government as the “lesser of evils” or a guarantor of stability.
  • The opposition notes that the government has tried to place the responsibility for the country’s security on the voter, creating the false impression that the result of the vote can prevent the military plans of an external enemy.

The authorities’ responses

  • The government’s claim is that the internal political crisis and power vacuum would create a “favorable window” for the enemy to start a war, which an attempt has been made to prevent by raising public alertness.
  1. International response

When examining international media coverage of this particular campaign announcement, it is necessary to maintain factual accuracy.

Leading global media outlets (Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Politico) have extensively covered Armenia’s 2026 parliamentary elections and the peace treaty negotiations. However, Nikol Pashinyan’s specific pre-election statement about the “ catastrophic September war ” has not been widely discussed in the international press , either in a separate article or with special coverage .

International media outlets have largely focused on the following general themes:

  • Armenia-Azerbaijan border clashes.
  • Mediation efforts of Russia, the European Union, and the United States.
  • The internal political crisis in Armenia after the second Karabakh war.
  1. Political Psychology : Fear Appeal and Voter Behavior

In political communication theory, the concept of “Fear appeal” has been widely studied (e.g., Kim Witte, 1992 — Extended Parallel Process Model ).

[ BEHAVIOR CHANGE ]

Psychological mechanisms in post-war society

  1. Priority of the need for security : According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, in times of crisis and post-war, the need for security becomes dominant in society.
  2. Risk Aversion : Voters are often inclined to maintain the status quo or vote for a force that promises stability rather than resort to uncertain changes that could lead to upheaval.
  3. Rally ‘ round the flag: In the presence of a threat , society tends to rally around the incumbent government unless the opposition offers a more credible security alternative.

Analytical Note : Although the mechanisms of political psychology explain how such a statement could have influenced voters, there is no conclusive sociological or statistical evidence that this particular statement determined the outcome of the election . Voters’ decisions were influenced by many factors, including the level of trust in the opposition, the socio-economic situation, and the fear of the return of the former authorities .

  1. Fact Check : What we know and what is still unclear
Sector / Question Confirmed facts Unexplained / Open questions
Announcement availability N. Pashinyan announced during the pre-election period about the possibility of a ” catastrophic war ” in September. It is not known why the specific month of “September” was celebrated.
Change of emphasis After the elections, the government’s message became the ” peace agenda .” Did the risk of war decrease due to diplomacy or other geopolitical factors?

 

  1. Conclusion

The use of the threat of war in political discourse is a complex and double-edged tool. On the one hand, it is the duty of the government to inform the public about the existing dangers, on the other hand, during the pre-election period, such statements are inevitably perceived as a political technology.

Nikol Pashinyan’s statement and its subsequent transformation show how the security crisis has become one of the main sources of political legitimacy and public cohesion in Armenia. The heated parliamentary debates on this topic months later indicate that the Armenian political environment has not yet overcome the post-war crisis, and the line between “peace” and “threat” remains the most sensitive issue for the country’s political future.

Albert Avetisyan

#CivilSocietyCooperation #ishrarmenia #ishrfactcheck

The project is implemented with the financial support of the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany.

 ISHR Armenia  is solely responsible for the content of the materials.