In the hot period of the pre-election campaign in Armenia, the representatives of the ruling party comment on the recent emotional incidents. Anahit Avanesyan, the Minister of Health, who is on vacation, defended the Prime Minister’s harsh rhetoric, accusing the political opponents of trying to divide Armenians and drag the country into a new war.
On May 18, during a meeting with voters in the Arabkir administrative district of the capital, Anahit Avanesyan touched on the sensitive topic of relations within the Armenian society. He emphasized that compatriots of Nagorno-Karabakh have always been in the center of attention and care of both ordinary citizens and the state institutions of Armenia. The minister called to prevent any attempt to drive a wedge between the Armenians of Artsakh and Armenia.
Commenting on the latest incident in which Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan He had a heated debate with a voter on the subject of Nagorno-Karabakh, Avanesyan described the statements of the head of the government as harsh but justified. According to him, such reaction was a response to “semi-terrorist manifestations” by the opponents. The minister recalled the tragic events of October 27, 1999 and March 1, 2008, declaring that the era of terrorism in Armenia is irrevocably past, and no one is allowed to manipulate the feelings of citizens.
The representative of the ruling power strongly criticized the actions of the opposition. He accused the so-called “Karabakh clan” of promoting their own interests and trying to return the country to the logic of the conflict. According to Avanesyan, the three-headed war party is trying to drag Armenia into confrontation again, but the authorities give a clear answer: the era of conflicts is over, and the state is a supporter of peace.
At the same time, he expressed a negative attitude towards any call for violence and reminded that the leader of the ruling party has long been offering an open debate to all former leaders who have ever been responsible for the country.
Referring directly to the incident between Pashinyan and a local resident, who was accused by supporters of the government of carrying out the order of the opposition, Avanesyan did not see a problem in using the word “uncle” addressed to her. He noted that constructive criticism is welcome, but in this case the woman came to ask her question and was not ready to hear the Prime Minister’s answer.
This episode was another expression of a series of tense dialogues and clashes at pre-election meetings, where political contradictions often turn into public threats and accusations.
—