Guiding questions and the right answers Gallup vs. Pashinyan?

The Gallup International Association conducted another sociological survey in Armenia. The telephone surveys were held between February 27 and March 6, with 1,100 participants. The results were presented by the head of the Armenian branch of the association, Aram Navasardyan.

According to the survey, most citizens of Armenia oppose changing the constitution. 18.4% of those surveyed noted that certain points of the constitution should be changed. 7.5% agree with the need to adopt a new constitution. Another 59.6% believe that the constitution should remain unchanged, and 14.5% were undecided. Navasardyan reminded that in January 2024, when Nikol Pashinyan brought this issue to the agenda, the numbers were different. At that time, 14% said certain points should be changed, 13% supported adopting a new constitution, 34.2% were against changes, and another 38% were undecided.

Next, according to the results, the majority of respondents are not against early elections. This is where we need to pause. There is something about this sentence that surprises me. What surprises me is why the topic of early elections even became a point in the survey agenda. After all, this issue is not part of the public discourse. One must conclude that the well-known and seemingly independent public opinion research institute not only formulates questions incorrectly but also artificially introduces issues into the public agenda.

As for the breakdown among respondents, 44% "strongly" support the idea of early elections, 16.4% think they are "most likely" necessary, 10.3% answered that elections are "probably not needed," and 23.5% stated that they are "absolutely unnecessary." It seems that, in an attempt to increase pressure on society, the aforementioned representative of Gallup, Navasardyan, considers it necessary to add his perspective to the picture. "It is unlikely that those in the last category, the 23.5%, are people who agree with the government's policies and do not want any changes. I believe that among them are those who do not see an alternative to the current government or political force to whom they might give their vote," he explains.

At the same time, a large percentage of those surveyed are dissatisfied with the government's performance—46.5%. Only 9% fully approve of the prime minister's work, 15.5% have a more positive than negative view, and 19.1% have a more negative than positive view.

We are not here to teach a world-renowned organization, but it still seems that bias, if we can put it that way, is present. The aforementioned suspicious details could indicate that the sample of 1,100 people was also not sufficiently representative, meaning it did not reflect the entire spectrum of Armenian society.

However, this does not mean that the ruling party ignores the ratings. After the publication of the results of the previous survey in January, in which only 11% of respondents supported the Civil Contract party, Pashinyan said: "Politics is like that; ratings go up and down, sometimes they fall and never rise again. But it’s never the case that ratings always rise and never fall." Behind this feigned indifference to ratings, of course, lies a deep concern. Everything Pashinyan does aims to align Armenia's survival issues with his own political survival. And for him, ratings are, of course, an important indicator.

He understands that Armenia's prosperity, and thus his own political future, depends on normalizing relations with Azerbaijan and Türkiye. As a result, he sometimes takes bold steps, attempting to reshape the public consciousness of the Armenian people through the concept of a "real Armenia," initiatives to revise the events of 1915, and constitutional reform. To maintain the loyalty of the pro-European electorate, the ruling party votes for the country’s accession to the EU. At the same time, having to take into account the sentiments of revanchist circles, Pashinyan pursues a policy of militarization and is even ready to attempt a blitzkrieg along the conditional border.

Yes, one can believe that Pashinyan personally does not harbor revanchist ideas, but it is impossible to believe that he will not use such sentiments in society to boost his own rating.

All these conflicting directions of the ruling party promise nothing good for either Armenia or the Civil Contract. In the battle for ratings, Pashinyan risks losing everything. And GALLUP will say, "We warned you about this."