In Armenia, the political struggle leading up to the elections is conducted not only through rostrums and statements but also via social networks.
Modern.az reports that, in this context, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's chosen style clearly distinguishes him from his predecessors and rivals.
Thus, Pashinyan's campaign is built more from within everyday life than from classic political rhetoric. He frequently shares images on social networks of himself on a bus, in the street, among ordinary people. Videos sometimes showing him eating potatoes, sausages, pirojki, apples, durum, or corn create the impression that he aims to establish an emotional connection with voters.
Another well-known signature style of Pashinyan is his “heart-shaped” gesture. This is perceived as an attempt to gain sympathy from voters through closeness, sincerity, and the sharing of daily life. Among world leaders, Pashinyan stands out with his “heart-shaped” gesture, moving away from the image of a classic political leader and presenting himself as a leader who adapts to social media, prioritizing visual and emotional impact.
Another striking detail in Pashinyan's campaign is his demonstration of his lifestyle. He frequently makes candid posts showing him listening to music in his room, playing a musical instrument, and being active on social networks.
The opposition, however, maintains a different line, inherited from the Soviet era. Former leaders - Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan - conducted politics in completely different styles. They created a more closed, official, and distant image. In the activities of the bloc they led and politicians close to them, traditional, harsher, and accusation-based rhetoric still prevails.
The speeches of former leaders were also primarily from rostrums and state events. Establishing direct visual or emotional contact with the populace was not a central tenet of their politics. Furthermore, during the era of former leaders, politics was largely built on governance, security, and power. Communication with the public was mainly conducted through official channels. Pashinyan, as they say, broke this framework.
Thus, the political struggle in Armenia has turned into a confrontation between two distinct styles. On one side stands a campaign approach built on social networks, relying on details of daily life, and being more emotional and visual. On the other side, a classic, traditional political approach, largely based on accusation and criticism, is observed.
