Legendary director Sergio Leone's 1966 film “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) is considered one of the most famous cinematic works in world cinema, symbolizing the clash of three distinct characters. In the film, the characters of “the good”, “the bad” and “the ugly” represent not only individual characteristics but also conflicting interests.
Modern.az reminds that the film “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” depicts events taking place in the USA during the Civil War in 1862 and describes the attempts of 3 criminals to find a lost gold treasure amidst the war.
The main theme of the cinematic work is the revelation of human nature during wartime. All 3 protagonists are greedy murderers, but how they react to the war is the main factor distinguishing their moral codes.
“The Good” begins to see the senselessness and cruelty of war and is truly affected by the deaths around him.
“The Bad” exploits the war. He conducts corrupt operations, robs and tortures prisoners of war. He resorts to every means to discover the location of the treasure.
“The Ugly”, however, does not attach much importance to the war. He simply sees the war as an obstacle between himself and the treasure.
This analogy also applies, in a certain sense, to the parliamentary elections to be held in Armenia on June 7. On Armenia's political scene, three different approaches, three different political lines, stand face to face. They can be conditionally compared to the characters of “the good”, “the bad”, and “the ugly”.
“THE GOOD”: Nikol Pashinyan, seeking a rational approach
In the election process, the figure conditionally closest to the “good” character can be considered the current Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. However, the concept of “good” here is not used in an absolute sense. He can be evaluated more as a politician who strives to be rational and take realities into account.
In recent years, Pashinyan has acted as a politician forced to accept the new geopolitical realities in the region. He is trying to take steps towards normalizing relations with Azerbaijan and achieving a peace agreement. Although these steps are not unequivocally welcomed by Armenian society, they are presented as an approach that appears to have no alternative from a political perspective.
The most noteworthy point is Pashinyan's drawing conclusions from some irresponsible statements he made in previous periods. Having seen that statements he could not stand behind at one time led to severe consequences for Armenia, the Prime Minister now prefers a more cautious and measured rhetoric. This approach is one of the main characteristics that distinguishes him from radical and revanchist circles.
“THE BAD”: Billionaire Samvel Karapetyan
On the election scene, the figure more closely matching the “bad” character is presented as businessman Samvel Karapetyan, who holds passports from three countries — Great Britain, Russia, and Armenia.
Karapetyan has been involved in business activities in Russia for many years and has accumulated significant wealth. The lack of transparency in his wealth accumulation process and allegations of corruption and various financial schemes are frequently discussed. At the same time, opinions about his close relations with Kremlin political circles are widespread.
In this context, Karapetyan's participation in the election is evaluated not only as an internal political process but also as an attempt by Moscow to gain revenge in Armenian politics. Russia's desire to protect its positions in the region and influence the election results is considered one of the main risks that could alter the political balance within Armenia.
The attempt of such a figure to come to power could revert Armenia's political course to its previous model of dependence and create additional threats to stability in the region.
“THE UGLY”: Failed separatist and revanchist Robert Kocharyan
In the election process, the harshest and most radical stance is represented by Robert Kocharyan, the former leader of Karabakh separatists and former president of Armenia. He can be conditionally compared to the “ugly” character.
For many years, Kocharyan has been known as one of the main figures of separatist ideology. A large part of his political activity has been built on conflict and confrontation. Even today, he is considered one of the main political figures who are skeptical of the peace process in the region and advocate a revanchist rhetoric.
Kocharyan's return to the political scene could create new risks for Armenia. The political line he leads has the potential to draw the country back into the center of geopolitical confrontations. Such a scenario could further limit Armenia's ability to pursue a stable and pragmatic policy in the region.
The return of figures like Kocharyan to the Armenian leadership could be a step towards slowing down or completely halting the peace process, creating additional difficulties for negotiations, and strengthening confrontational rhetoric.
The parliamentary elections on June 7 are considered a critical stage for Armenia, not only as an internal political contest but also in terms of determining the country's future geopolitical direction. Regardless of which force wins these elections, the new realities formed in the region remain unchanged.
For Azerbaijan, the main priority is to ensure its national interests and protect its position based on international law. Regardless of the election results, official Baku will continue its policy aimed at securing its rights and will not back down from its position to ensure lasting peace in the region. This primarily involves the abolition of the reference to the Declaration of Independence in the preamble of the Armenian Constitution regarding the recognition of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, the withdrawal of the European Union Monitoring Mission from the region, and the full opening of the Zangezur corridor.
As in the final scene of Sergio Leone's immortal film, the main issue is not just the identity of the characters, but who the outcome favors. In Armenia's parliamentary elections, the same question sounds a little different: will the country choose rational realities, or will it become a hostage to old revanchist ambitions?
