VOlUME 05 ISSUE 09 SEPTEMBER 2022
1Arpie G. Balian,
2Lusine Khachatryan
2,3American University of Armenia, Republic of Armenia
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i9-02Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
This is a longitudinal case study that applies pattern-matching analytical techniques to explain the highly contextualized phenomena of the ‘Velvet Revolution’ and to establish dominant themes and comparative patterns that have influenced the policy and governance agenda of Armenia since May 2018. The research sets out with questions on the message embedded within the ‘Velvet Revolution’ and the extent to which it corresponds to the policy objectives and expressed outcomes that the government aims to accomplish. It then investigates the policy priorities and governance agenda that Pashinyan proposed to achieve during his tenure as prime minister of Armenia, weighed against the message he transmitted as activist, politician and protest leader, and the consequent deportment he assumed in order to build and sustain public appeal and trust. This article presents findings from the analysis of collected data pertaining to the period May 2018 through August 2019.
KEYWORDS:political communication; anti-intellectualism; tolerance; populism; agenda-setting; evidence-based policymaking; governance; public administration; responsibility; responsiveness
REFERENCES
1) Bickford, S. (2011). Emotion talk and political judgment. The Journal of Politics, 73(4): 1025-1037.
2) Gibson, J. L. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Published online
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0021
3) Given, L. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Sage Publications,
4) Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action – Reason and Rationalization of Society, vol. 1, Boston: Beacon Press.
5) Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit (The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere). Neuwied and Berlin: Luchterhand.
6) Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown & Company.
7) Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. American Political Science Review, 50, 1057-1073.
8) Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, 53 (1): 69-105.
9) Marcus, G. E. (1988). The Structure of Emotional Response: 1984 Presidential Candidates. American Political Science Review, 82: 735–61.
10) Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 221-250.
11) Marcus, G., E. (2002). The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics. Pennsylvania State University Press.
12) Motta, Matthew (2017). The Dynamics and Political Implications of Anti-Intellectualism in the United States. American Politics Research, Sage Journals.
13) Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4): 541-56.
14) (2007). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15) Mudde, C. and Kaltwasser, C.R. (2012). Populism in Europe and the Americas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16) Parkhurst, J. (2017). The Politics of Evidence: From Evidence-based policy to the Good Governance of Evidence. Routledge Studies in Governance and Public Policy, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxo, UK.
17) Rondinelli, D.A. and Cheema, G.S. (2003). Reinventing Government for the Twenty-first Century: An Introduction. Kumarian Press, Hartford, CT.
18) Saldaña, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.
19) Schmitter, P.C. and Karl, T.L. (1991). What democracy is and is not. Journal of Democracy, 2(3): 75-88. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
20) Sides, J. (2006). The Origins of Campaign Agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36: 407–36.
21) Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J. and Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22) UN (2006). Public Administration and Democratic Governance: Governments serving citizens. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
23) (2015). World Public Sector Report. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
24) UNDP (1997). Reconceptualizing Governance. Discussion Paper No.2, New York: United Nations Development Programme.
25) USAID (2007). Policy Reform Lessons Learned: A review of economic growth-related policy reform activities in developing countries. EPIQ II.
26) Valentino, N.A., Gregorowiczorowicz, K., and Groenendyk, E.W. (2007). Emotions, efficacy, and political participation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Portland, OR.
27) Van Dijk, T.A. (2009). Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge, U.K. Cambridge University Press.
28) Vilella, G. (2001). Towards a theoretical coming together of the administrative sciences. International Review of the Administrative Sciences, 67(1): 5-9.
29) Waldo, D. (2001). The enterprise of public administration. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp.
30) Wolf, M. (2019). The Rise of the Populist Authoritarians. Accessed May 2019
31) https://www.ft.com/content/4faf6c4e-1d84-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d
32) Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.