International Disorder and Polarisation in Small States: The Case of Armenia
This paper argues that the crisis in the international order has triggered ontological anxiety in Armenia, leading to severe domestic polarization where the government seeks to reorient the state's international position while the opposition clings to established narratives, thereby blurring the lines between internal rivals and external enemies.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the study of how nations interact, there is a quiet but powerful idea that countries, much like people, need more than just physical safety to feel secure. They also need a sense of who they are and a predictable world in which to exist. This feeling of being understood and having a stable place in the world is called ontological security. For decades, many smaller nations relied on a global system led by the United States, a framework often called the Liberal International Order, to provide this stability. It offered rules and routines that made the world feel intelligible, allowing small countries to plan their futures without the constant fear of being erased. However, that system is now fraying. As global rules break down and power shifts, the world feels less predictable, creating a deep sense of unease for nations that have always felt vulnerable.
This paper explores what happens inside a country when the world around it stops making sense. The author, Alen Shadunts, focuses on Armenia, a small nation in the South Caucasus with a population of about 3 million people. Armenia is a perfect example of a small state because its size and history make it acutely sensitive to changes in the global order. The research asks a simple but profound question: when the international system becomes chaotic, how does that chaos change the politics inside a small country? The study suggests that the loss of a predictable world triggers a specific kind of anxiety. This is not just fear of a specific enemy, but a deeper worry about the country's very existence and its ability to control its own fate. To cope with this anxiety, political leaders and their opponents begin to tell very different stories about who the country is and what it should do. These stories become so urgent and so opposed to one another that they tear the country apart, turning political rivals into existential enemies.
The paper uses a method called poststructuralist discourse analysis, which essentially means looking closely at the words, speeches, and arguments used by politicians and media to see how they construct reality. The author examined statements from the Armenian government and the political opposition from 2020 onward, a period marked by war and shifting global alliances. The analysis reveals that both sides agree on one terrifying fact: the world is changing rapidly, and the old rules that kept Armenia safe are disappearing. They both speak of a crumbling order, unpredictable neighbors, and the danger of being used as a pawn by larger powers. This shared sense of disorientation creates a high-stakes atmosphere where the future of the nation feels uncertain.
Because the situation is so unclear, the two main political camps in Armenia react in opposite ways to try to regain their sense of security. The government, led by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, argues that the old ways of thinking are dangerous. They propose a new identity for the country, which they call "Real Armenia." This concept suggests that the nation must stop looking backward at historical grievances and old alliances, particularly with Russia, and instead focus on its current borders and diversify its relationships with new partners like the United States and the European Union. For the government, sticking to the past is a recipe for disaster in a new world.
In contrast, the political opposition and its allies, including some religious leaders, argue that the government's changes are reckless. They believe that in a stormy world, a small ship should not leave the harbor. They insist that the country must stick to its traditional routines and long-standing alliances, viewing the government's attempts to change course as a betrayal that will lead to the country's destruction. For them, the old narratives provide the only safety. The paper finds that neither side is willing to compromise. Because both groups believe that the other's path leads to the annihilation of the state, they stop seeing each other as legitimate political rivals. Instead, they view each other as agents of foreign enemies who are trying to destroy the country.
This dynamic creates a state of intense polarization. The line between domestic political opponents and foreign enemies becomes blurred. When a politician from one side speaks, the other side hears the voice of an external threat. The paper illustrates this with examples from parliamentary debates, where ministers accuse each other of taking orders from foreign powers like Azerbaijan or Russia. The urgency of the situation, driven by the fear of extinction, leaves no room for normal debate or finding a middle ground. The result is a political environment where the only acceptable goal is to defeat the other side, because their existence is seen as a threat to the nation's survival.
The study concludes that this polarization is not just a disagreement over policy, but a symptom of a deeper crisis. When the international order fails to provide a sense of stability, small states experience a profound anxiety about their future. To manage this fear, political leaders offer different solutions, but because the stakes feel so high, these solutions become mutually exclusive. The paper suggests that this pattern is likely to repeat in other small nations facing a chaotic world. The findings do not claim that the international crisis is the only cause of political division, but they show a clear link between the fear of a disorderly world and the rise of hostile, polarized politics at home. In a world where the rules are breaking, the struggle to define who a country is becomes a fight for its very life.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.