From Control to Trust: Citizens Are Not Obliged to Prove the State They Are Not Violators – Jrbashyan
09.07.2026,
15:57
True modernization of public administration begins not with new databases and digital registers, but with a change in the state's attitude toward citizens.
YEREVAN, July 9. /ARKA/. True modernization of public administration begins not with new databases and digital registers, but with a change in the state's attitude toward citizens. This was written by Tigran Jrbashyan, Director of the Management Consulting Service at Ameria.
According to him, one of the key issues that has not yet been fully rethought in post-Soviet states is not related to certificates, digitalization, or administrative procedures, but to the basic philosophy of governance.
"Citizens are not obliged to prove to the state that they are not violators every time. The state has the right to investigate, detect, and punish fraud. But it should not build its entire governance system on the assumption that fraud is a natural behavior for every citizen," Jrbashyan noted.
He recalled that in the Soviet administrative tradition, citizens entering into relations with the state were often perceived as potential violators: they were required to provide certificates, confirmations, permits, approvals, and additional documents.
Today, according to Jrbashyan, paper certificates are often replaced by digital databases, registers, and automated checks. However, if the underlying philosophy of governance remains unchanged, digitalization becomes not a reform, but a new technological form of the old mistrust.
Jrbashyan believes that modern public law should be based on a different logic: citizens and businesses are initially viewed as bona fide participants in the legal order, and the state should not preemptively treat everyone as potential violators.
As an example, he cited insurance in Western countries, where individuals first provide information about themselves, their property, health, and risks, and are then responsible for its accuracy. If the risks are normal, the information is accepted based on the application; if the risks are high, additional checks are possible.
According to him, this does not mean a lack of oversight. We're talking about control built on trust, responsibility, and risk assessment.
"The post-Soviet model tells citizens, 'First prove you're not lying.' The modern legal model says something different: 'Submit the information yourself and be responsible for its accuracy,'" Jrbashyan emphasized.
He noted that control shouldn't disappear, but should become risk-based, proportionate, and subsequent, rather than universal and preliminary.
The main problem with the old model, he said, is that honest citizens and reputable businesses bear the costs of constant mistrust, while unscrupulous actors often still find ways to circumvent the system.
As a result, the state controls everyone, but doesn't always effectively punish those who actually violate the rules, Jrbashyan noted.
According to him, one of the key issues that has not yet been fully rethought in post-Soviet states is not related to certificates, digitalization, or administrative procedures, but to the basic philosophy of governance.
"Citizens are not obliged to prove to the state that they are not violators every time. The state has the right to investigate, detect, and punish fraud. But it should not build its entire governance system on the assumption that fraud is a natural behavior for every citizen," Jrbashyan noted.
He recalled that in the Soviet administrative tradition, citizens entering into relations with the state were often perceived as potential violators: they were required to provide certificates, confirmations, permits, approvals, and additional documents.
Today, according to Jrbashyan, paper certificates are often replaced by digital databases, registers, and automated checks. However, if the underlying philosophy of governance remains unchanged, digitalization becomes not a reform, but a new technological form of the old mistrust.
Jrbashyan believes that modern public law should be based on a different logic: citizens and businesses are initially viewed as bona fide participants in the legal order, and the state should not preemptively treat everyone as potential violators.
As an example, he cited insurance in Western countries, where individuals first provide information about themselves, their property, health, and risks, and are then responsible for its accuracy. If the risks are normal, the information is accepted based on the application; if the risks are high, additional checks are possible.
According to him, this does not mean a lack of oversight. We're talking about control built on trust, responsibility, and risk assessment.
"The post-Soviet model tells citizens, 'First prove you're not lying.' The modern legal model says something different: 'Submit the information yourself and be responsible for its accuracy,'" Jrbashyan emphasized.
He noted that control shouldn't disappear, but should become risk-based, proportionate, and subsequent, rather than universal and preliminary.
The main problem with the old model, he said, is that honest citizens and reputable businesses bear the costs of constant mistrust, while unscrupulous actors often still find ways to circumvent the system.
As a result, the state controls everyone, but doesn't always effectively punish those who actually violate the rules, Jrbashyan noted.
