By KRIKOR KHODANIAN
The campaign for what may become the most consequential election in Armenia’s recent history is approaching its final stage, at the end of which the country’s future for the coming decades will likely be decided. The struggle is not merely between political parties, but between two competing geopolitical visions. One seeks a return to the former criminal-oligarchic system and to tie Armenia’s fate once again to its “northern ally,” while the other aims to open the country toward the West and move along the path of prosperity and democracy.
Based on the outlines emerging throughout the campaign, it can be said that the force led by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan remains ahead of the other parties, and the likelihood of his remaining in power appears fairly strong. This is reflected in developments on the ground, the size and enthusiasm of rally participants, as well as public opinion polls, all of which show an advantage for the Civil Contract party. The remaining question is the percentage of votes the party will ultimately secure, something that will become clear only after the June 7 elections conclude.
The ruling party’s main campaign themes continue to be peace, improving the people’s economic conditions, implementing a universal healthcare system, constructing or renovating schools, kindergartens, and roads, increasing pensions, and strengthening democracy and freedoms.
The second-largest force participating in the elections is the “Strong Armenia” party, founded by billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, a Russian citizen currently under house arrest. It was widely believed that this force could become a serious challenger to the ruling party, thanks to its enormous financial resources and the support it enjoys from Russia. However, during the campaign, several developments have emerged that have damaged the party’s image. When Samvel Karapetyan began making public appearances without the assistance of artificial intelligence and interacting more directly with journalists, it became evident that he struggles to express himself clearly in the Armenian language and to formulate his thoughts coherently. It also became apparent that “Strong Armenia” relies heavily on financial incentives and vote-buying tactics to create the illusion of being a genuinely popular party.
This political force promises economic development, 300,000 new jobs, improved relations with Russia, and a stronger national defense. It also accuses the current authorities of allegedly preparing to bring 300,000 Azerbaijanis into Armenia.
The third political force seeking power is the “Armenia Alliance,” led by former President Robert Kocharyan, whose popularity has been steadily declining. Many of the alliance’s former supporters and voters have already shifted toward Samvel Karapetyan. Kocharyan himself continues to face difficulties tied to his past record, during which political assassinations took place, independent media outlets were shut down, corruption became systemic, and an atmosphere of fear prevailed throughout the country. The main message of Kocharyan’s campaign largely consists of labeling Pashinyan a “Turk,” “traitor,” and “one who gave away land” — slogans that no longer appear effective with Armenian voters.
Under current conditions, the Armenia Alliance’s chances of entering parliament are highly doubtful, considering that electoral alliances must secure at least 8 percent of the vote to gain representation. By the end of the elections, the Armenian people may witness the political sunset of Kocharyan’s career.
The “Prosperous Armenia” party, led by wealthy businessman Gagik Tsarukyan, also aspires to enter parliament. It is believed that this force has a stronger chance of surpassing the minimum 4 percent threshold required for parliamentary representation.
Karapetyan, Kocharyan, and Tsarukyan together represent the pro-Russian camp, which will likely attempt to remove Pashinyan from power by uniting after the elections and forming a parliamentary majority. In order to achieve this goal, all three forces would need to secure substantial representation in the new parliament. At present, however, that possibility appears rather low.
Finally, observers closely following domestic political developments cannot ignore the fact that the temperature of the campaign has risen higher than expected, leaving a negative impression on society. Insults, mudslinging, and threats are being exchanged from both sides, alienating many citizens who do not wish to participate in such a toxic political process.
One can only hope that these elections will proceed without major upheaval and that, in the end, Armenia’s political landscape will be renewed and become healthier and more balanced — free from divisive rhetoric and destructive political behavior.
“MASSIS”
Note: Translated from Armenian with the assistance of ChatGPT
