Armenia’s Future Will Be Decided on June 7

By KRIKOR KOHODANIAN

The parliamentary election campaign in Armenia, scheduled for June 7, is drawing to a close. In just a few days, citizens will head to the ballot box to determine the future of their country for at least the next five years.

In recent days, interest in these elections has increased significantly, not only within Armenia but also abroad. International media outlets are closely following the electoral developments in the small Caucasian republic, portraying them as yet another manifestation of the broader confrontation between the West and Russia.

Moscow and Brussels have accused one another of interfering in Armenia’s internal affairs and attempting to influence the outcome of the elections. Official Yerevan has sought to navigate cautiously between the two sides. While accepting statements and gestures of support from the West, it has avoided direct confrontation with Russia, even as Moscow continues to issue daily warnings and threats regarding Armenia’s policy of closer integration with the European Union. In recent days, those warnings have already evolved into concrete measures, including restrictions on the entry of several Armenian products into the Russian market. The authorities hope that these sanctions are temporary and will be eased or entirely lifted after the elections.

On the domestic front, the contest remains intense between the ruling Civil Contract party and “Strong Armenia,” the political force established by Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan. Both sides express confidence that victory will be theirs. In the case of the ruling party, that confidence stems from its achievements over the past five years in economic and social policy, foreign affairs, military modernization, and other areas. In addition, public opinion polls consistently place Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s party in a commanding lead.

On the other hand, the political force led by Samvel Karapetyan has offered promises that many members of the public view as unrealistic. It is difficult to predict the percentage of votes this party may receive, given that polling data has not been encouraging for its prospects. One factor that remains significant is vote-buying, which is reportedly being employed extensively by this force. Whether the recordings released by law enforcement agencies, along with the arrests that have followed, will be effective in preventing large-scale electoral violations remains an open question.

If one were to summarize the campaign as a whole, its most positive aspect was that participating political forces were able to engage freely with voters. All 19 parties had access to television airtime and social media platforms to present their programs to the public. Nevertheless, the campaign environment was not entirely equal, as parties with greater financial resources maintained a clear advantage. At the same time, numerous negative developments emerged. Vote-buying, mutual threats, profanity-laden speeches, and defamatory rhetoric cast a shadow over expectations for a democratic electoral process.

Now, Armenia stands on the threshold of a new chapter. It is essential that all sides respect the will of the majority, turn the page on divisions, and ensure that the country avoids unnecessary turmoil. Only then can Armenia continue on a path of development and prosperity and become the homeland envisioned by Armenians everywhere.

“MASSIS”