How Can Armenia Have a State-Centered Opposition?

By KRIKOR KHODANIAN

Local self-government (municipal) elections were recently held in several communities across Armenia. In many locations, the ruling Civil Contract Party received 70, 80, or even 90 percent of the vote. Commenting on these results, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that he was never pleased with such outcomes, as they could create the impression of one-party rule and dictatorship.

The opposition also bears some responsibility for these results. By failing to participate in elections in most communities, opposition forces gave the ruling party an opportunity to achieve such overwhelming victories without serious competition.

Strong Armenia, which finished second in the most recent parliamentary elections with more than 300,000 votes, fielded candidates in only one of the 19 communities participating in the municipal elections. This was despite Narek Karapetyan, head of the party’s parliamentary faction, having declared that their campaign to bring about a change of government would begin with the municipal elections.

During the parliamentary election campaign, the party led by Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan was accused of distributing bribes to voters. The failure of a political force that received so many votes to participate in the municipal elections may raise questions about whether those allegations were unfounded. Otherwise, the party should have taken part in the elections and stood up for the votes entrusted to it by its supporters.

On this occasion, Pashinyan also declared that Armenia needs a state-centered opposition. However, the government should not involve itself in creating a new opposition, as doing so could revive the phenomenon of a so-called “client” or “manageable” opposition—one that serves the government’s interests rather than acting as an independent political force.

Following the 2018 Velvet Revolution and the downfall of a government deeply entrenched in systemic corruption, many hoped that former officials would leave or be removed from the political arena and that new forces would emerge to offer an alternative to the incumbent government. Yet, eight years later, that anticipated transformation has still not taken place. Many blame Pashinyan’s government for failing to take decisive steps to remove the “plunderers” from the political arena.

There is no doubt that Armenia needs a healthy, state-minded opposition that places the country’s national interests and sovereignty above its own political calculations. The real question, however, is how to achieve this objective so that citizens can choose among different political forces with confidence that there will be no return to the previous system, when elections were rigged, freedoms were restricted, the economy was controlled by a privileged monopolistic class, and the country pursued a unipolar foreign policy.

The latest parliamentary elections once again demonstrated that financial resources play a dominant role in political competition. Such resources were readily available to Kocharyan, Tsarukyan, Samvel Karapetyan, and, of course, the ruling party. These forces also control extensive media networks, while other political groups lack comparable resources. In short, the playing field is far from level.

On the other hand, pro-democracy forces also bear some responsibility for the current situation. Instead of finding common ground, uniting, and presenting a common front in elections to offer the public a genuine alternative, they continue to operate separately and independently, without achieving meaningful success.

It is understandable that the government should not participate in creating a new opposition. Nevertheless, it can take legislative measures to restrict the participation in elections of political forces that resort to bribery and are prepared to surrender Armenia’s sovereignty to another state. Otherwise, new Samvel Karapetyans may emerge in future elections, seeking to seize control of the country under foreign direction.

No government is eternal. Armenia must begin preparing now to cleanse and strengthen its political arena, ensuring greater integrity and transparency. Tomorrow may be too late.
“MASSIS”