Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: Armenia braces itself for more “competitive”, even if ever so slightly, elections

1 February 2017

Ahead of parliamentary elections in Armenia, scheduled for April, a number of  re-aligments amongst the traditional political elite have emerged. Sos Avetisian reflects on developments in this op-ed for commonspace.eu

Ahead of April's parliamentary elections, the political landscape of Armenia appears increasingly fragmented.

Last week, Hovik Abrahamyan, who served as Prime Minster from 2014-2016, declared that he will be leaving the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), but will remain active in the political life of the country. This is the most serious defection of high-profile party member since the presidential elections of 2008.

Hovik Abrahamian is an oligarch that rose to power during Robert Kocharyan's presidency, and later was able to carve out a political stronghold within the ruling RPA in tandem with President Serzh Sargsyan. Abrahamyan lead the RPA campaign during the constitutional referendum in 2015. According to some political observers his organizational skills in vote-rigging were central for approval of the proposed constitutional changes.

It seems Abrahamyan was upset at being replaced as Prime Minister by Karen Karapetyan in September 2016. Since then Abrahamyan has been inactive in political life, and most likely his departure did not come as a surprise to the ruling circles of the party. Nevertheless, his break with the RPA does create a degree of intrigue, even if Abrahamyan's power outside the upper echelons of the political system should not be overestimated.

Furthermore, the ousting of Abrahamyan perhaps signals an agenda of rejuvenation of the Republican Party, whereby younger party-members such as Armen Ashotyan (currently the deputy-head of RPA) and Vigen Sargsyan (Defense Minster) are expected to play a more central role. At the same time, by getting rid of the "old guard" of the RPA, President Serzh Sargsyan is replacing them with more loyal and politically less ambitious men, thus further cementing his own power.

The "many-faced god" of Armenian opposition

The opposition parties in Armenia remain highly personalized. Three key points of oppositional consolidation are visible. The first one is formed around the wealthy oligarch Gagik Tsarukyan , who for a long time led the Prosperous Armenia Party, who returned to Armenian politics after being "banished" by President Serzh Sargsyan some years ago. Interestingly Sargsyan warned Abrahamian that beyond the RPA he has no real chances for political success. He also clearly mentioned that "he does not welcome the return of Gagik Tsarukyan" to Armenian politics. While the discourse is antagonistic, it is very unlikely that Tsarukyan re-entered into the political race without Sargsyan's consent.

It is likely Abrahamyan will join the PAP and be on its list for the forthcoming elections. The two have family connections since Abrahamyan's son is married to Tsarukyan's daughter. It is also likely that President Sargsyan has a degree of control over these developments. A further factor to keep in mind is that Ishkhan Zaqaryan, who is the head of Armenia's Control Chamber under the Presidential Office, and officially is currently on a two-month vacation, will be the head of PAP election campaign. This is not to suggest that it is through this channel that President Sargsyan's control is exercised, but to show that electoral rhetoric of "real competition and change" should be taken with pinch of salt. 

Another alliance that has chances to enter the parliament is formed around ex-Defense Minister Seryan Ohanyan and ex-Foreign Affairs Minister Vardan Oskanyan.  They do not have the kind of financial resources behind them that Tsarukyan has, but they compensate this with their political experience and by exploiting the prestige of their previous careers. At the same time, the baggage of serving in Robert Kocharyan's cabinet, and their involvement in the decision to violently disperse protesters on 1 March 2008, creates some questions regarding their legitimacy as leaders of the opposition.

The third pillar of opposition is formed by smaller parties with charismatic leaders. The "Bright Armenia" (Lusavor Hayastan), Civic Contract and Republic Party formed a coalition to participate in the parliamentary elections. The first two are led by young and charismatic MPs- Edmon Marukyan and Nikol Pashinyan respectively, and the last one by Aram Sargsyan. Aram Sargsyan's brother, Vazgen, was a central figure in Armenian politics, served as Defense Minister of Armenia from 1995-1999, and in 1999 he became Prime Minister after his coalition "Miasnutyun" acquired the majority of the seats in the parliament. On October 27th 1999 he was assassinated in the National Assembly of Armenia, which led to six-month long crisis in the government.  Aram Sargsyan hopes to cash in on the aura that still surrounds his brother's image.

While the above mentioned alliance enjoys some sympathy within the younger generation of Armenians, and has branded itself as an innovative and well-established entity, the chances of real success are not high. The local elections in October 2016 demonstrated that without serious preparation and fundraising they do not have the clout to challenge the more well-established forces

 Lastly, the Armenian National Congress will also participate in upcoming elections this time led again by Levon-Ter Petrosyan. It is remarkable that ANC has abandoned its position of primarily focusing on domestic politics of Armenia, instead revitalizing Ter-Petrosyan's earlier theses about the necessity to find a compromise with Azerbaijan and achieving peace with all neighbours.  This pacifist manifesto a year after the "April War" is considered suicidal for Armenian electoral purposes. Hence, the reason behind, perhaps, is to offer an alternative to current face of Armenian foreign policy, and open the way for an alliance with President Sargsyan, if latter decides to go for a compromise approach on Karabakh after the elections.

Conclusion

Thus far, it seems that all three opposition blocks will continue separately towards the April race, which will significantly serve RPA's attempt to re-invent itself.  The elections will certainly be more truly competitive if PAP joins forces with Vartan Oskanian and Seryan Ohanyan. The PAP's resources and patronage networks cultivated by Tsarukyan and Abrahamyan, coupled with the political experience of Oscanian and Ohanyan can create an opposition force that can truly challenge the incumbent ruling party. All four of them are however intimately linked to the second president of Armenia, Robert Kocharian, and the latter may himself enter the competition, if he deems the moment is ripe. This will pose a serious challenge to the RPA.

However, as for now, the fragmentation among the opposition in Armenia is only useful for RPA. There is speculation the RPA is interested in injecting a plethora of old and new faces into the election race, in order to demonstrate a high degree of competitiveness to the external eye. In this case, the prognosis of Armenian political expert Alexander Iskandaryan suggesting that RPA will be able to form a stable majority in parliament after the elections, and that the opposition is only competing among itself for a limited number of seats, may very well be vindicated.

Sos Avetisyan is an independent political analyst based in Yerevan. He contributed this op-ed for commonspace.eu.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut