Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: In Armenia’s June elections Kocharyan will challenge Pashinyan in a vote largely motivated by hate  

5 April 2021
Benyamin Poghosyan

Former Armenian president Robert Kocharyan has emerged as the strongest challenger to prime minister Nikol Pashinyan in Armenian’s forthcoming parliamentary elections. However, as Benyamin Poghosyan argues in this op-ed, most voters are simply motivated by their hate of one or the other.

Armenia is looking forward to the snap parliamentary elections scheduled for June 20, 2021. According to the preliminary agreement between the ruling "My step" faction and the two parliamentary opposition parties, prime minister Nikol Pashinyan will resign at the end of April, beginning of May; Parliament will not elect a new prime minister twice; and will thereafter be automatically dissolved as provided for by the Armenian constitution. The procedure will be identical to what happened in Armenia in autumn 2018. Back then, Pashinyan again resigned, Parliament was dissolved, and as a result of the December 2018 snap parliamentary elections, the Pashinyan team won an absolute majority in the Parliament – 88 MPs from 132. However, the procedure is the only thing that remains the same. Everything else has changed dramatically.

Pashinyan was at the height of his popularity back in October 2018. The absolute majority of the population was still celebrating the demise of corrupted elites following the "Velvet revolution". Many were sure that the Armenian Government would soon implement its promises, return all stolen assets, and pay the entire Armenian state debt – 7 billion USD. The transformation from the soft authoritarian state into the new beacon of democracy in the post–Soviet world would quickly make Armenia the land of dreams for western investors. Everyone anticipated billions of Euros and USDs pouring into Armenia, both as investments and as EU and US support towards a democratising Armenia. This perception was based on the significant Western financial support to Georgia in the aftermath of the "Rose revolution", and a general understanding that Western investors are dreaming about putting money into those states that have a clear reform agenda.

The population had very bright expectations regarding the future of the Karabakh conflict resolution process. Armenia now was a democracy, and the only state which organised a democratic revolution whilst being within the Russian sphere of influence. Thus, the West would never allow authoritarian Azerbaijan to attack democratic Armenia, and in case of such an attack, harsh EU and US sanctions would be imposed on Azerbaijan immediately.

In general, large portions of the Armenian population were in a state of euphoria, living in a dream. A corrupted and criminal regime was destroyed without a single shot, and the new saviour of the nation – Mr. Pashinyan, an opposition journalist turned politician – was going to lead Armenia to a bright future.

As a result of this euphoria, the "My step" faction received 70 percent of the vote during the December 2018 snap parliamentary elections. Voters were not concerned that they knew almost nothing about the absolute majority of the newly elected MPs. They were supporters of Mr. Pashinyan – and that fact was enough for the absolute majority of the population. Thus, starting from January 2019, Pashinyan, who was again elected as Prime Minister by the new Parliament, has enjoyed absolute and uncontested power in Armenia. The new Armenian constitution provides significant authority to the Prime Minister, and the constitutional majority in the Parliament made Pashinyan's power absolute. He was able to appoint and dismiss everyone to and from any position, to change rules, and even to amend the constitution, as was the case in June 2020, when the National Assembly amended the constitution to fire three judges and the chairman of the Constitutional Court and appoint new ones.

However, Armenia's humiliating defeat during the 2020 Karabakh war; growing concerns about government actions/inactions prior, during, and after the war; a deepening economic crisis with currency depreciation; and a significant increase in food prices, have significantly weakened Pashinyan's positions. According to the recent sociological surveys, Pashinyan's party "Civic Contract" may receive no more than 30 percent of the votes in the upcoming elections, and this number may decrease further. "Civic Contract" may still receive the most votes, since due to the political upheaval of 2018 and the staggering defeat in the war, many have lost any confidence in politics and politicians. Most probably, the key opponent of Pashinyan will be Armenia’s second President, Robert Kocharyan, who may unite all forces who believe that Pashinyan is a traitor. A coalition united around Kocharyan may receive up to 20 percent of votes, while "Prosperous Armenia" and "Bright Armenia" parties may pass the threshold of 5 percent and enter the Parliament.

In this election, the biggest motivation for voters will be not love, but hate. Who hates Pashinyan more than anyone else may vote for Kocharyan, while those who hate Kocharyan more, may vote for Pashinyan.

However, regardless of the final results of the elections, Pashinyan will probably not secure a majority in the Parliament and will not be able to form another one-party government. He has zero chances to have a constitutional majority in the Parliament, as has been the case since the  December 2018 elections. It means that he will not enjoy the same level of uncontested, absolute power, which he had in the last two years. The best-case scenario for him is the formation of a one-party government with a thin majority, but even that is unlikely. The more realistic scenario is the formation of a coalition government in which he will keep the prime minister's post. However, this is not good news for Pashinyan's supporters. His opponents will not disappear after the snap elections, and the weakened positions of Pashinyan will make them more eager to attack and finally destroy him.

Thus, the political crisis will not end after the elections; it will only deepen, making a potential new Government led by Pashinyan to appear and feel increasingly beleaguered.      

               

Source: This op-ed was prepared for commonspace.eu by Benyamin Poghosyan, Founder and Chairman of the Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan.
photo: Robert Kocharyan, former president of Armenia (archive picture)

 

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

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