Armenia needs political competition based on policies, not personalities

10.09.2024

 

 

By Karena Avedissian

 

In online Armenian spaces, it is not uncommon to see political forces labeling people they disagree with “Turks,” “traitors,” or “Russian agents.” Some degree of polarization is typical in any society, but at a certain point, when it becomes about “us versus them,” it becomes toxic and signals something more troubling — fundamental problems in democratic development. 

The loss of Artsakh in 2020-2023,  has shaken Armenians’ national identity, which is now undergoing major shifts, with many collective core assumptions being rapidly broken. While a new shared vision is still taking shape, different political forces are struggling to influence what comes next. At times like this, windows of opportunity appear and disappear, with–different factions trying new approaches to see what sticks. 

Finding compromise and agreeing on an acceptable middle ground is easier when discussing social spending or investment priorities, but when it comes to the existential threats that Armenia is dealing with, the stakes are higher, and compromise is more elusive. The polarization here becomes “either/or,” based on seemingly unchangeable identities. 

Even in fully democratic societies, a certain degree of polarization is not only normal, but also beneficial. It offers voters clear programmatic alternatives, which increases political engagement. However, polarization becomes toxic when it moves beyond genuine political debate. In those cases, societal differences increasingly align along one single axis to two camps with an overriding "us versus them" mentality. 

When my colleague Tigran Grigoryan and I started Democracy Watch in April, our goal was to examine troubling trends in Armenia's democratic institution building in a systematic way. Since the 2018 democratic revolution, Armenia has made commendable progress in democratic development, and we welcome these advancements. However, following the 2020 Karabakh War, we noticed a shift toward concerning trends that we felt many of our peers were not adequately highlighting, both for domestic and international audiences. 

One of the main problems we have noticed in our Democracy Watch work is the problem of toxic, polarizing rhetoric, both from the ruling party and from the main opposition factions. This rhetoric is not only polarizing, but also reinforces personalistic politics —characteristic for Armenia, but also one of the biggest hindrances to the health of the country’s democratic institutions.

Why focus on democratic institution building? Because it establishes transparent, accountable, and rules-based systems that protect citizens' rights and promote good governance. These institutions ensure that political decisions are made through established procedures, nurturing a political culture of consistency, accountability, and predictability. These are precisely the aspects of long-term state resilience and capacity. In contrast, personalistic politics, where leadership is driven by the charisma or power of individual figures, can lead to arbitrary rule and predatory elite practices, undermining the mechanisms in place to support and protect citizens.

This summer, Armenia’s ruling Civil Contract party launched a coordinated information campaign targeting the leaders of the protest movement that emerged in April to oppose the transfer of four abandoned villages to Azerbaijan. These protesters, who quickly began calling for Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s resignation, were portrayed on social media as acting on Russia’s behalf. Users affiliated with Civil Contract claimed, without evidence, that Bagrat Galstanyan, the archbishop-turned-protest leader, was backed by former President Robert Kocharyan and the Kremlin. Some of the images shared depicted the archbishop photoshopped alongside prominent Russian figures, including President Vladimir Putin and media executive Margarita Simonyan. 

While the protest movement may have some connections to Russian interests, it is both misleading and factually incorrect to brand it as entirely orchestrated by Moscow. Simply put, this disinformation campaign was aimed at delegitimizing political opponents and deflecting criticism of policies related to Armenia’s national security. 

 

But crucially, it is not just the ruling party engaging in such rhetoric. In June, Galstanyan’s account on the social platform X posted a bizarrely worded, yet unmistakable, threat: “No matter where you try to escape, we will find you and come. If necessary, we will come alone; if necessary, we will come with others. We will come on a donkey or by metro if needed.”

 

There is much to criticize Pashinyan for, but resorting to confronting individuals instead of focusing on policies, principles, or expounding on how to do politics differently is counterproductive. What is the vision for positive change? What are the steps to achieve it? Rather than presenting a constructive alternative, Galstanyan's statements make personal threats, creating divisive, hostile exchanges. 

 

Both the ruling party’s smear tactics and the opposition’s confrontational rhetoric highlight the erosion of democratic norms for dialogue. The political arena is becoming a battleground for personal attacks, intimidation, and disinformation, all of which endanger Armenia's state resilience by inflaming divisions and undermining the integrity of its institutions.

 

Armenia needs political competition based on policies and ideas, rather than personalities. This is essential for long-term democratic consolidation because it fosters an environment where citizens can trust that their voices will be heard, regardless of who is in power. Moreover, institutions outlast individual leaders, providing stability and continuity in governance that personalistic politics cannot. Institutions help to channel political conflict into peaceful contestation, reducing the risk of violence and authoritarian backsliding.

 

Democracy Watch is a joint initiative by CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security, a Yerevan-based think tank.

 

This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.