Armenia’s Local Elections: When the Government Influences the Outcomes

25.03.2025

 

By Tatév Ghazaryan

 

Since the political shifts of 2018, Armenia has seen a surge in local democratic transformations. As in Yerevan, regions and communities needed to align with the new political reality by electing new local authorities. Concurrently, since 2016, communities have undergone a process of consolidation, merging into larger administrative districts. This restructuring introduced a new governance model and expanded the use of proportional representation in local elections. The most significant wave of municipal elections occurred on December 5, 2021. Unlike the national parliamentary elections, however, the ruling authorities struggled to secure an absolute majority.

 

One key reason was the ruling party’s lack of established political teams at the local level. They were up against entrenched political figures and networks built over the past 30 years. Their early victories were largely fueled by post-revolutionary enthusiasm and public distrust of former political forces. Nevertheless, the new authorities adopted a strategy of integrating locally influential figures, including long-serving village mayors, into their electoral lists to increase their chances.

 

This approach was part of a broader political bargaining system. Candidates with strong local followings were included in ruling party lists in exchange for administrative positions, which, in turn, helped mobilize voter support. However, this was not the only tactic employed.

 

Crisis in Uncooperative Communities

 

In communities where the ruling party failed to establish a majority, governance crises ensued. If council members refused to take their seats due to a lack of majority, opposition factions also struggled to form coalitions, leading to repeated elections as mandated by the government and the Central Electoral Commission. Each municipal election costs an average of 33–34 million drams from the state budget. In subsequent election rounds, authorities increasingly leveraged administrative resources to gain control, as seen in the cases of Vedi, Ani, Sisian, and Talin.

 

In some communities, the government attempted to persuade opposition council members to switch allegiance, thereby securing a majority—examples include Alaverdi, Akhuryan, Amasia, and the latest Yerevan elections. In others, the ruling party resorted to legal and political pressure, targeting opposition figures with criminal investigations and court cases, as observed in Goris, Vanadzor, and Gyumri.

 

Following the 2021 parliamentary elections, Arsen Torosyan, head of the Prime Minister’s Office, wrote a telling Facebook post:

“The results of today’s snap parliamentary elections should serve as a signal for certain community leaders, who have aligned with different political forces, to reconsider whether they should continue in their positions.”

 

This statement served as an early warning of forthcoming political and legal pressure against opposition figures at the municipal level.

 

The Case of Gyumri: A Political Power Struggle

 

A particularly illustrative case is the upcoming March 30, 2025, snap elections in Gyumri. To understand how this came about, one must look at the political developments following the city’s 2021 elections.

 

In the October 17, 2021, elections, the Balasanyan Alliance won 14 seats in the city council, the ruling Civil Contract party secured 11, the Development and Civic Orientation Party (DCO) gained 4, while the Country to Live party and the Republican Party of Armenia each took 2 seats, with the Prosperous Democratic Party holding 1 seat. No single force secured an outright majority. The Balasanyan Alliance, just three seats short of a majority, signed a memorandum with Civil Contract, allowing the ruling party to participate in city governance by appointing two deputy mayors.

 

This arrangement lasted nearly three years before Civil Contract unilaterally terminated the agreement, citing concerns over “shadow governance” in the city. The ruling party then positioned itself in opposition, and shortly thereafter, legal action began against former mayor Samvel Balasanyan and his close associates.

 

His son, Misak Balasanyan, was recalled from his diplomatic post in Iraq, while another son, businessman Khachatur Balasanyan, was arrested along with a relative in connection with a corruption case. Finally, Samvel Balasanyan himself was detained.

 

As pressure mounted, members of the city council aligned with Balasanyan’s successor, Mayor Vardges Samsonyan, began resigning from their positions without public explanations. This led to a governance crisis, allowing the Prime Minister to appoint a temporary acting mayor. Notably, this move contradicted existing local government laws, but Civil Contract used its parliamentary majority to pass legal amendments granting the Prime Minister this authority.

 

Effectively, this maneuver neutralized the existing city leadership before the upcoming elections, giving Civil Contract a significant administrative advantage.

 

A Pattern of Election Management

 

The events in Gyumri reflect a broader pattern in Armenia’s local governance: when the ruling party fails to secure control through elections, it often resorts to political maneuvering, legal action, and administrative pressure to shift the balance in its favor. This trend raises critical questions about the state of local democracy and the true competitiveness of municipal elections in Armenia.

 

Democracy Watch is a joint initiative of CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security.

 

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.