Old Practices Back: The Curious Case of Hovik Aghazaryan
13.12.2023
By Tatev Baghdasaryan and Tigran Grigoryan
In the ongoing controversy surrounding Hovik Aghazaryan, a former member of Armenia’s ruling Civil Contract party, allegations of blackmail and political pressure have emerged. During a recent interview, Aghazaryan claimed that “influential figures” threatened to reveal intimate details of his private life unless he resigns from his parliamentary position. Among the alleged details is inappropriate correspondence via a messaging app with an unidentified woman, which Aghazaryan indirectly acknowledged.
Aghazaryan’s sensitive information was compromised after he voluntarily submitted his phone to the Special Investigative Committee in the aftermath of his infamous public confrontation in parliament with Argishti Kyaramyan.
Private information of an intimate nature from Aghazaryan’s phone, along with other details, was soon accessed by Prime Minister Pashinyan and members of the ruling Civil Contract party’s board. Pashinyan justified this by asserting that the information posed national security risks, so it had to be sent to him. Other members of the Civil Contract party later stated that Aghazaryan had been sharing details from the faction’s closed-door meetings with third parties.
However, despite these developments, Aghazaryan has refused to step down, a decision that ultimately led to his expulsion from the Civil Contract party. He maintains that these actions are a coercive tactic aimed at forcing his resignation but has remained steadfast in retaining his seat in parliament.
Aghazaryan’s case is particularly notable, as he was the only one among the Civil Contract party members and six high-ranking officials who were pressured by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to resign last month to refuse to comply with the demand.
The revelation of intimate information about Aghazaryan has captured public and media attention, but it has also raised critical questions about the independence of law enforcement bodies and the integrity of the ruling party. It is clear that neither the prime minister nor other members of the ruling party had the right to access the private information on Aghazaryan’s phone. Even if the phone contained compromising details suggesting or proving unlawful actions by Aghazaryan, it is solely the prerogative of law enforcement institutions to handle such information.
It is also clear that the compromising content on Aghazaryan’s phone would not have surfaced if he had complied with the prime minister’s “request” to resign. The weaponization of sensitive information and incriminating material for domestic political purposes was emblematic of the political system that existed prior to the Velvet Revolution of 2018. This very public use of damaging information by the ruling party against its former affiliate is another troubling sign that old practices are resurfacing.
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.