Targeting the opposition: A growing trend at Yerevan’s city hall

Targeting the opposition: A growing trend at Yerevan’s city hall

17.09.2024

 

By Tigran Grigoryan and Karena Avedissian

Local Level Political Suppression

An opposition member of Yerevan’s city council Grigor Yeritsyan was relieved of his duties last week, with ruling “Civil Contract” party cited repeated absences from the meetings of the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs of the Council as the reason for his removal.

Yeritsyan has dismissed the claims as false and politically motivated, saying that he and his colleagues plan to challenge the decision in court.

This follows a similar incident eight months ago, when former Mayor Hayk Marutyan, now the leader of the opposition National Progress faction, was also ousted from city hall by the ruling party, also for absenteeism.

​​This reflects a growing and concerning trend in Armenia’s political landscape: The ruling party is increasingly employing sophisticated legal maneuvering and administrative resources to remove or disqualify opposition figures at the local level. This strategy, often executed through seemingly legitimate bureaucratic processes, allows the ruling party to consolidate power by eliminating potential challengers before they can gain significant traction or influence. 

It is important to highlight that both Marutyan and Yeritsyan represent pro-democracy forces and stand in opposition to the ruling party. By suppressing their activities, the ruling party is in effect eliminating potential challengers who could offer a democratic alternative, and in doing so, is consolidating its hold on power. The current dichotomy of “previous regime vs. current government” represents an expedient way for the ruling party to present itself as the only democratic option in Armenia.

Targeting Karabakh Armenian Refugees

In an interview last week with the media outlet 24News, ruling party lawmaker Gagik Melkonyan made false and hostile statements targeting Karabakh Armenian refugees. His remarks included a claim that Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh had voluntarily given up their land and should now conduct themselves as guests in Armenia. 

Melkonyan's statement is problematic on multiple levels. Firstly, it propagates a false narrative about the complex situation surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and its aftermath. Additionally, his statement constitutes hate speech against a vulnerable refugee population, which raises serious ethical concerns.

Moreover, Melkonyan's statement directly contradicts the official position of the Armenian government, which has emphasized its commitment to integrating Karabakh Armenian refugees into Armenian society. This requires accepting them in society not as temporary guests, but as an integral part of the nation. This contradiction between a ruling party member's statement and the government's declared policy has led to consternation among both the refugee community and the wider Armenian public.

The implications of such statements extend beyond simple political disagreements. Melkonyan's divisive rhetoric risks exacerbating existing societal tensions — with potentially harmful outcomes for an at-risk group like refugees — and highlights the importance of engaging in responsible public discourse.

Despite the public outcry over Melkonyan’s statements, the ruling party has neither condemned nor distanced itself from him or his rhetoric.

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.