Why Armenian Anti-Government Movements Fail: The Need for a Viable Opposition in Armenia

15.10.2024

 

By Tigran Grigoryan

 

This month, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan attempted to reinvigorate his Tavush for Homeland movement with a rally in Yerevan’s Republic Square. Galstanyan had launched the movement in April, initially to protest the government’s approach to delimitation with Azerbaijan, and later to demand Prime Minister Pashinyan’s resignation.

 

However, the rally signaled the movement’s decline. It attracted only around 2,000 people—a stark contrast to the movement’s first rally on May 9, which drew over 30,000 participants, making it the largest anti-government gathering since the end of the Second Karabakh War.

 

The movement’s prospects further diminished after Archbishop Galstanyan’s disastrous interview with Public TV’s Petros Ghazaryan. Following the October 2 rally, the Archbishop led his supporters to Public TV, demanding airtime to address the nation. After some negotiating with the channel’s leadership, he was granted the opportunity, on the condition that Ghazaryan would interview him after his address. However, after his 12-minute address, Galstanyan struggled to answer Ghazaryan’s questions, raising serious doubts about his political competence.

 

Archbishop Galstanyan’s movement failed for several reasons, but a fundamental one stands out: the inability of most opposition elites to grasp the factors behind the 2018 Velvet Revolution’s success. The prevailing narrative in these circles is that the 2018 revolution was the result of political technologies and manipulation, rather than genuine public discontent. This misconception has underpinned all opposition movements since the 2020 war, rendering their success unlikely.

 

This flawed assumption has led leaders of all post-2020 movements to mimic Nikol Pashinyan’s 2018 tactics—road blockades, attempts to enter government buildings, adoption of official movement songs, and even use of similar rhetoric. However, merely copying these political strategies has neither secured public support nor achieved any of their goals.

 

A significant consequence of misunderstanding the Velvet Revolution is protest leaders’ reluctance to distance themselves from Armenia’s former ruling elites. Recently, Archbishop Galstanyan met with both former presidents, Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, publicly refusing to disassociate from them in the name of national unity. However, most Armenians view these former elites as part of the problem, not the solution. Galstanyan’s and other protest leaders’ failure to recognize this sentiment alienates many potential supporters.

 

The third reason Galstanyan and others fail to mobilize large segments of society and successfully challenge the government is their inability to present realistic alternatives to the ruling party’s policies. Instead, they resort to populist rhetoric, such as promising to return to Artsakh through Voskepar. Faced with two competing brands of populism, the Armenian public remains politically apathetic.

 

One of the biggest hurdles to Armenia’s democratic progress is the lack of a viable, pro-democracy opposition. Since 2020, opposition movements have struggled to distance themselves from unpopular former elites or present a realistic, actionable agenda that reflects current realities and that addresses the Armenian public’s concerns.

 

The ruling party remains secure in its position. Without facing a credible challenge from a strong, competent opposition, they have consolidated power and taken control of independent state institutions. They have capitalized on the absence of a capable opposition to present themselves as Armenia’s only hope for democracy, while actively discrediting any potential democratic alternatives.

 

This situation poses significant long-term risks to Armenia’s democratic development. A thriving democracy requires more than just free and fair elections—it needs a competitive political landscape with meaningful alternatives. Without a strong opposition, Armenia’s political system could gradually shift toward an unhealthy concentration of power, undermining democratic principles. A vibrant and credible opposition is crucial for maintaining checks and balances, ensuring accountability, and safeguarding democratic governance.

 

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.