When Nikol Pashinyan swept to power in Armenia’s 2018 Velvet Revolution, replacing the entrenched post-Soviet order that had dominated the country for decades, the Armenian American community rejoiced. In breach of my own “no slogans on clothing” rule, I proudly wore a baseball cap labeled “Duxov” — Armenian for “with courage,” and a catchphrase of support for Pashinyan — convinced the country had finally entered a genuinely democratic era. As with so many diasporas, the fate of a country thousands of miles away felt intensely personal. We swelled with pride when The Economist named Armenia its “Country of the Year” in 2018, praising the country’s “chance of democracy and renewal.”
Today, in the wake of the country’s June parliamentary elections, that optimism feels increasingly distant. Under the dominance of Pashinyan’s ruling Civil Contract party, Armenia has experienced a gradual but unmistakable erosion of democratic norms.
Already a subscriber?Log in here
This story is FREE for you...
Create a free account to access this and four more articles, and get more sent to you with our e-newsletter.By submitting your email address you agree for Hairenik Association, Inc. to send you communication by email.
Great article. I get the impression that the diaspora is afraid to criticize Pashinyan and his government. It is time for us to get involved—not just by fighting for genocide recognition, but by influencing what happens in Armenia today. While we must remember our history, we need to invest our efforts into a better future instead of only mourning the past.
Respectfully, this piece raises concerns that deserve serious engagement, and these thoughts are offered in that spirit. My apologies for the length; all points are backed by reliable sources. 1.On the Reuters voter-transport story, the dismissal as having ‘little evidence’ appears in a single clause, yet was written just two days before Reuters published its exclusive based on five Western intelligence officials and Russian-language documents. The timing may well explain it, but the dismissal is nonetheless remarkable given the overall tone of the piece. 2. On Karapetyan, presenting him purely as a victim of political persecution omits that he is a billionaire oligarch on trial for allegedly calling for the overthrow of the government, with documented Russian connections. Everything that makes his case genuinely complicated is absent from the framing. 3.The church confrontation is similarly one-sided. Characterizing it as Pashinyan attacking a sacred institution leaves out that Catholicos Karekin II has documented ties to the Kocharyan-era oligarchic system, and that senior clergy were arrested on charges specifically related to the Russian-backed destabilization campaign, not merely for criticizing government policy. It is also worth noting that Bagrat and his followers had one stated mission: the overthrow of the government. Their campaign got as far as a parliamentary blockade whose audience consistently dwindled. 4. The framing of Western support for Pashinyan and Russian interference as mirror images is troubling, one side is running an intelligence operation to transport 100,000 voters, banning Armenian exports, recalling its ambassador, and funding a coup attempt through oligarchs and clergy. The other is signing trade agreements and attending summits. These are not equivalent, and treating them as such obscures more than it reveals. 5. The piece never addresses what the alternative actually looks like. Focusing entirely on Pashinyan’s failures without acknowledging that the opposition represents a return to the Kocharyan-Sargsyan era, the very system the Velvet Revolution dismantled, and one that Armenian citizens have rejected overwhelmingly and repeatedly at the ballot box, leaves the reader with a fundamentally incomplete picture of the stakes.