Armenia grapples with political polarization

After decades of the same elites ruling through largely undemocratic means, Armenia has in recent years seen a surge in political polarization that is threatening its ongoing democratic transformation.
The 2018 Velvet Revolution dismantled the old status quo, stripping the elites of power and turning them into the major opposition force in the country, the Republican Party, which had been in power since 1999.
This newly formed opposition immediately resorted to branding Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his supporters as foreign agents, first as “Soros agents” and after the 2020 44-day war with Azerbaijan as supporters of Armenia’s adversaries, Turkey and Azerbaijan, and as traitors.
This tactic aimed to delegitimise the new government and paint it as a threat to national security.
Pashinyan’s democratically elected government members, in turn, labelled the opponents as the embodiment of the corrupt past, the so-called “blacks”, the main threat to Armenia’s democratic future, while positioning themselves as the “whites”, i.e. the sole defenders of democracy.
This binary framing and the “black and white” division have further contributed to the polarisation of the public, fostering an environment where political opponents are seen as existential threats to the country.
War and peace divide
The 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War further exacerbated this polarisation.
The conflict and its aftermath, including ongoing security crises and contentious negotiations with neighbouring Azerbaijan, have deepened the divide. The government’s handling of these issues has been a focal point of criticism, fueling the opposition’s narratives that present the Pashinyan government as a security threat.
During recent protests, triggered by the government’s efforts to demarcate the borders with Azerbaijan in the northern Tavush region and led by archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, the polarisation escalated further.
Galstanyan stated that the church in Armenia is the last defender of Armenian identity, calling the movement a “holy struggle,” while presenting Pashinyan’s government as the implementation tool of external interests.
Some media outlets, publicly perceived to be affiliated with the members of Pashinyan’s party in turn called Galstanyan and his supporters “pro-Russian actors” and “agents of Russia”.
Although there were many long-time supporters of Russian interests in Armenia among Galstanyan’s immediate supporters, and the pro-Russian media in Armenia openly backed the protesters, there has been no proof of Galstanyan’s links with Russia.
The Armenian National Security Services said that they possess no evidence that could prove Galstanyan’s affiliation with Russian security services.
The movement has largely calmed down following the 15 June violent clashes between the protesters and the police. However, it made the political discourse in the country even more toxic, as anyone with a political opinion could be labelled a “foreign agent”.
Threat of backsliding
Local and international democracy watchdogs, including the Sweden-based V-Dem Institute, have highlighted the negative impact of political polarisation on Armenia’s democracy.
Tigran Grigoryan, the head of the Yerevan-based Regional Center for Democracy and Security, believes the political polarization is working against the country’s democratization.
“Both the opposition and the government are trying to delegitimise their political opponents by presenting each other as a threat to Armenia’s independence and sovereignty. This delegitimisation is narrowing the space for political dialogue in the country,” Grigoryan told Euractiv.
“When you claim that your opponent is not just a mere political opponent, but a danger, a “Turkish agent,” a “Soros person,” or similar labels, there is a chance you will use this as grounds for the use of non-constitutional and non-democratic means for overthrowing your opponent,” he continued.
Some actors in the country, however, are convinced that political polarisation is already better than the dominance of one single narrative on important issues such as security or foreign policy. Before this polarisation, the country in general lacked free discussion on sensitive issues.
“It may sound odd, but this polarisation is even necessary. It helps to debate and discuss issues which have been taboo for ages,” Naira Sultanyan, head of Democracy Development Foundation (former OSF-Armenia), told Euractiv.
“This period of polarisation can be an opportunity for growth if it leads to greater transparency, accountability, and a more participatory political culture,” Sultanyan said while highlighting the importance of independent and ethical media for de-escalating the polarisation.
Democracy promoters caught in-between
The trend of labelling of opponents as foreign agents and the political polarisation have strongly impacted civil society and its role as a promoter of democratic reforms.
“Even completely apolitical citizens in Armenia cannot avoid the ‘collateral damage of polarisation. You are ‘obliged’ to loudly and prominently evaluate one side or the other, to curse either the government or the opposition,” said Ashkhen Musheghyan, head of the Union of Informed Citizens, an Armenian NGO that has been advocating for reforms since the 2018 Velvet Revolution.
“The aggressive, often reality-distorting, populist narratives and rhetoric of the polarities, along with accompanying misinformation and manipulations, fill the public space with extremely high ‘noise’, occupying almost all information platforms and channels,” continued Musheghyan.
In this noise, reasonable suggestions, discussions, and criticisms are often drowned out and cannot be heard by the public and decision-makers.
“Although the authorities have initiated several democratisation reforms in recent years, in a polarised information space, they often cannot conduct impartial discussions, and ensure proper communication, or feedback around these reforms of public significance,” Musheghyan said.
There is also an ongoing debate among civil society about whether any type of cooperation with the government on democratic reform packages is acceptable.
In an attempt to distance themselves from the government, some organizations have resorted to rejecting any engagement with government agencies, while others are continuing to selectively engage with different agencies in the hope of promoting reform packages.
However, many of these organisations are paying a high price in a polarised public space, where they are often criticised and targeted by the political opposition and even their peers.
Armenia’s current experience serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance required in transitioning from entrenched authoritarianism to democracy, and the challenges that political polarization poses to democratization.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/armenia/news/armenia-grapples-with-political-polarisation/