Just over two weeks after the Armenian parliamentary elections, nothing but silence comes from Moscow. In an unprecedented gesture since he came to power in 2018, Vladimir Putin has not yet congratulated the Armenian leader on his electoral victory. Officially, the Kremlin argues that it is waiting for the final publication of the results. Unofficially, the message seems more obvious: Russia is watching with growing discomfort the outcome of an election that, it fears, will consolidate that orientation for the next five years.
The , is, however, far from having closed the political debate in Armenia. Seven groups that participated in the elections have challenged the results before the Constitutional Court, which will hold a hearing on June 26 to examine the complaints. Although a complete repeat of the elections seems unlikely, the high court’s decision could have far-reaching political consequences and partially alter the future composition of Parliament.
The challenges come after a campaign that international observers have described as “highly polarized.” In its preliminary report, the mission noted that Pashinián himself repeatedly resorted to inflammatory rhetoric against his political adversaries and warned of a climate of strong political tension. The document also includes the existence of preventive detentions of opposition candidates and activists during the campaign, as well as public interventions by foreign leaders in favor of the party in power.
The OSCE has been especially forceful with the external pressures that surrounded the electoral process. According to observers, Moscow during the campaign, with trade restrictions on Armenian products and warnings about the consequences it would have. Their report also documented coordinated disinformation operations from abroad, including campaigns based on artificial intelligence-generated content.
Added to this was a wave of investigations and arrests that affected prominent opposition figures. Leaders and members of three of the main forces opposed to the Executive were arrested in the weeks prior to the elections and some of these actions continued even during election day itself. Although the authorities defended the legal nature of the investigations, the OSCE noted that some of them were perceived by broad political sectors as selectively directed against the opposition.
Doubts about the process intensified during the election night itself. With less than 10% of the votes counted, Pashinián appeared publicly for . The controversy reached its peak with the case of Prosperous Armenia, the group led by businessman Gagik Tsarukyan.
According to preliminary results, that party was left out of Parliament by just a few tenths, obtaining 3.989% of the votes compared to the legal threshold of 4%. The difference was equivalent to less than a hundred votes. Tsarukyan then requested a recount of several electoral colleges and, as his party later reported, the new data gave him the votes necessary to access the National Assembly.
It was at that moment that one of the most controversial episodes of the entire process occurred. The Central Electoral Commission announced the annulment of the results of three polling stations, alleging the existence of serious irregularities that could have affected the final result. The decision de facto eliminated any possibility of Prosperous Armenia passing the electoral threshold.
The measure placed the president of the Central Election Commission, Vahagn Hovakimyan, at the center of the debate. Before taking office in 2022, Hovakimyan had worked as a journalist in Haykakan Zhamanaka newspaper linked to Pashinián. Later he was a parliamentary assistant to the current prime minister, a member of the Civil Contract directorate and a deputy on the ruling party lists.
For , director of the Regional Center for Democracy and Security, the most delicate issue is not found on election day itself. In statements to EL PAÍS, Grigoryan considers that the main legitimacy problems occurred during the campaign, in which there were complaints of bribery, and public resources and state media were used in favor of the Government. However, the analyst believes that the decision to annul the results of the three electoral colleges does constitute a particularly problematic element. In his opinion, the Central Electoral Commission carried out “a political movement” that ended up benefiting a specific force and had a disproportionate impact on the final distribution of seats.
The issue is not minor. If Prosperous Armenia had managed to overcome the electoral threshold, the parliamentary distribution would have changed significantly. Civil Contract would have gone from 64 to 61 deputies, and although it would maintain the ability to govern alone, it would lose part of the institutional influence that its current majority grants it. With 64 seats, the ruling party has a sufficient majority to decisively influence key appointments within the judicial system and other independent institutions.
The final composition of Parliament also acquires special importance due to the constitutional reform that the Government plans to promote during this legislature. The issue is directly linked to the . The president of that country, , has been demanding a modification of the Armenian Constitution for months as a condition to move towards a definitive agreement. Baku maintains that the constitutional preamble contains indirect references to the declaration of independence of the self-proclaimed , something that he considers incompatible with.
All these factors explain why the relevance of the hearing scheduled for this Friday goes far beyond the electoral dispute. The seven recurring parties request the annulment of the results or the adoption of corrective measures that allow the distribution of seats to be reviewed.
Grigoryan sees it as unlikely that the Constitutional Court will order a repeat election on a national scale, although he sees a limited review of the results in the three electoral colleges whose annulment triggered the controversy as more feasible.
Whatever the ruling, however, the case has already transcended the strictly electoral field. The court decision will serve to measure the strength of Armenian institutions at a time of growing internal polarization, external pressure and strategic redefinition of the country. The elections are over, but the battle for their legitimacy has only just begun. And Friday’s verdict could mark not only the composition of the next Parliament, but also the political direction of Armenia for the next five years.
