An unprecedented political scenario is unfolding in Armenia. The government has initiated an extraordinary session of the National Assembly whose term of office is nearing its end. The outgoing parliament is expected to adopt, under an accelerated 24-hour procedure, a controversial package of amendments to the constitutional Electoral Code and the Law on Referendums.
The proposed legislation introduces a residency requirement for participation in national elections and referendums. To retain voting rights, Armenian citizens would now have to physically reside in Armenia for at least 183 days during the previous 365-day period.
The bill was introduced with exceptional urgency and without extensive public discussion. Critics argue that behind the legal language lies a political calculation aimed at solving two strategic objectives: neutralizing opposition-minded voters living abroad and increasing the chances of approving a new Constitution through a referendum.
The Official Argument: The Theory of “Substantive Connection”
The authors of the bill rely on classical constitutional theory, arguing that citizenship should not be reduced to a purely formal legal status or possession of a passport.
They cite Armenia’s Constitutional Court ruling No. SDO-945 of March 15, 2011, which defines citizenship as a stable legal relationship expressed through mutual rights, obligations, and responsibilities.
According to the government’s logic, voters should be directly affected by state decisions. Those who do not permanently live in the country, the authors argue, do not bear the social, economic, fiscal, and security consequences of their political choices.
The proposal provides only two exceptions: citizens serving abroad on behalf of the state, such as diplomats and military attachés, and students enrolled in foreign universities. All other categories, including labor migrants, citizens undergoing medical treatment abroad, and those temporarily residing overseas for personal reasons, would be subject to the restriction.
Political Context: Fear of the Diaspora and the “Russian Factor”
To understand the urgency surrounding the proposal, one must recall Armenia’s recent parliamentary elections. During the campaign, the ruling party faced serious competition from the “Strong Armenia” movement and accused its opponents of attempting to bring Armenian citizens from Russia to vote through illegal incentives.
Critics argue that these accusations reflected a broader concern. Armenia’s current government has pursued a policy of geopolitical distancing from Moscow, a course that directly affects the interests and security of hundreds of thousands of Armenian citizens living and working in Russia.
According to opponents of the bill, the authorities have found a radical solution: removing this potentially oppositional electorate from the voting rolls through the “183-day rule.”
Referendum Mathematics: Lowering the Threshold for a New Constitution
A second and perhaps more important motivation concerns the government’s plans to adopt a new Constitution.
Current Armenian legislation requires that more than half of referendum participants support constitutional amendments and that affirmative votes amount to at least one-quarter of all eligible voters.
Given widespread public apathy and skepticism toward reforms, achieving support from 25% of all registered voters, including hundreds of thousands living abroad, represents a significant challenge.
The residency requirement would automatically reduce the total number of registered voters and therefore lower the threshold needed to validate a constitutional referendum.
Critics argue that this effectively increases the government’s chances of passing a new Constitution by excluding absent and politically inconvenient voters.
Human Rights Concerns: Work and Medical Treatment Become Grounds for Disenfranchisement
Armenia has historically experienced high levels of migration and mobility. Thousands of citizens travel abroad annually for seasonal employment, medical treatment, professional training, and research programs.
These individuals maintain Armenian citizenship and strong economic ties to their homeland through remittances and family support networks. Nevertheless, under the proposed legislation, they would lose the fundamental political right to participate in decisions affecting their country’s future.
In practice, critics argue, this creates a category of second-class citizens.
The Central Paradox: Obligations Without Rights
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the reform concerns the relationship between citizens’ rights and obligations.
Countries that maintain strict residency requirements for voting often rely on professional armies and face no existential external threats. Their citizens living abroad generally have limited obligations toward the state.
Armenia presents a fundamentally different case. Military service remains compulsory, and all eligible citizens, regardless of where they live, are required to fulfill their military obligations.
In the event of mobilization or war, all eligible citizens may be called upon, irrespective of how many days they spent outside Armenia during the previous year.
This creates a fundamental legal and moral contradiction: if the state deprives citizens of voting rights because they allegedly do not experience the consequences of state policies, on what basis does it continue to demand military service and potential sacrifice?
The formula of “obligations without rights” undermines the very concept of the social contract and the “substantive connection” invoked by the bill’s authors.
The Myth of International Practice
Claims that the 183-day residency requirement aligns Armenia with international democratic standards do not withstand scrutiny.
Modern international legal practice generally considers the artificial exclusion of diaspora communities from national elections to be a sign of electoral manipulation rather than democratic maturity.
The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission clearly distinguishes between local and national elections. Residency requirements may be justified at the municipal level but are considered inappropriate restrictions when applied to national elections and referendums.
Extending local electoral principles to national elections contradicts established European recommendations.
Global Trends Move in the Opposite Direction
Contemporary democracies are expanding rather than restricting voting rights for citizens abroad.
Many countries have introduced remote electronic voting, postal voting, and extensive overseas polling networks through embassies and consulates.
Against this backdrop, Armenia’s proposed reforms appear to represent a legal regression, effectively attempting to return electoral practice to nineteenth-century standards.
Technological Anachronism: Closing Doors Instead of Eliminating Borders
The argument that citizens abroad are disconnected from national reality appears increasingly outdated in the digital era.
Armenian citizens living in Moscow, Paris, or Los Angeles remain connected to Armenia through news media, family ties, investments, remittances, and digital public services.
Instead of developing remote, electronic, or postal voting mechanisms, however, Armenia appears to be choosing the path of restricting political participation.
Critics argue that the claim that spending more than 183 days abroad eliminates political legitimacy serves primarily to mask political fears regarding voters who remain outside the reach of administrative influence.