All recent sociological surveys indicate a consistent decline in the approval ratings of the Armenian authorities and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan personally. However, the paradox lies in the fact that the disillusioned electorate is not shifting toward the opposition. On the contrary, the ratings of opposition forces are also on a downward trajectory. In effect, a significant portion of society is drifting into a political “nowhere,” opting out of participation in the current political landscape.
Why is this happening? Why is the Armenian voter becoming disillusioned with the ruling party but failing to see an alternative in the opposition? And what does this reveal about the deeper processes within society and the political system itself?
In 2018, Nikol Pashinyan came to power under the slogans of justice, equality, and freeing the state from “corrupt elites.” His rhetoric and style were largely reminiscent of anarchist and horizontalist movements: rejection of hierarchies, direct democracy, maximum transparency, and the involvement of the “common person” in governance.
According to sociologist Artur Paronyan, the predominantly low-income and less-educated segments of society form a peculiar anarchist electorate. He notes that data from sociological surveys and focus group studies suggest that, for this group, justice equates to receiving material benefits regardless of whether they work or how effectively they do so. “Where these resources should come from is a question that is rarely raised. On an intuitive level, they hold the conviction that wealth can be taken from the rich and redistributed to the poor without diminishing the former,” Paronyan stated.
Paronyan pointed out that in 2018, the current prime minister gave this segment of society hope that he would do exactly that: redistribute resources by taking from millionaires and giving to the “common people.” Many saw this as an opportunity for an immediate improvement in their living standards. However, over the years, hope has turned into deep disappointment and even hatred. Today, these groups operate within a “neither the old nor the new” paradigm. They reject the opposition, associating it with past injustices, but also reject the ruling authorities for unfulfilled expectations.
“This social dichotomy reflects a profound crisis of trust. People see that, figuratively speaking, Gagik Tsarukyan remains wealthy while they remain poor. The problem is that the ruling team, in its pursuit of power, deliberately exploited these expectations but, once in charge, failed to initiate an honest conversation about economic realities. Neither the principles for the country’s development nor a strategy enabling everyone to earn honestly were articulated,” Paronyan noted.
As a result, a significant portion of society has developed dangerous and illusory notions of justice that are impossible to implement within a stable state framework. This is no longer just a problem of specific social groups—it is a challenge for the entire system. Such unmet expectations, Paronyan warns, are turning into a “social time bomb,” affecting no less than 20% of the electorate.
One of the reasons the opposition is losing its electorate is that protest forces are not perceived as a serious counterweight, having failed to achieve any significant results over the past period. Moreover, a portion of the electorate that has abandoned the opposition believes it has missed its chance, that “the train has left.” As for those disillusioned with Pashinyan, they view the current opposition as the very forces that “should have taken” from the wealthy, and thus this group will not align with them.
Consequently, Armenia is experiencing a crisis of political agency. Voters trust neither institutions, nor parties, nor political rhetoric—whether it comes from the authorities or the opposition. This phenomenon resembles trends in Eastern Europe and Latin America, where, following revolutions or power changes driven by populism, disillusionment leads not to a change of parties but to alienation from the very idea of political participation. Such a citizen becomes an “orphaned voter”—politically active but feeling unrepresented by any force.