Armenia has entered a complex situation where measures intended to protect the country’s sovereignty increasingly come into conflict with democratic principles and the rule of law, according to Gayane Abrahamyan, head of the Equal Rights NGO.
She argues that the ongoing dismantling of the current opposition could clear the political landscape and create opportunities for genuinely democratic forces to emerge. However, she warns that the process is accompanied by procedural violations that pose serious systemic risks.
Political Accountability Should Have Begun in 2018
Abrahamyan believes the activities of Armenia’s former authorities should have received both legal and political assessment immediately after the 2018 political changes.
If the judicial system was unable or unwilling to act effectively, she argues that alternative legal and political mechanisms should have been developed to reduce the influence of illicit capital on politics.
She notes that numerous cases involving the confiscation of illegally acquired assets remain pending in Armenian courts.
According to Abrahamyan, had those proceedings been completed earlier, a significant portion of unlawful capital would have been removed from politics, allowing for fairer political competition.
Delayed Measures Risk Becoming the Norm
At the same time, Abrahamyan acknowledges that some of the measures currently being taken may indeed be necessary from the standpoint of protecting Armenia’s sovereignty and national security.
Nevertheless, she argues that many of these actions conflict with human rights, the rule of law, and democratic procedures.
“The main problem is that while some actions may be necessary, they are accompanied by procedural violations that could eventually become a dangerous norm,” she says.
Abrahamyan warns that once such precedents are tolerated, they may later be applied regardless of political affiliation.
Armenia Faces Greater Risks Than European Democracies
According to Abrahamyan, similar situations have emerged in several European countries.
She cites Romania as an example, where elections were annulled and large-scale judicial proceedings followed. Those decisions also faced criticism, with some Western politicians arguing that democracy cannot be defended through anti-democratic methods.
However, she stresses that Armenia differs from Romania in one crucial respect.
European countries possess well-established state institutions, particularly independent judicial systems. Armenia’s institutions, by contrast, remain underdeveloped, making the use of similar methods considerably more risky.
Abrahamyan believes that if violations of democratic procedures and the weakening of state institutions continue, Armenia could eventually face challenges similar to those currently seen in Georgia.
In her view, the country’s central challenge is not only protecting national security but ensuring that this goal is not achieved at the expense of democratic values and the rule of law. Finding that balance, she concludes, will be one of Armenia’s most difficult political tasks in the years ahead.