Following the decision adopted by Armenia’s Central Electoral Commission (CEC), the rule of law has effectively been pushed into the background, according to political analyst Armen Baghdasaryan.
Baghdasaryan described the arguments presented by the CEC as manipulative.
“The CEC’s justification is highly manipulative. If a voter chooses to make a situational decision and voluntarily revises their choice, that is their right and their personal decision. The Central Electoral Commission has no authority to deprive citizens of that right. No one is forcing them. People decide for themselves whether they want to participate in adjusting the outcome or not. That is also a form of electoral choice,” he said.
According to the analyst, the Commission’s decision demonstrates that the law has effectively been relegated to a secondary role.
“In other words, the law has become largely symbolic, and the authorities are no longer trying to hide that fact,” he stated.
Baghdasaryan argued that the issue is not related to any particular political party but stems from the political calculations of the current government.
“This is not about Prosperous Armenia. The real question is whether Nikol Pashinyan’s government will have the level of parliamentary representation it considers necessary. The decision was made on the basis of political expediency rather than legal principles,” he said.
In his assessment, the authorities will inevitably face questions regarding legitimacy after this decision. However, they likely concluded that it was preferable to deal with those problems now rather than confront difficulties resulting from insufficient parliamentary representation later.
“In essence, they made a choice between a bad option and a worse one. In my view, they ultimately chose the worse path,” Baghdasaryan said.
The political analyst believes that efforts to push legal considerations aside serve broader objectives and will not end with the CEC decision alone.
“Just one day earlier, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan declared that the ‘three-headed mafia must be destroyed because the people demand it.’ He did not say the law requires it; he said the people require it. This means everything is increasingly being justified through the prism of public demand rather than legal norms. That creates an extremely dangerous precedent,” he noted.
Baghdasaryan is convinced that the same approach may later be applied during the process of adopting a new Constitution.
He recalled that a constitutional referendum can only take place after a draft Constitution is first approved by the National Assembly. Under Armenian law, such a draft requires the support of two-thirds of parliament. However, even after the controversial CEC decision, the ruling party does not possess that number of votes.
According to the analyst, the groundwork is now being laid for a situation in which “public demand” takes precedence over legal requirements.
“I am convinced that the same method will be used in the case of a constitutional referendum. Let us assume they cannot proceed without a two-thirds majority. What would prevent them from simply declaring that there is a public demand for it? And who would review such a question? The Constitutional Court. As for what decision would ultimately be made, I believe everyone already understands the answer,” Baghdasaryan concluded.