The decision of the Constitutional Court of Armenia to reject the opposition’s appeal against the parliamentary election results was not a surprise. This opinion was expressed by political strategist Armen Badalyan, who stated that over the past decades, the Constitutional Court has never overturned election results, despite numerous appeals from opposition forces.
The expert recalled that the practice of the Constitutional Court over the last 30–35 years demonstrates an established pattern. “The Constitutional Court has always ruled in favor of the current authorities. Not a single election has been declared invalid,” Badalyan noted.
He reminded that the only exception was the 2003 presidential election, when the court did not overturn the voting results but pointed out existing doubts regarding their legitimacy and recommended holding a referendum of confidence in the president a year later. However, according to the political strategist, this decision was never implemented. When citizens took to Baghramyan Avenue in April of the following year demanding the execution of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the protest was dispersed by the police.
Theory on the reasons for barring the party from parliament
Commenting on the distribution of mandates, Badalyan expressed the view that one of the authorities’ goals was to prevent the Prosperous Armenia party from entering the National Assembly.
According to his version, if this political force had gained parliamentary representation, the ruling party would have had to seek a compromise with it to form a qualified majority.
The expert explained that in such a scenario, a coalition could have secured the necessary three-fifths of the votes, allowing them to appoint the prosecutor general and approve the heads of several judicial bodies. In Badalyan’s opinion, the opposition possessing such leverage would have limited the government’s ability to make personnel decisions independently.
The first phase of political confrontation is over
The political strategist also offered his own interpretation of the foreign policy dimension of the Armenian elections.
In his view, the Constitutional Court’s decision marks the completion of the first phase of the confrontation between Russia and the West surrounding domestic political processes in Armenia. Badalyan believes that Moscow failed to achieve a regime change through the elections, whereas the pro-Western course of the current leadership was preserved.
“The first phase ended with a victory for the West and a defeat for Russia,” the expert stated. At the same time, he emphasized that this does not mean the entire political process has concluded.
“Russia might have moved to plan B”
According to Badalyan’s assessment, Moscow did not abandon its attempts to increase pressure on Armenia after the elections.
As an argument, he cited the ongoing restrictions in the trade and economic sphere, which began to be introduced even before the elections and remain in place today. In particular, the expert mentioned restrictions affecting the supply of certain types of Armenian products to the Russian market even after the elections.
The political strategist suggested that Russia might have transitioned to implementing an alternative scenario of influence. According to his version, if the political goals were not achieved through the elections, the next stage could be gradual economic pressure.
“Now, judging by what is happening, a policy of gradual economic exhaustion of Armenia is being implemented. One of its manifestations is the ongoing trade restrictions,” Badalyan believes.