Cases of vote buying and pressure on the opposition should be investigated by independent law enforcement bodies, while the final determination of guilt should be made by a court. When this process is replaced by the prime minister’s personal promises, state institutions risk being guided by assumptions about the leader’s wishes and expectations rather than the law. Former Justice Minister Arpine Hovhannisyan raises this concern in her comments on a recent speech by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
The prime minister is not the authority that imposes punishment
According to Hovhannisyan, when the prime minister declares that he will punish members of his team if he is presented with evidence that they are pressuring the opposition, this becomes a clear example of replacing democratic institutions with his own person.
She notes that the prime minister can hold members of his team politically accountable — for example, through an internal party decision to expel them. However, this cannot replace criminal proceedings. “The prime minister is not the person who imposes punishment in this country. He is neither an investigator, nor a prosecutor, nor a judge,” the former minister emphasizes.
She stresses the distinction between political and legal accountability. A politician’s dismissal from office or expulsion from a party does not resolve the question of a possible crime. If there are indications of a crime, they must be investigated through the procedures established by law, and guilt must be determined in court.
In Hovhannisyan’s view, the problem with the prime minister’s statements goes beyond the type of punishment he promises to impose on his colleagues. The deeper question is why a situation arises in which the public associates the effectiveness of state bodies with the prime minister’s personal intervention.
She sees this as an expression of a broader political mindset that, in her assessment, could weaken the role of independent institutions.
The political leader replaces institutions
Hovhannisyan sees the situation as a manifestation of vertical democracy. She says that, under this approach, the leader in power views himself not only as the sole bearer of the people’s will but also as its direct executor, personally taking over functions that independent bodies and institutions should perform in a democratic system.
She notes that this idea is also discussed in political science literature.
“This is classic vertical democracy, where the leader in power sees himself not only as the sole bearer of the people’s will but also as the executor of that will, essentially replacing with himself everything that can be replaced within democratic institutions or a democratic society,” Hovhannisyan says.
In her assessment, this approach is dangerous because state bodies, political forces and other actors begin waiting for the leader’s words to understand how they should act. “Everyone else becomes dependent. Everyone else waits for his words and forms expectations: what will he say, will he say anything, what exactly will he say, what will he mean?” she says.
According to Hovhannisyan, the problem goes further. A more dangerous situation arises when a state body no longer waits even for a direct instruction. It may align its actions with assumptions about what its leader would want or expect, rather than with the requirements of the law.
In such circumstances, she argues, a law enforcement agency or another state body may act on its own understanding of the leader’s possible wishes, even when no instruction has been given. “It does not mean that an instruction or possible interference exists, but there is an understanding of possible expectations and wishes,” the former minister explains.
She says this is where the systemic danger emerges: the presumed will of the leader in power replaces the law as the standard governing conduct.
Institutional failure leads to the distortion of democracy
In Hovhannisyan’s assessment, one of the deeper consequences of vertical democracy is the gradual distortion of independent state institutions. When society or the state apparatus begins relying on one person’s sense of fairness, the perceived need for independent bodies and their significance diminish.
She emphasizes that, in a democratic system, neither the prime minister nor any other political leader should replace an investigator, prosecutor or judge. Those functions must be performed within the law and established legal procedures, independently of the political leadership’s wishes.
According to Hovhannisyan, when state institutions fail to operate in accordance with their powers and legal requirements, decision-making becomes dependent on personal intervention or the expectation of it.
In her assessment, this threatens horizontal democracy itself, which rests on interaction among independent institutions, limits on power and compliance with legal procedures.
The former minister therefore argues that vote buying, the misuse of administrative resources and possible pressure on the opposition should be examined as more than individual violations. They form part of a broader question: do state bodies operate within their legally established powers, or is their conduct determined by the political leader’s position?
Hovhannisyan’s principal concern is that, if law enforcement agencies and other state bodies begin following the presumed wishes of the leader in power rather than the law, democratic institutions will lose their autonomy. In that situation, even a political leader’s promises of justice cannot replace an independent judiciary and the principle of equality before the law.