As Armenia’s election campaign intensifies, questions are increasingly being raised about where the exercise of state authority ends and political campaigning begins.
A new wave of discussion has been triggered by statements from government representatives and several recent incidents that critics view as examples of the use of administrative resources during the campaign.
Legal limits and the use of state resources
Armenian legislation clearly defines the acceptable conduct of public officials during election periods.
In particular, it prohibits the use of official positions, state resources, and public authority in the interests of a political party or candidate.
Against this backdrop, several recent episodes involving Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan have raised questions.
Promises to drivers: reform or electoral messaging?
On May 16, during a meeting with drivers in central Yerevan, Pashinyan stated that authorities were prepared to allow citizens who had lost their driving licenses to restore them without retaking examinations.
He clarified that the measure would still include certain conditions and a one-year restriction period.
The regulatory change itself does not violate the law.
However, questions arise regarding the way the initiative was presented and the political context surrounding it.
The statement was made during a public meeting with a clearly defined social group directly interested in easing the regulations.
Moreover, the prime minister effectively promised a rapid solution, while the audience responded with applause and chants of “Nikol for Prime Minister.”
At the same time, Pashinyan was officially on vacation while addressing the issue.
This raises the question of whether the event represented an ordinary policy discussion or a politically motivated promise directed at a potential voting bloc during the peak of the campaign.
Supporters of the government may argue that the prime minister has the right to publicly discuss planned legislative changes and respond to citizens’ demands.
However, the issue of restoring driving licenses and public dissatisfaction among drivers existed long before the election campaign began.
Why did the authorities decide to address the issue specifically during the campaign period?
In essence, critics argue that this amounted to a rapid solution for a specific audience during an active political campaign.
Trolleybuses as part of the campaign
Another event that attracted attention on the same day was the presentation of newly purchased trolleybuses for Yerevan.
According to official information, 45 new vehicles were purchased entirely through the state budget.
The presentation was attended by Yerevan Mayor Tigran Avinyan and Prime Minister Pashinyan.
Modernizing public transportation is naturally part of urban policy and cannot automatically be considered a violation of campaign rules.
However, the political context again became central.
First, the presentation took place during the ruling party’s active election campaign.
Second, the prime minister directly emphasized the government’s role in financing the purchase, stating that the decision had been made quickly and without bureaucratic delays.
Special attention was also drawn to the political rhetoric used during the event.
Pashinyan stated that the purchase became possible thanks to “funds returned to the state,” contrasting the current authorities with former governments and political opponents who, according to him, would have spent the money on “Hummers, Ferraris, and Porsches.”
As a result, the presentation of public transport effectively turned into a political message emphasizing the alleged superiority of the current government over its rivals.
Critics argue that this constitutes political influence on voters through the use of state-funded projects and budgetary achievements.
Spitak: solving problems “on the spot”
Another episode occurred during Pashinyan’s meeting with residents of Spitak.
One woman complained to the prime minister about delays in resolving her housing issue.
Pashinyan immediately contacted responsible officials, clarified the details, and stated that the problem would be solved within a maximum of two months, adding: “I’m saying two months, but it will happen sooner.”
From the perspective of public perception, such scenes create a powerful political effect.
The head of government personally intervenes in the fate of an individual citizen and demonstrates the ability to achieve rapid results.
However, precisely such episodes become legally controversial during election periods because they create political advantages unavailable to competitors.
These public promises also contribute to a personalized model of relations between citizens and the state, where political loyalty may begin to be perceived as a tool for receiving assistance.
The core issue: the absence of a clear dividing line
Former Justice Minister Arpine Hovhannisyan believes the central problem is the lack of a clear and visible boundary between official governance and political promises.
According to her, this line becomes blurred in real political practice.
When a public official simultaneously acts as a candidate or effectively participates in campaigning while continuing to function as head of the executive branch, citizens and campaign participants struggle to distinguish where institutional responsibilities end and electoral promises begin.
She stressed that in such cases not only the wording of a statement matters, but also its broader context.
“If an official speaks from a position of authority and makes promises perceived as official commitments, then the restrictions established by electoral legislation must fully apply,” Hovhannisyan stated.
For that reason, she argues that government representatives must be extremely careful in formulating public statements during election periods.
Otherwise, any public response to citizens’ problems may be interpreted as an electoral promise.
Questions continue to grow
It is clear that the episodes discussed represent only a small portion of the actions and statements raising questions about both the legality of government conduct and the clarity of Armenia’s electoral regulations.
On one hand, only law enforcement institutions have the authority to provide a final legal assessment.
On the other hand, doubts remain about whether those institutions are willing to identify violations in conditions where, critics argue, they lack sufficient independence.
Aram Hayrapetyan