Analyst: Armenian voters backed Pashinyan despite clear signals on concessions and constitutional change

Armenian political analyst and Alternative Projects Group co-founder Vahe Hovhannisyan has argued that the country’s latest electoral outcome revealed uncomfortable truths about public attitudes, political accountability and the deep crisis of trust within Armenian society.

In a post-election assessment on Thursday, Hovhannisyan said the results demonstrated that voters knowingly supported Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan despite repeated signals that his government would continue pursuing contentious issues, including negotiations over enclaves, potential territorial concessions, and constitutional changes.

“We must acknowledge that Pashinyan was honest in his messaging and short-term political program,” Hovhannisyan wrote. “He made it clear that there would be discussions about enclaves, concessions and a change of the constitution. Society heard all of this and still went out and voted for him.”

The analyst argued that one of the election’s most significant lessons was the apparent inability of Armenian polling and public-opinion research to accurately capture voter sentiment. While many observers have questioned the reliability of pre-election surveys, Hovhannisyan contended that the problem extends beyond methodology.

According to him, the deeper issue is a profound erosion of public trust. He described Armenian society as one in which citizens often conceal their true views, distrust institutions and one another, and therefore produce misleading signals about political preferences and social attitudes.

“This is not a matter of professional competence,” he wrote. “Many Armenian sociologists are highly qualified. It’s about a failure of trust.”

Hovhannisyan warned that the same dynamic affects other indicators of public opinion, leaving policymakers and political actors unable to determine what Armenian society genuinely wants or what direction it seeks for the country’s future.

He also challenged assumptions about the political role of Yerevan, drawing a contrast with Hungary, where the capital city has emerged as a center of resistance to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. In Armenia, he argued, the opposite occurred.

According to Hovhannisyan, voters in Yerevan witnessed Pashinyan’s rhetoric and political conduct firsthand yet continued to support him. He said segments of the capital’s cultural and intellectual elite effectively endorsed a destructive political trajectory.

The analyst further expressed concern over growing public acceptance of punitive measures against several prominent Armenian businessmen and philanthropists, including Ruben Vardanyan, Samvel Karapetyan, and Gagik Tsarukyan.

Hovhannisyan argued that all three figures have made substantial contributions to Armenia and warned that a political culture increasingly focused on punishment, confiscation1 and dismantling existing institutions risks undermining incentives for investment and nation-building.

“No society has prospered by prioritizing destruction over creation,” he wrote, cautioning that historical experience offers numerous examples of countries that paid a heavy price for pursuing such a path.

Addressing allegations of vote-buying, Hovhannisyan described electoral bribery as one of the most damaging practices in public life. However, he questioned why eight years of political change had failed to produce a stronger societal rejection of the phenomenon.

He argued that combating vote-buying requires more than law enforcement measures, calling instead for the dismantling of broader systems of political dependency, including the extensive use of administrative resources, coercive mobilization, and pressure on citizens.

As a result, he said, Armenian society has become increasingly fractured, vulnerable and dependent rather than more empowered and politically independent.

Beyond the immediate questions of mandates and party competition, Hovhannisyan said the election exposed a deeper challenge: a society struggling to engage in honest and constructive dialogue. He described pervasive distrust as a systemic problem that extends across institutions, communities and political camps.

In his concluding remarks, Hovhannisyan cited a statement attributed to former Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Tofig Zulfugarov, who said that “the iron fist has cured about 50% of Armenian citizens in five years and the treatment should continue.”

Calling the remarks “chilling,” Hovhannisyan said it highlighted what he views as the country’s defining choice in the years ahead.

“The real choice is whether we will heal ourselves or whether others will attempt to heal us,” he wrote.