Former Armenian FM warns of democratic erosion after election commission decision

Former Armenian Foreign Minister Ara Ayvazyan has decried the Central Electoral Commission's decision to deny the Prosperous Armenia Party a parliamentary seat it claims to have legitimately earned, describing the move as a watershed moment with implications extending far beyond the fortunes of a single political force.

In a statement released on Thursday, Ayvazyan argued that the decision raises fundamental questions about the integrity of Armenia's democratic system and the durability of citizens' electoral mandates.

"If voters cannot be certain that their ballots will ultimately determine political outcomes, the legitimacy of the entire political system is called into question," Ayvazyan said.

According to the former foreign minister, the controversy is not merely about parliamentary representation but about the exclusion of political alternatives from the national decision-making process, particularly on issues of foreign policy, security, and the future trajectory of Armenian statehood.

Ayvazyan rejected interpretations that frame the dispute through the prism of a Russia-versus-West geopolitical rivalry. He noted that Prosperous Armenia has consistently advocated deeper and mutually beneficial relations with both Russia and Western partners, arguing that Armenia's strategic interests require a balanced and pragmatic foreign policy.

"The real choice facing Armenian society has never been a simplistic geopolitical dichotomy," he said. "It concerns competing models for the country's security and development."

He described Prosperous Armenia's approach as one rooted in constructive engagement with key international actors while avoiding the transformation of Armenia into an arena for broader geopolitical confrontation. Such a policy, he argued, should be guided exclusively by national interests and realistic diplomacy.

Ayvazyan also emphasized the strategic importance of the global Armenian diaspora, characterizing Armenian communities abroad as potential bridges between Armenia and the countries in which they reside. Efforts to portray such an approach as subservience to any external power, he said, fail to withstand serious scrutiny.

Beyond electoral concerns, Ayvazyan warned of a deeper institutional problem. He argued that democratic governance derives its resilience not solely from elections but from the existence of independent institutions, political competition, and effective checks and balances.

"Where independent institutions exist, power is constrained by law. Where political competition thrives, the likelihood of strategic miscalculations is reduced," he said.

The former minister contended that Armenia is witnessing a troubling concentration of authority within a single political center, with parliament, the judiciary, and other state institutions increasingly unable to function as meaningful counterweights to executive power.

Such conditions, he argued, create an environment in which decisions that once appeared inconceivable become politically feasible.

Ayvazyan maintained that strong states are not built upon political monopolies or the presumed irreplaceability of a single governing course. Rather, he said, durable governance emerges from competition among ideas, the coexistence of alternative policy visions, and society's ability to correct governmental errors through democratic mechanisms.

"The question today extends beyond the results of a single election," he said. "It concerns the kind of Armenia that will exist tomorrow."

He posed a broader challenge facing the country: whether Armenia will remain a state in which diverse political viewpoints are represented and participate in decision-making, or whether it will evolve into a system increasingly dependent on decisions emanating from a single center of power.

Ayvazyan further argued that democracies do not deteriorate only when elections disappear outright. Democratic decline can also occur, he said, when formal electoral procedures remain intact while genuine political competition, institutional equilibrium, and meaningful constraints on power gradually erode.

For that reason, he concluded, the dispute should be understood not as a partisan controversy but as a test of the principles that underpin the stability of Armenian statehood.

"When political alternatives are excluded from parliament, it is not merely the opposition that loses," Ayvazyan said. "The system of checks and balances loses. Democracy loses. Ultimately, the state itself loses."

Ayvazyan called on Armenia's Constitutional Court to restore justice in the case, urging the court to recognize the broader constitutional and democratic implications of its forthcoming decision.