Op-ed by Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s former foreign minister (1998-2008)
As 2024 draws to a close, it is clear that Armenia is mired in an unprecedented period of national challenges and uncertainty. Five key trends defined this year, each more concerning than the last, underscoring the urgent need for a change in governance and direction.
In foreign and regional policy, the failures of past years were not only unaddressed but compounded. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s approach to negotiations with Azerbaijan symbolized a dangerous and repeated misstep. His rhetoric of peace, though commendable in theory, was accompanied by a pattern of unilateral concessions that emboldened Baku and diminished Armenia’s position. Each concession seemed to deepen Azerbaijan’s demands and threats, moving Armenia further away from an equitable peace. This dynamic has left the nation vulnerable, disillusioned, and with little to show for Pashinyan’s promises.
On the geopolitical stage, Armenia’s isolation has only deepened, trapping the nation in a relentless cycle that, under the current leadership, seems impossible to escape. Traditional allies like Russia and Iran harbor no trust in Pashinyan’s leadership, while Turkey and Azerbaijan remain skeptical of his words. Even the West, which may appear to show some faith, does so not due to his credibility but rather as a marriage of convenience, driven by the lack of better alternatives to achieve their goals. Pashinyan’s deficiencies in diplomatic and military-political knowledge, combined with his lack of coherent strategy and irrational decision-making, have exacerbated Armenia’s predicament. With no serious efforts made to cultivate new alliances, this diplomatic inertia has left Armenia adrift, unable to navigate an increasingly complex global environment.
Economically, while macroeconomic indicators might suggest resilience, this perceived strength largely stems from the unintended benefits of Western sanctions on Russia, which have redirected certain economic activities into Armenia. However, the majority of Armenians see little benefit. Rising living costs, stagnant wages, soaring foreign debt, minimal foreign investment, limited job creation, and excessive public excises have left ordinary citizens struggling, highlighting a glaring disconnect between macroeconomic performance and everyday realities.
Perhaps the most alarming trend of 2024 is the erosion of Armenia’s democracy, which has now slipped into an authoritarian phase. What began in 2018 as a hopeful period of democratic renewal under Pashinyan has devolved into a government increasingly characterized by one-man rule. Despite historic lows in public approval, Pashinyan has maintained his grip on power through a parliamentary majority that insulates him from accountability. This dominance reflects a deeper flaw in Armenia’s democratic framework—an inability to hold leaders accountable or foster meaningful opposition.
Institutions vital to democracy, such as an independent judiciary, a free press, and an active civil society, have been further weakened under Pashinyan’s leadership. Marginalizing dissent and consolidating power, his administration has sown apathy and disillusionment among voters. Many Armenians now question the efficacy of elections as a tool for change, fearing that meaningful power transfer through democratic means may be increasingly out of reach.
Corruption, long a scourge of Armenia’s political landscape, has assumed a more insidious and institutionalized character this year, eroding the country’s democratic foundations. The ruling elite’s misuse of taxpayer funds has reached unprecedented levels, funneling public money through opaque schemes and awarding unsubstantiated bonuses to loyalists. These actions constitute a systemic betrayal of public trust, deepening societal inequality and fostering a sense of hopelessness among citizens. This pervasive culture of graft undermines the very fabric of the nation, leaving Armenians grappling with the devastating realization that the state has become a vehicle for private gain rather than the collective good.
Finally, Armenian society remains deeply fractured. Polarization and mistrust, fueled by political maneuvering and social tensions, have created a climate of hostility and division. This societal fragmentation undermines collective action and weakens Armenia’s ability to confront its challenges cohesively.
As 2025 begins, attention will inevitably shift toward the parliamentary elections scheduled for June 2026—or potentially earlier, given the volatile political environment. One thing is certain: Armenia cannot afford another year of stagnation and mismanagement. The need for a change in government has never been more apparent. The coming months should prompt a national reckoning and a reimagining of what is possible for Armenia.
The stakes could not be higher. This moment demands leadership with a clear global outlook, prioritizing national unity, genuine reform, and a renewed commitment to democratic principles. Armenia stands at a crossroads, and the decisions made in the short time ahead will define its future for decades to come.
2 Comments
Vartan Oskanian’s op-ed highlights the pressing challenges Armenia faces, and while many concerns are valid, the analysis oversimplifies the complexities of governing a nation at the crossroads of hostile regional powers and shifting global alliances. Armenia’s predicament is shaped not solely by domestic leadership but by an intricate interplay of external forces, historical grievances, and an unforgiving geopolitical landscape.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s strategy of prioritizing dialogue and peace must be viewed through the lens of Armenia’s constrained options. Positioned between two aggressive neighbors – Turkey and Azerbaijan – Armenia faces existential threats that demand a cautious approach. Pashinyan’s efforts to pursue peace may appear as unilateral concessions, but they are calculated attempts to ensure survival against disproportionate military and economic pressures. The suggestion that Armenia is diplomatically isolated ignores the harsh realities of shifting alliances. Russia, once a dependable ally, has demonstrated diminishing support, preoccupied with its own geopolitical challenges. Meanwhile, the West’s engagement with Armenia, though pragmatic, signals a potential avenue for diversification. Criticizing the lack of new alliances without acknowledging the difficulties of forging them under such constraints is unfair.
Economic resilience, often dismissed as coincidental, reflects Armenia’s ability to adapt under duress. While structural issues persist, dismissing macroeconomic achievements overlooks the significant progress in maintaining stability amid regional turmoil. Rather than attributing systemic corruption and inequality solely to the current administration, it is crucial to recognize that these issues are deeply entrenched legacies that require systemic reform beyond any single government. Similarly, the claim of democratic erosion deserves nuance. While criticism of governance is integral to democracy, Armenia remains one of the few nations in the region committed to democratic principles. Strengthening institutions and ensuring accountability must be priorities, but these cannot happen overnight, especially under constant external and internal pressures.
The op-ed’s failure to incorporate the influence of Turkey and Azerbaijan in shaping Armenia’s policies is a glaring omission. Azerbaijan’s continued aggression and Turkey’s support create an environment where Armenia must navigate carefully to avoid escalation. Blaming the government for societal divisions and polarization without addressing how external threats exacerbate internal tensions is an incomplete analysis.
Armenia’s challenges require collective responsibility and a departure from the divisive rhetoric that weakens national unity. It is easy to call for new leadership, but real change comes from constructive dialogue, long-term planning, and pragmatic solutions. Instead of painting a picture of doom, we must focus on fostering resilience, building trust, and reinforcing democratic values. Armenia stands at a crossroads, and the path forward demands cooperation, not blame.
Let us not diminish the complexities of governance but strive together for a stronger Armenia.
Mr Oskanian, with all due respect there is no doubt that there is some truth in all the points you have mentioned. However blaming the government as the sole culprit is rather shortsighted. The fact that over the past 6 years the Armenian society has not been able to produce a viable opposition to challenge the government in a meaningful way, speaks volume to the reality that we have a sick society that values individual gain over common good.