In a recent interview hosted by Noyan Tapan, Yuri Avagyan, Director of the Restart Foundation, provided a deep dive into the shifting dynamics of Armenia’s internal political field as the country moves toward its next electoral cycle. Avagyan outlined a landscape dominated by four primary political poles and characterized much of the current opposition rhetoric as a strategic attempt to remain relevant in a field where they are increasingly marginalized.
The Four Pillars of the Upcoming Race
According to Avagyan, the real competition is currently centered around four main political forces or groupings: the ruling Civil Contract (KP) party and three opposition clusters. These include the Armenia Alliance, centered around Robert Kocharyan; the Strong Armenia party, associated with the Karapetyan family; and Gagik Tsarukyan’s “New Ark”.
While these opposition groups may have minor internal disagreements, Avagyan views them as a singular political wing. “The global struggle will take place between this opposition consolidation and the Civil Contract,” he noted. He further clarified that despite public speculation, the Strong Armenia party is ideologically and structurally closer to Robert Kocharyan than to former President Serzh Sargsyan.
Addressing the Republican Party’s recent calls for impeachment against Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Avagyan was dismissive, labeling the effort a “fictional process” designed to capture public attention.
“The impeachment process is generally not a realistic process and has no prospect of achieving success,” Avagyan stated, suggesting that a consensus exists within the political field regarding its futility. He argued that the Republican Party brings such issues to the agenda primarily “because they understand that as an opposition party they remain on the margins” and wish to prove they still exist as a political force.
Avagyan also addressed smaller political entities like the National Democratic Pole (ADB), which he categorized as a “marginal force”. He suggested that while individual figures like Jirayr Sefilyan command respect, the party’s “extremist formulations” do not resonate with the broader public.
Analyzing the Electorate
The interview also explored the motivations of the Armenian voter. Avagyan identified several segments within the Civil Contract’s base:
A small group of elderly supporters who are personally loyal to Pashinyan.
Voters who prioritize preventing a “vassal-like” pro-Russian government from taking power.
A segment that simply wishes to prevent the return of “the former ones” (previous administrations).
The significant influence of administrative resources, which Avakyan noted provides a “large handicap” to any ruling power.
In contrast, Robert Kocharyan’s base consists of a “small, solid, but active” group of voters who still believe Russia can be a guarantor for Armenia, as well as those who prospered during his presidency.
One of the most critical points of the discussion involved the future of Armenia’s security architecture. Avagyan observed that the opposition, particularly Kocharyan and Tsarukyan, appear to reject the security framework emerging under Western (Washington) mediation.
Avagyan noted that Kocharyan has characterized current diplomatic challenges as fundamental threats to Armenia, signaling a potential pivot. “Based on these words, we can assume that he would cancel the process arising from the Washington Declaration… and offer for Russia to come as a mediator,” Avakyan explained. He pointed out that Tsarukyan’s programs similarly lack details on normalization with Azerbaijan or Turkey, focusing instead on improving relations with Russia.
As the political field prepares for the upcoming elections, Avagyan’s analysis suggests that the core of the debate will not just be about domestic governance, but about Armenia’s fundamental geopolitical orientation.