Analysts have identified the reasons for the Armenian opposition's electoral failure.

The pro-Russian opposition's performance in the Armenian parliamentary elections can only be described as a defeat, while the ruling party, although it failed to achieve its key goal, held its position.

As reported by the "Caucasian Knot," businessman Gagik Tsarukyan's Prosperous Armenia Party, following revised Central Election Commission data, lost its 4% threshold and will not enter the new parliament. The largest opposition forces collectively garnered 37.23% of the vote: the "Strong Armenia" bloc received 23.281%, the "Armenia" bloc 9.934%, and Prosperous Armenia 3.996%. The Armenia bloc, Prosperous Armenia, and Wings of Unity demand that the election commission recount votes at 555 polling stations.

Political scientist and former member of parliament Mikael Zolyan, political commentator Hakob Badalyan, and lawyer and public figure Norayr Norikyan commented on the distribution of opposition-minded voters' votes following the parliamentary elections in Armenia to the "Caucasian Knot."

The electoral result of the pro-Russian opposition forces, who together gained 37.2% of the vote in the Armenian elections, should be regarded as a failure to achieve their main goal, but at the same time, it demonstrates serious mobilization potential, believes Mikael Zolyan.

“On the one hand, the opposition electorate came to the polls in much larger numbers than in 2021, and the opposition received tens of thousands more votes. The high turnout was largely due to their supporters. On the other hand, the overall result did not allow them to turn the tide, and the ruling party ultimately managed to win a stable majority of seats. The opposition’s main goal—to change the government or impose tough competition—was not achieved,” he told the Caucasian Knot.

He linked the failure of Gagik Tsarukyan’s Prosperous Armenia to the dispersal of votes.

“In these elections, part of the protest electorate, which advocates for democratic values ​​but is opposed to the prime minister, defected to some small parties, which ultimately failed to win. Since the opposition field was firmly dominated this time by the oligarchic opposition, led by three very wealthy individuals, the main resources and votes of pro-Russian citizens went to the two leaders of the race, leaving Prosperous Armenia behind,” he noted.

The expert attributes the results of Samvel Karapetyan’s bloc, which took second place in the number of votes and was able to significantly overtake Robert Kocharyan’s alliance, to a change in demand within the opposition field itself and fatigue with old faces.

“Kocharyan and his bloc are firmly associated with the confrontational agenda and the past crisis. At the same time, Karapetyan built his campaign on pragmatic economics and the protection of business. As a result, Karapetyan’s business resources and his status as a major The Russian-Armenian businessman's influence allowed him to accumulate the entire pool of pragmatically minded pro-Russian voters, displacing Kocharyan. For Kocharyan, this represents a significant reduction in influence and a consolidation of minority status, but not a complete disappearance. Kocharyan remains politically active, although his agenda can no longer claim leadership in the opposition. His electorate remains severely limited, as society remains divided, and the majority of citizens, even those dissatisfied with Pashinyan, do not want a return to the old order," Zolyan said.

The political scientist suggests viewing the domestic political struggle through the prism of the anti-corruption agenda.

“The authorities’ actions against the opposition were perceived by the ruling party as a legitimate fight against corruption and a confrontation with oligarchs, whose wealth is questionable, especially since there were hundreds of cases of these forces distributing election bribes. Naturally, the opposition will claim this is political persecution. This had a twofold impact on the final result: on the one hand, the authorities’ harsh actions mobilized Pashinyan’s supporters, who voted against the return of the oligarchs. On the other hand, it further angered and united Karapetyan’s core pro-Russian electorate, which allowed his bloc to maintain its 23-24% share despite intense pressure,” he concluded.

The pro-Russian forces’ indicator reflects a failure to achieve the key strategic goals of both sides, while for the opposition, it signifies the preservation of the status quo, which in itself works against it, believes Hakob Badalyan.

“The opposition’s main goal was not achieved; since the government retained its position, the previous status quo remains. Having failed to win, the opposition was left in an unfavorable environment, which the government itself continues to foster. Gagik Tsarukyan’s Prosperous Armenia, which failed to enter parliament, was among the three pro-Russian forces most vulnerable, against which barriers and pre-election pressure worked,” he told the Caucasian Knot.

The Strong Armenia bloc’s second place is due to the paradoxical foreign policy support from Russia: Moscow’s actions ultimately played into Pashinyan’s hands, but at the same time, they mobilized and consolidated the pro-Russian electorate.

“The Kremlin's open support for pro-Russian forces, on the one hand, rallied the wavering electorate around Pashinyan under the slogan of defending independence—not to trade independence for strawberries, the authorities said. On the other hand, the open demonstration of Russian interests clearly defined and mobilized the pro-Russian and pragmatic electorate around Karapetyan's bloc, propelling it to second place. The decline in Kocharyan's bloc's results shows that old approaches and previous formats of interaction with voters no longer produce the same effect. Without a modernized agenda, such forces will continue to lose influence,” Badalyan asserts.

He also sees a dual effect in the pre-election pressure on the opposition—it limited Karapetyan's bloc's electoral potential, but did not resolve the problem of polarization.

“The pressure and arrest of 700 opposition supporters, on the one hand, limited the bloc's potential, preventing it from gaining more than 23%. On the other hand, the harsh administrative pressure drove the situation deeper, depriving the elections of the ability to defuse public discontent and only further deepening the domestic political rift,” the observer emphasized.

Public figure Norayr Norikyan also considers the vote results a clear defeat for the opposition.

“For the collective opposition, this result is a crushing defeat. It’s a failure of inflated ambitions, because the opposition forces built their discourse on the idea that Nikol Pashinyan had no chance of winning. Their expectations were completely unfulfilled. The high level of civic activism came as a complete surprise to the opposition and upset all their plans. Pashinyan’s electorate mobilized to prevent forces perceived as Russian satellites from coming to power,” he told the Caucasian Knot.

Norikyan attributes Tsarukyan’s failure, whose party lost its chance to enter parliament, to both the strategic miscalculations of the opposition itself and the actions of external forces.

“The opposition made a mistake by not creating a unified power center. If Kocharyan, Tsarukyan, and Karapetyan had united around a single axis, public perception and the results would have been different. Furthermore, a separate nomination "Tsarukyan, who had also stated that he wasn't running for prime minister, seemed illogical, so the bulk of the opposition votes went to the other two candidates. Meanwhile, the protest electorate, which wanted to get rid of Pashinyan, was looking for an alternative to established leaders like Kocharyan. Some of the votes of those who had previously supported the former president shifted to Karapetyan's bloc, which had a more powerful financial and political base. And Karapetyan's bloc, despite pressure, took 23%, depriving Pashinyan of his coveted constitutional majority of three-fifths—63 seats out of 105," he explained.