Armenia’s 2026 parliamentary elections
Armenians will go to the polls on 7 June to elect a new parliament. During the campaign, 18 political forces have vigorously argued that voters should entrust them with shaping the country’s future for the next five years.
Yet the main contenders and frontrunners were already clear long before the official campaign began. That has not changed. What has changed is the intensity of the race, which has exceeded expectations.
Political rivals have crossed virtually every red line. Even family matters, which politicians largely kept out of political battles in the past, have become a prominent feature of this campaign.
- ‘Sensational but false’: scrutiny of election promises made by some political forces in Armenia
- Pashinyan comments on gas prices, recent assault and exposing agents as key election looms
- Fake news in Armenia claims ‘Curtain’ programme can manipulate election results
An election campaign marked by insults
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said:
“Who are these people? The pseudo-elites of Karabakh, get out of here. Artur Osipyan, bang your head against the wall. You should have gone and died instead of our children. Robbers, scum. You held the people of Karabakh hostage. Why are you even alive to talk about 5,000 victims? You bastard.”
Samvel Karapetyan said:
“They call me ‘Tashir Samo’ — and I take that as a sign of respect. My friends used to call me ‘Kaluga Samo’. They did not call me ‘Nikol the loser’.”
Former president Robert Kocharyan said:
“Hey, big man [addressing the prime minister], what makes you keep hurting the people?”
These are direct quotations from the leading contenders in Armenia’s parliamentary elections.
Observers generally regard four political forces as the main contenders in Armenia’s parliamentary elections:
- the Civil Contract party, led by incumbent Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan;
- the Armenia Alliance bloc, headed by former president Robert Kocharyan;
- the recently established Strong Armenia party, led by Russian-Armenian businessman Samvel Karapetyan;
- the Prosperous Armenia party of businessman Gagik Tsarukyan.
Beyond terms such as “loser”, “big man” and “scum”, Armenian politicians have added expressions like “street thugs”, “agents”, “revanchists and corrupt figures”, and “bastards” to their political vocabulary.
Politicians now say to each other at campaign events what social media users have been writing about them online for years.
Few people still care who started it or when it began. The cycle has taken on a life of its own. Politicians have largely ignored calls from Armenia’s human rights defender and civil society groups to observe basic standards of political ethics.
Here is what Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said about the son of one of the country’s wealthiest businessmen, Gagik Tsarukyan, leader of the Prosperous Armenia party:
“Gagik Tsarukyan, has your tongue grown longer? I’m telling you, we will drag your puppy back from Belarus by the scruff of the neck and hold him accountable. You won’t be able to run anywhere, puppy. Your father won’t save you.”
The businessman’s son, Nver Tsarukyan, is on an international wanted list following an incident at a casino in the resort town of Tsakhkadzor. A confrontation reportedly broke out between him, his security guards and casino staff. The incident involved gunfire.
Nver Tsarukyan later left the country. Authorities have linked him to a criminal case involving alleged hooliganism and robbery.
Many Armenians believe that, regardless of those allegations, such language was inappropriate for the country’s leader because it involved a politician’s family.
In Tsarukyan’s case, however, Pashinyan went even further. The dispute expanded beyond rhetoric and into threats affecting business assets. The prime minister announced the start of a process to nationalise the Ararat cement plant, which belongs to Tsarukyan.
Pashinyan also said:
“We will begin returning Gagik Tsarukyan’s houses to the people. And I am telling you this: by 2031, Tsarukyan’s mansion on the hill must become a care centre for the elderly.”
Smear campaigns and revelations from international media
As it later turned out, candidates for parliamentary seats were only warming up. The campaign soon moved beyond inflammatory rhetoric to include compromising material and high-profile revelations.
Whether those claims are true or false has, in many ways, become secondary. Law enforcement agencies continue to examine some of the allegations and reports of possible crimes. At the same time, most observers recognise that Armenia is going through a major political contest, one that inevitably produces sensational accusations.
Among other “bombshell revelations”, Samvel Karapetyan claimed that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan owns property in Canada.
“Pashinyan will enjoy his house in Canada after bringing so much misery to Armenia.”
In response, the prime minister filed a second lawsuit against the leader of the Strong Armenia party. The first concerned Karapetyan’s claim that Pashinyan uses hallucinogenic mushrooms before public appearances.
The campaign has produced no shortage of scandals.
The publication The Insider released an investigation into what it described as Kremlin efforts to influence the outcome of Armenia’s parliamentary elections and remove Pashinyan from power.
Among other claims, the investigation alleged that Karapetyan had previously worked for Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB).
Armenian officials quickly circulated the report and again accused Karapetyan of acting on Moscow’s behalf and serving Russian interests.
Before Armenian society had time to absorb that revelation, another controversy emerged. Reports claimed that Narek Karapetyan, the top candidate on Strong Armenia’s electoral list, holds Russian citizenship.
The Investigative Committee later said that the parliamentary candidate had concealed information about his foreign citizenship. Investigators subsequently opened a criminal case under the relevant article of the law.
The courts are unlikely to consider the case before election day. As a result, many observers see the affair primarily through the lens of Armenia’s election campaign.
The issue of peace and war
Unsurprisingly, the candidates failed to establish a constructive dialogue. Yet politicians remained true to form and focused on their strongest arguments. Another defining feature of this election is that the main campaign messages and political selling points were clear from the outset.
The campaign slogan of Prime Minister Civil Contract is: “Stand for Peace.”
The prime minister describes his opponents as a “three-headed war party”, referring to the political forces led by Samvel Karapetyan, Robert Kocharyan and Gagik Tsarukyan.
Pashinyan has even named a specific timeframe for a possible new war if he loses office — the autumn of this year.
The ruling party presents the initialling of a peace agreement with Azerbaijan as one of its key achievements. Its argument is straightforward: the opposition does not intend to continue Pashinyan’s policy towards Azerbaijan.
According to the prime minister, all three opposition forces advocate a “revision of the peace” established with Azerbaijan.
In practical terms, he says, this would mean refusing to sign a peace treaty, halting the border delimitation and demarcation process, and rejecting constitutional changes. It would also involve bringing the Karabakh issue back to the forefront.
Pashinyan’s party argues that such a course could trigger a new war, one that might ultimately cost Armenia its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The opposition, however, rejects claims that its policies would lead to conflict.
Former president Robert Kocharyan has argued that Pashinyan, who led Armenia during a war that ended in defeat, has no right to frighten the public with warnings of another war.
Kocharyan contends that, if the current prime minister remains in power, he will continue making concessions to Azerbaijan on every major disputed issue.
Among those issues, Kocharyan cites proposed constitutional changes and the question of enclaves.
The leader of the Strong Armenia party, Samvel Karapetyan, has gone even further. He claims that another term for Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan would result in the resettlement of 300,000 Azerbaijanis in Armenia.
“If we fail to stop the influx of 300,000 Azerbaijanis into Armenia, which Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev have planned, none of our economic programmes will be achievable. The main jobs will go to Azerbaijanis. That is why, at the first meeting of our government, we will adopt the most important law for our country. It will prohibit Azerbaijanis from buying our land, buying our homes or receiving land as a gift.”
At the same time, Armenia’s current constitution already prohibits all foreign citizens — not only Azerbaijanis — from purchasing land in the country.
Karapetyan does not mention that fact. However, representatives of the ruling party have repeatedly highlighted it in response to his claims.
Russian agents and a possible shift in foreign policy
Among other things, Armenia’s current parliamentary elections stand out because the leading candidates are offering voters distinct foreign policy visions in the event of victory. In previous elections, few politicians openly discussed European integration. Even fewer spoke about what they saw as Moscow’s attempts to interfere directly in Armenia’s internal affairs. This time, however, those themes have become central to the campaign. The ruling party has been the main force promoting them.
- ‘Russia trying to send tens of thousands of voters to Armenia’s elections’: debate in Yerevan
- Pressure from Russia on Armenia ahead of elections: economy as tool of influence
- Leak reveals secret documents on Russia’s hybrid attacks against Armenia
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his team routinely describe Samvel Karapetyan, Robert Kocharyan and Gagik Tsarukyan as Kremlin-backed candidates and agents of Russian influence.
Government representatives openly argue that a change of power would place Armenia under much stronger Russian influence and reverse the country’s achievements in building closer ties with the West.
The opposition, for its part, does not deny that its victory would bring noticeable changes to Armenia’s foreign policy. In this context, opposition leaders identify the restoration of relations with Moscow as a key priority.
According to opposition politicians, if Armenia fails to rebuild those ties, the country could become heavily dependent on Azerbaijan and Turkey.
They argue that Ankara has yet to agree to fully open the border with Armenia. They also contend that, if economic relations with Russia deteriorate further, Armenia would have to reorient its economy towards Western markets. The shortest route to Europe, however, runs through neighbouring Turkey.
The opposition claims that, in pursuit of this strategy, Pashinyan is prepared not only to abandon Karabakh but also to compromise elements of Armenian national identity.
Among the issues they cite are the symbolic role of Mount Ararat and the place of the Armenian Genocide in the country’s historical memory and public discourse.
A pivotal election for Armenia
Both camps argue that the outcome of this election could determine Armenia’s future. Where they differ is in their assessment of the main threat facing the country.
For the government, the greatest danger is a new war, further territorial losses and Armenia’s eventual return to a state of complete dependence on Russia.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his team argue that only the current course — signing a peace agreement with Azerbaijan, demarcating borders and normalising relations with neighbouring states — can preserve Armenia’s statehood and sovereignty.
According to the authorities, any attempt to reverse these processes would trigger a new escalation. They warn that such a scenario would force Armenia to seek protection under Russia’s military and political umbrella once again and would effectively deprive the country of an independent foreign policy.
The opposition presents the exact opposite argument.
Its leaders contend that Pashinyan’s policies are leading not to peace but to a gradual loss of Armenia’s agency in favour of Azerbaijan and Turkey.
They argue that continued concessions to Baku, the abandonment of previous “red lines” and efforts to open a “peace era” at any cost will ultimately leave Armenia economically, politically and even demographically dependent on its neighbours.
In this view, Armenia risks becoming a weak state that must take the interests of Ankara and Baku into account on virtually every major issue.
Political analyst Robert Ghevondyan summarised the competing narratives:
“For the past five or six years, the ruling party has argued that a change of power would lead to war in Armenia or the wider region. They link this message to the peace agenda they introduced and present their policies as a guarantee of peace.
The main opposition, by contrast, argues that Armenia’s statehood will come under threat if the current government remains in power. The authorities naturally respond with the opposite claim. The opposition says statehood is at risk, while the government says the opposition is leading the country towards war.”
Does an opposition victory mean Armenia would return to Russia’s sphere of influence?
Ghevondyan has little doubt.
He notes that the leading opposition figures have long expressed openly pro-Russian views. Samvel Karapetyan also holds Russian citizenship. For that reason, his name does not appear on his party’s electoral list.
“If pro-Russian forces come to power — and I primarily mean Samvel Karapetyan and Robert Kocharyan — Armenia’s foreign policy will undergo a 180-degree shift. Armenia will deepen its relations with Russia and freeze its relations with the West. There is really nothing to debate here. These political forces and their associates openly say they are ready to cooperate with Russia. They believe Armenia should not pursue foreign policy steps that contradict Russian interests.
On the other hand, I am not convinced that, if the current authorities win re-election — which remains the most likely scenario — Armenia will move directly towards Europe. Armenia has already crossed lines in its relationship with Russia that make a safe return to Russia’s sphere of influence unlikely. I do not see such a possibility. But I also cannot guarantee that Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party will move towards the European Union quickly and without hesitation,” the analyst said.
What voter surveys suggest
Despite the unprecedented intensity of the campaign and the barrage of accusations exchanged by rival camps, opinion polls indicate that a large share of Armenian society remains either undecided or deeply disillusioned with politics.
According to the latest survey by International Republican Institute, 40% of respondents do not trust any political leader. Another 13% either declined to answer or said they did not know whom they trusted.
At the same time, Prime Minister Civil Contract retains a clear lead in voter preferences.
The poll gives Civil Contract 32% support, compared with 6% for Strong Armenia, led by Samvel Karapetyan, 4% for the Armenia Alliance bloc of Robert Kocharyan, and 3% for Gagik Tsarukyan’s Prosperous Armenia.
However, almost a quarter of respondents (23%) remain undecided, while more than 20% declined to reveal their voting intentions.
The figures suggest that, despite the ruling party’s strong lead in the polls, a significant portion of the electorate remains politically disengaged or is still weighing its options.
As a result, the outcome of the election may ultimately depend on which political force succeeds in winning over these undecided voters.
Armenia’s 2026 parliamentary elections