RA ex-FM: Authorities do not become democratic just because they  speak language of West

ArmInfo.  The international interpretation of the recent parliamentary elections in Armenia has proven dangerously superficial. Most foreign media presented the elections as a simple geopolitical standoff between a pro-Western  government and a supposedly pro- Russian opposition. This narrative  may be convenient for foreign audiences, but it is deeply misleading,  turning a profound national crisis into a diplomatic slogan, thereby  ignoring the true meaning of what happened. This is what former  Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan writes.

"These elections were not a referendum on Armenian preferences-Moscow  or Brussels. They were not an ideological contest between East and  West. Above all, they were a national protest against humiliation,  defeat, coercion, and the ongoing destruction of Armenian statehood.  A clear majority of Armenian voters rejected the path of further  concessions, capitulation, and the destruction of the historical,  constitutional, and civilizational foundations of the state. Official  results may suggest otherwise, but the political reality is clear:  Nikol Pashinyan has not earned the trust of the Armenian people," the  former Foreign Minister noted.

According to him, these were not simply elections in which victory  was contested; these were elections whose legitimacy was  fundamentally undermined. The process was marked by an atmosphere of  intimidation, administrative control, selective use of force, and  manipulation in the post-election process.  The ruling party's claim  to victory is inseparable from the broader power mechanisms that  shape elections before, during, and after election day, when state  institutions cease to function as neutral guardians of the public  will and instead become instruments of maintaining the power of a  single state. The result is not democracy, but a managed government.

"Therefore, the central question is not whether Armenia should have  relations with the West or with Russia.  Armenia must pursue a  sovereign foreign policy based on its own national interests. Foreign  policy orientation cannot serve as a mask for domestic illegitimacy.  Authorities do not become democratic simply because they speak the  language of the West, and no geopolitical label can justify rigging  elections, suppressing opponents, or destroying institutional  balance. The June 7 vote was about something much deeper than  diplomacy. The Armenian people are well aware of what is being  prepared against them; they hear Azerbaijan's demands, they see  pressure for constitutional change, they understand the danger hidden  behind the language of "normalization" when it is associated with  silencing national claims, weakening historical memory, and accepting  new territorial and political concessions. They know that the issue  of the so-called Azerbaijani "enclaves," the pressure to change the  constitution, and the constant demand that Armenia renounce the  political legacy of Artsakh are not isolated technical issues. This  is part of a larger attempt to turn Armenia into a weaker and more  submissive state. Armenia does not need foreign forgiveness for  internal lawlessness, does not need a formal parliament or an  artificially created mandate.  Armenia does not need authorities that  use the language of peace while simultaneously preparing the  population for further capitulation. And Armenia does not need the  national debate to turn into a caricature of a choice between Russia  and the West. The real choice facing Armenia is different. It is a  choice between dignity and submission, between constitutional order  and executive power, between genuine peace and forced capitulation,  between a sovereign national future and the gradual elimination of  the Armenian question from Armenia's political life. The Armenian  people have already spoken more clearly than the official results  indicate. They did not vote for a new round of humiliation. They did  not vote to erase Artsakh from national memory. They did not vote to  consider every Azerbaijani demand inevitable. They did not vote to  exchange sovereignty for "Foreign applause. He voted for Armenia, for  its dignity, identity, constitutional order, and right to exist not  as a bargaining chip between great powers, but as a sovereign state,"  Vardan Oskanyan wrote.