On June 7, Armenians went to cast their vote in parliamentary elections. With the highest turnout since 2018, Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party won the majority. “Despite trauma, displacement, and uncertainty, citizens chose to engage. They chose ballots over violence, dialogue over division, and participation over apathy. In doing so, they chose hope”, writes Gulnara Shahinian, Member of the ICDR, founder and director of Democracy Today.
“The lesson of Armenia’s election is not that the country has chosen Europe over Russia. It is that Armenians have chosen to preserve room for maneuver. Europe’s role should be to help them keep it,” warns Katia Glod, ICDR member and Deputy Head of Foreign Policy at New Eurasian Strategy Centre.
Gulnara Shahinian
Member of the ICDR, founder and director of Democracy Today, Armenia
There are moments in the life of a nation when an election becomes more than a political event. It becomes a reflection of who people are, what they have endured, and what they still dare to hope for. For Armenia, June 7, 2026, was one of those moments.
In modern Armenia, I can hardly remember another election where people stood in long lines—sometimes for more than half an hour—just to cast their vote. Families came together. Parents brought their children not only to vote, but to show them what democracy looks like in practice. It was a quiet civic lesson: the future of a country is shaped by participation, not by passivity.
Nearly 59 percent of eligible voters participated in parliamentary elections. Behind this figure were countless personal stories shaped by war, displacement, loss, and uncertainty. Many citizens had lived through the consequences of conflict, the forced displacement of more than 115,000 Armenians from Artsakh, persistent economic hardship, and years of political polarization. Yet, they still chose to participate. In their choice lies the essence of this election.
Democracy, in Armenia’s case, is not an abstract system. It is a lived experience shaped by struggle. Since independence, Armenia has chosen democracy as the foundation of its statehood. It has done so while facing war, insecurity, regional instability, and constant geopolitical pressure. This path has come at a high cost, but it has also cultivated something essential: a society that continues to believe in its right to decide its own future.
The June 7 elections were therefore more than a routine parliamentary vote. They became a defining moment in Armenia’s contemporary history—a collective decision about security, peace, sovereignty, and the country’s place in an increasingly unstable world. These elections took place during one of the most difficult periods since independence. The consequences of war continue to shape daily life. The displacement of Armenians from Artsakh remains a deep national trauma. Security concerns persist. Economic pressures continue. Regional and global geopolitical tensions have intensified. People chose democracy at the time of trauma.
Trauma does not only leave physical scars; it reshapes trust, perception, and political behavior. In societies affected by trauma, fear and uncertainty often grow stronger, and political polarization deepens. In such contexts, democratic participation is not guaranteed—it becomes an act of resilience.
On June 7, Armenians chose participation over withdrawal. They chose engagement over silence. That choice matters.
It suggests that even under conditions of uncertainty and grief, citizens continue to see active democracy as a space where their voice still has meaning.
The election campaign reflected the central dilemmas facing Armenian society. Public debate revolved around urgent and deeply personal questions: How can Armenia ensure its security in a volatile region? What does a just and lasting peace require? How can sovereignty and dignity be preserved while pursuing stability and development? These were not theoretical debates. They were lived questions, present in every household conversation about the future.
The elections therefore represented not only a contest between political parties but also a broader societal decision between competing visions of Armenia’s future—between different interpretations of security, peace, and development in a fragile regional environment. Doing so, Armenia joined the family of democratic states.
Like many democracies today, Armenia faces challenges that extend beyond traditional political competition.
Hybrid threats—including disinformation, cyber risks, and external efforts to influence public discourse—have become part of the political environment. Not only candidates who were not citizens of the country have been send by Russia to compete, but also many dual citizens were bribed to come to Armenia to support the Russian candidate.
These pressures rarely aim only to shape electoral outcomes. Their deeper objective is to erode trust, deepen divisions, and weaken confidence in democratic institutions themselves.
In such conditions, the resilience of democracy depends not only on formal institutions but also on societal awareness, media independence, digital literacy, and civic responsibility. Elections alone are not enough; democracy requires continuous protection.
One of the most important features of the June 7 elections was the role of Armenian civil society.
Independent journalists, election observers, human rights defenders, youth organizations, women’s groups, and community initiatives worked throughout the electoral process to strengthen transparency, counter misinformation, and promote informed participation.
Much of this work remained invisible to the wider public. Yet it played a crucial role in maintaining trust in the process.
Civil society acted as a bridge between citizens and institutions. It helped ensure that elections were not only conducted, but also observed, explained, and understood. “Democracy Today” joined many civil society organizations to monitor elections in the communities.
This is a reminder that democracy is not sustained by governments alone. It is sustained by citizens who are willing to protect it—often quietly, consistently, and without recognition.
Women played a vital role throughout the electoral process—not only as voters and candidates, but also as journalists, observers, educators, peacebuilders, and community leaders. Their participation reflects a broader democratic truth: inclusion strengthens resilience. When women are meaningfully engaged in public life, democratic institutions become more accountable, more responsive, and better equipped to manage complexity. Their leadership is not symbolic—it is structural to democratic sustainability.
The elections also highlight an important shift in how security is understood. Security is no longer defined solely by military capacity or territorial defense. It is also shaped by trust in institutions, social cohesion, economic opportunity, human rights, and the ability of citizens to participate in shaping their future. This is the essence of human security: protecting people as much as borders. Without trust, inclusion, and dignity, no society can be truly secure, regardless of its military strength. Conversely, societies that invest in democratic participation and social cohesion build deeper and more sustainable resilience.
The significance of Armenia’s June 7 elections extends far beyond its borders.
Across the world, democracies are under pressure—from war, authoritarian tendencies, disinformation, and declining public trust. In this global context, Armenia offers an important lesson.
Democracy is not tested in moments of comfort. It is tested in moments of uncertainty.
It survives when citizens continue to participate even when circumstances are difficult, when institutions are defended under pressure, and when hope is sustained despite loss.
The June 7 elections did not resolve all of Armenia’s challenges. The country still faces complex questions about peace, security, development, justice, and reconciliation.
But they revealed something essential about Armenian society. Despite trauma, displacement, and uncertainty, citizens chose to engage. They chose ballots over violence, dialogue over division, and participation over apathy. In doing so, they chose hope.
And hope, when collectively expressed, becomes more than an emotion. It becomes a political force.
The June 7 elections remind us that democracy is not a destination reached once and for all. It is a continuous act of courage—built through participation, sustained through trust, and renewed with every generation.
On that day, Armenia did not simply hold an election. Armenian people chose hope.
Katia Glod
Member of the ICDR, Deputy Head of Foreign Policy at New Eurasian Strategy Centre, United Kingdom
The victory of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party in Armenia’s parliamentary elections has been widely interpreted as a victory for Europe and a defeat for Russia. While understandable, this reading risks encouraging precisely the wrong policy response from Brussels.
The election was not primarily a geopolitical referendum. Nor did it produce a decisive strategic defeat for Moscow.
Instead, it highlighted a reality that European policymakers have often struggled to recognise: Armenia is pursuing diversification, not alignment. Its leadership is seeking to reduce dependence on Russia while avoiding a rupture with Moscow. The EU’s challenge is therefore not to pull Armenia into the Western camp, but to help it build the resilience necessary to sustain an independent foreign policy.
This distinction matters because Armenia occupies a very different position from Ukraine or Moldova.
Despite growing tensions with Russia, Armenia remains deeply integrated into Russian economic structures. Russia is a major trading partner, investor, energy supplier and destination for Armenian labour migrants. Armenia remains a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and continues to benefit from economic links established over decades. The country is neither capable of, nor interested in, severing these ties overnight.
The election therefore did not represent a choice between Russia and Europe. Rather, Armenian voters renewed Pashinyan’s mandate despite sustained attempts by Russia-aligned actors to shape the political environment through economic pressure, disinformation and support for opposition forces. Moscow failed to secure its preferred outcome, but it retains substantial leverage.
This should temper any temptation in European capitals to view the election as the beginning of Armenia’s irreversible geopolitical realignment.
Indeed, the election may prove less significant than the political battles that lie ahead.
The most consequential question facing Armenia is not who governs, but whether the country can successfully conclude a peace agreement with Azerbaijan and normalise relations with Turkey. Such an outcome would transform Armenia’s strategic position more profoundly than any election result. Open borders would create alternative trade routes, reduce economic isolation and gradually diminish some of the structural dependencies that have tied Armenia to Russia since independence.
For precisely this reason, the peace process is likely to become the next focus of Russian influence operations.
During the campaign, observers documented a sophisticated information environment shaped by fear-based narratives, AI-generated content, anonymous online networks, and coordinated disinformation campaigns. The objective increasingly appears not simply to persuade voters, but to undermine trust in institutions, deepen social divisions, and generate democratic fatigue. Future campaigns are likely to focus on portraying any compromise with Azerbaijan as national capitulation and on eroding confidence in the institutions responsible for negotiating peace.
The EU should prepare now for this next phase.
Yet Europe also faces a different challenge: avoiding the temptation to personalise its Armenia policy. The election generated understandable enthusiasm among many European policymakers. Armenia remains one of the few countries in the wider neighbourhood where democratic competition remains meaningful, civil society remains active and public demand for reform remains strong. But European support should not become synonymous with support for Pashinyan.
This is where Moldova offers a useful cautionary lesson. The EU’s support has been essential to Moldova’s democratic resilience and European integration. However, European partners have at times appeared more comfortable supporting particular reform-oriented leaders than strengthening the institutions that constrain executive power. Such perceptions have contributed to criticism that Europe is more interested in political outcomes than democratic processes.
Brussels should avoid making the same mistake in Armenia. The objective should not be to strengthen Pashinyan. It should be to strengthen Armenia. That means prioritising public administration reform, judicial independence, parliamentary oversight, local government capacity, media pluralism, education reform, energy diversification and economic resilience. It also means remaining willing to criticise democratic shortcomings, even when committed reformers are in power.
This principle matters because Armenia’s democratic future cannot depend on any single political leader. The election itself illustrated this point. While some observers viewed the entry of Samvel Karapetyan’s Strong Armenia alliance into parliament primarily through the lens of Russian influence, others argued that the absence of a constitutional majority for the governing party could strengthen democratic accountability. A more competitive parliament, provided it operates within democratic rules, may ultimately contribute more to long-term resilience than overwhelming dominance by any governing force.
The broader lesson is that Europe should view Armenia less as a battleground in its competition with Russia and more as a state seeking to expand its strategic autonomy.
Russia’s influence is unlikely to disappear. Moscow will continue to use its established toolkit of economic pressure, migration leverage, information operations and political influence. Armenia will remain constrained by geography, economic interdependence and regional security realities. EU membership is not on the horizon, and Armenian policymakers understand this.
The task for Europe is therefore not to replace Russia in Armenia. It is to help Armenia reduce its vulnerabilities. If Brussels treats Armenia primarily as another front in a geopolitical struggle with Moscow, it risks encouraging polarisation, over-personalising its partnerships and reinforcing the very narratives that Russian influence operations seek to exploit.
If, however, it focuses on strengthening institutions rather than personalities, supporting resilience rather than allegiance, and helping create the conditions for sustainable peace, it has an opportunity to support one of the most important democratic transitions in the wider European neighbourhood.
The lesson of Armenia’s election is not that the country has chosen Europe over Russia. It is that Armenians have chosen to preserve room for manoeuvre. Europe’s role should be to help them keep it.
The views expressed in these works are the responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forum 2000 Foundation or its staff.
