Azernews.Az

Elnur Enveroglu

Read more

As elections approach in Armenia, Yerevan is meeting the moment not with its usual intensity of tension, but rather with an air of calm and quiet. Yet there is a saying: after every calm, a storm inevitably follows. This may well signal that, as the country edges closer to what could prove a decisive day, more serious developments lie ahead.

Among the opposition leaders contesting the elections are former clan figures – more precisely, a segment of the political elite in Armenia that champions separatism and revanchism. Even the Church, at odds with the current authorities, has begun to show its hand as the election process unfolds, lending support to the campaigns of those aligned with its political course.

In truth, Armenia is undergoing one of the most difficult transitional periods in its modern history. This phase, shaped by the aftermath of the Second Karabakh War, has forced the country to pass through a gateway of hard truths and confront a new reality. That reality is stark: either embrace development or turn away from the future in order to retreat into the past.

How has this come about? Perhaps for the first time, Armenia has experienced an eight-year political period under a leader capable of confronting reality. Throughout this time, no leader has so transparently exposed the country’s economic imbalances and the hollow nature of revanchist ideas to Armenian society – or perhaps there were such figures, but they were simply never able to remain in power long enough.

Armenia’s political structure appears, in many ways, to mirror the mindset of its society. Those who attempt to introduce new ideas and perspectives are often boycotted or removed altogether. The events of 27 October 1999 stand as a stark example: the assassination of former prime minister Vazgen Sargsyan, parliamentary speaker Karen Demirchyan, and six other political figures inside the parliament building. Their killing, on the eve of preparations for a peace agreement concerning Karabakh at an OSCE meeting in Istanbul, was hardly coincidental. According to various sources, an order emanating from Moscow dictated that the figures in question be eliminated or that the planned peace talks in Istanbul be derailed by any means necessary. The outcome of that meeting could have altered the trajectory of the Karabakh issue entirely. At times, individuals operating under the banner of “patriotism”, yet serving special intelligence interests, are capable of upending entire political agendas and reshaping the course of history.

Even today, such elements remain active both within and beyond the country’s borders. When required, they reach into the dustbins of history, manipulating archived narratives to serve their own ends and deliberately aggravate the situation.

In Paris, an Armenian diaspora forum has once again attempted to stir controversy by bringing the Karabakh issue and the so-called Armenian genocide back into the spotlight. After a prolonged period of relative dormancy, diaspora activism appears to have been rekindled just months before the elections. These calls are directed squarely at the current authorities – the very government that, for the past six years, has sought to present the realities of the South Caucasus to its society.

So, what future does this mindset, which persistently drives Armenia towards conflict, envision for the country? The answer is simple: Armenia has long functioned as a forepost state, designed to generate constant instability in the region. Leadership in such a system is both short-lived and transient. What endures, however, is the unchanging ideology embedded within Armenia itself.