Armenia will hold parliamentary elections on June 7 under circumstances that may seem disadvantageous for the governing Civil Contract Party. Recent surveys indicate that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s public support has fallen to around 32 percent in vote intention among all respondents, rising to 38 percent among likely voters, a sharp decline from the support he enjoyed after the 2018 Velvet Revolution.

This erosion of trust was reflected, in part, in the March 2025 municipal elections in Gyumri, Armenia’s second-largest city, where the Civil Contract party failed to secure a governing majority. 

Public dissatisfaction appears closely linked to several unresolved policy issues. The proposed peace agreement with Azerbaijan, brokered last August in Washington, remains deeply divisive, with the most recent polling showing public opinion almost evenly split, with 44 percent in support and 41 percent opposed. At the same time, Russia has intensified its efforts to shape Armenia’s political and information environment, employing methods similar to those observed earlier in Moldova and Georgia. 

Despite these pressures, Pashinyan continues, for now, to lead most pre-election projections. This creates a central paradox in the 2026 contest: an unpopular prime minister remains the frontrunner largely because the opposition appears even weaker and divided. 

Ultimately, the election will determine whether Armenia continues to distance itself from Moscow or moves back into Russia’s sphere of influence. 

Several factors explain the paradox of the upcoming elections, though none of them is decisive on its own. The first is the structure of Armenia’s electoral system, which strongly favors the largest political force in a fragmented field. Under the current election rules, a party can convert a relatively modest share of the vote into a dominant parliamentary position if its competitors remain divided.

With Civil Contract polling at around 32 percent in the most recent polls, most opposition parties remain clustered near the electoral threshold of 5 percent. Their support is dispersed across multiple platforms, limiting their ability to challenge the ruling party effectively. Even if several opposition groups were to reach 8-10 percent individually, they would still struggle, in aggregate terms, to surpass Civil Contract.

A second constraint on the opposition is reputational. Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, both former presidents who continue to dominate the main opposition networks, register consistently low levels of public trust. Both remain closely associated with the pre-2018 political order, and that legacy continues to shape voter perceptions. Survey data suggest that around 60 percent of Armenians distrust both the government and the opposition. Among those who express a preference, however, Pashinyan still outperforms his rivals by a wide margin. This reflects less a vote of confidence than a pragmatic calculation: many voters appear reluctant to return to figures they associate with the old system. 

Beyond the traditional opposition, Samvel Karapetyan was for a while widely seen as representing a potential wildcard. The Russian-Armenian billionaire and owner of Electric Networks of Armenia entered the political arena in mid-2025 after being detained on charges related to alleged attempts to destabilize the government. Karapetyan is not closely linked to the pre-2018 elite, and his profile differs in important ways from that of established opposition figures. But Pashinyan’s government appears to have successfully blunted his ability to influence the election’s outcome. 

Karapetyan was the force behind the formation in late 2025 of a pro-Russian opposition bloc called Strong Armenia. The bloc nominated him as its prime ministerial candidate in early 2026, but he was deemed ineligible due to the fact that the Armenian constitution prohibits dual citizens from running for a parliamentary seat. Karapetyan holds Russian and Cypriot citizenship in addition to having an Armenian passport. 

The Pashinyan-dominated parliament subsequently amended the electoral code in ways that have hampered Strong Armenia’s ability to campaign. And in late May, Armenia’s Investigative Committee announced an investigation into Narek Karapetyan, Samvel’s nephew and a leading Strong Armenia candidate, over allegations of concealing Russian citizenship, which is a disqualifying status under Armenian constitutional law.

According to an investigative report published May 19 by an exiled Russian media outlet, The Insider, Samvel Karapetyan has ties to Russia’s Federal Security Service, known as the FSB. The report also published evidence that the Kremlin is engaged in a wide-ranging campaign to influence the Armenian election’s outcome in ways that favor Russian interests.

Since April 2025, Kremlin-linked disinformation networks have increasingly targeted Armenia’s political space. Moscow has reportedly tasked Sergei Kiriyenko, who previously oversaw influence operations in Moldova and Georgia, with coordinating efforts in Armenia. The effectiveness of these initiatives, however, remains unclear.

The Moldovan experience suggests that even substantial Russian investments in information campaigns do not necessarily guarantee success when domestic institutions are resilient and Western partners are engaged. In December 2025, Armenia requested additional EU support in this area, and Brussels agreed to expand its anti-disinformation assistance. 

Beyond the information campaign, Russia retains significant economic leverage. It accounts for a large share of Armenia’s foreign trade and continues to supply natural gas at preferential rates. In reality, however, overt economic pressure can prove counterproductive by reinforcing Pashinyan’s narrative of the need for external diversification.

In the absence of a unified opposition or a broadly credible alternative, Pashinyan seems likely to retain power. As long as opposition forces remain fragmented, any runoff scenario would probably favor the incumbent over former presidents whose public support remains limited.

The deeper challenge, however, is one of legitimacy. Armenia may emerge from the election governed either by a prime minister with minimal popular backing or by opposition figures who also command little public trust. In either case, the next government is likely to face constraints in asserting a strong mandate.

This matters beyond Armenia itself. The country occupies a strategically sensitive position in the South Caucasus and has traditionally been a Russian foothold in the region. A Pashinyan victory would likely consolidate Armenia’s gradual integration with Western institutions, including closer ties with the EU and the United States, as well as continued engagement in the peace process with Azerbaijan. An opposition victory could, at least in the short term, redirect this trajectory.

Either outcome points to a period of governance marked by limited public confidence at a time when Armenia must make far-reaching strategic choices.