A Constitution at the Crossroads: Armenia’s Reform Debate in a Shifting South

—Anna Vardanyan, political journalist and researcher, former advisor to the Vice Speaker of the Parliament of Armenia, and accredited journalist at the Constitutional Court of Armenia

Armenia’s constitutional reform debate is increasingly shaped by broader regional dynamics in the South Caucasus. At its core is the potential revision of references in the current text of the Armenian Constitution to the 1990 Declaration of Independence, now closely tied to normalization efforts with Azerbaijan and Turkey and the Washington-mediated peace process. In this context, constitutional change has become closely linked to questions of peace, regional order, and political continuity.

However, translating these strategic objectives into constitutional reform will depend not only on the regional diplomatic environment but also on the domestic political balance that emerged after Armenia’s 2026 parliamentary elections.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party secured a parliamentary victory in Armenia’s June 7, 2026 parliamentary elections but failed to obtain the constitutional majority needed to unilaterally amend the country’s Constitution. That outcome may complicate the government’s plans to adopt a new Constitution, a process Pashinyan has presented as necessary for Armenia’s institutional transformation and a new legal framework for state governance. Without the required two-thirds majority in parliament, the government would need to secure support from opposition lawmakers or rely on the constitutional procedures governing the adoption of a new Constitution, including a referendum if applicable, potentially slowing the reform agenda. Opposition forces have criticized the proposed constitutional overhaul, arguing that it could serve the government’s political interests rather than address Armenia’s deeper institutional challenges. The lack of a constitutional majority therefore leaves the future of the reform process uncertain. Although the government retains a parliamentary majority, it cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution and must instead seek support from opposition lawmakers or pursue constitutionally prescribed procedures requiring broader political legitimacy. Given the polarized political environment and the opposition’s resistance to revising the Constitution, constitutional change is likely to become one of the principal political challenges facing the new parliament.

Constitutional Principles and the Declaration of Independence

The current phase of constitutional discussion in Armenia is being driven as much by external strategic developments as by internal legal or institutional considerations. As the country engages in advanced peace negotiations with Azerbaijan—facilitated in part by Western actors—constitutional change is increasingly framed as a prerequisite for durable peace. Azerbaijan has called for the removal of constitutional language referencing Armenia’s 1990 Declaration of Independence. The Armenian Constitution’s preamble refers explicitly to the Declaration of Independence, adopted on August 23, 1990. That Declaration includes references to the Armenian SSR’s reunification with Nagorno-Karabakh, which Azerbaijan interprets as a territorial claim.

The removal of the reference to the Declaration of Independence does not, as a matter of law, necessarily require the adoption of a new Constitution. Nevertheless, the Armenian authorities have framed this change as part of a broader constitutional reform culminating in the adoption of a new Constitution, which, under the existing constitutional framework, is subject to approval by a nationwide referendum.

This would go beyond a symbolic amendment, reshaping the state’s foundational narrative. While the preamble does not establish directly enforceable norms, it guides constitutional interpretation and reflects core values, so its revision would carry both symbolic and interpretive weight. The issue has gained urgency amid renewed peace negotiations and external diplomatic pressure, potentially signaling a shift in the expressing of Armenia’s constitutional identity from historically rooted claims toward a more forward-looking, state-centric identity. Proponents argue that such a change would align the Constitution with Armenia’s current international obligations and facilitate peace. Critics, however, warn that it risks eroding national identity and conceding to external pressure without sufficient guarantees in return.

Inclusivity and Democratic Legitimacy

Within Armenia, constitutional reform has been discussed intermittently since the 2015 transition to a parliamentary system. However, the current phase is distinct in both urgency and framing. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has suggested the need for a “new constitution” that reflects contemporary realities, including post-war conditions and evolving regional relations. Later, he also indicated that his political force favors excluding references to the Declaration of Independence from a new Constitution, characterizing the document not as a foundation of statehood but as a source of prolonged conflict and dependency.

At the same time, the constitutional reform process has generated significant concerns regarding inclusivity and transparency. No official draft has been made public, constraining informed public debate and limiting broader societal engagement. While the authorities have indicated that a constitutional referendum is envisaged following the parliamentary elections, no clear timeline has been established, and any draft would first need to secure a two-thirds majority in parliament. According to the Ministry of Justice, the text has already been finalized and is currently under review within the ruling party, yet it is still deemed not ready for publication, with no detailed explanation provided for the delay or for when it might be disclosed. This absence is particularly striking given Armenia’s past constitutional reforms, such as those in 2005 and 2015, which—despite criticism—at least involved published drafts and formalized consultation processes.

The lack of a publicly available draft undermines the participatory dimension of constitution-making, which is widely regarded as essential to democratic legitimacy (see, for example, International IDEA’s guidelines on constitution-building). The exclusion of civil society, legal experts, and the wider public from meaningful engagement with the proposed text undermines democratic legitimacy. In Armenia, limited consultation further risks eroding trust in the process itself. While inclusive constitution-making typically involves expert drafting, public debate, parliamentary discussion, and referendums, the legitimacy of any popular vote will depend on prior deliberation.

Geopolitical Context: Peace Process and External Actors

The current constitutional debate in Armenia cannot be understood in isolation from the broader regional context. Following the 2020 war and subsequent developments, including Azerbaijan’s reassertion of control over Nagorno-Karabakh, the balance of power in the South Caucasus has shifted significantly.

Recent peace negotiations—some mediated in Washington—have emphasized mutual recognition of territorial integrity and the normalization of relations. Reports and analyses suggest that Azerbaijan has made constitutional changes in Armenia a key demand, particularly the removal of language perceived as irredentist. Turkey, for its part, has linked normalization with Armenia to progress in Armenia–Azerbaijan relations. Its strategic interest lies in opening regional transport corridors and consolidating its influence in the South Caucasus, often in coordination with Azerbaijan.

The United States has emerged as an increasingly active mediator, promoting a peace agreement that would stabilize the region and reduce Russian influence. In this context, constitutional reform in Armenia is seen not only as a domestic adjustment but as a signal of commitment to a new regional order.

Implications for the Regional Order

If successful, Armenia’s constitutional reform could facilitate a peace agreement, normalize relations with neighbors, and contribute to regional stability. It could also redefine Armenia’s position in the South Caucasus, potentially opening new economic and diplomatic opportunities.

However, the long-term stability of such an arrangement depends on mutual trust and reciprocal commitments. If reforms are perceived as one-sided concessions, they may generate domestic backlash and undermine sustainability.

Moreover, the role of external actors raises questions about the future balance of power.

A U.S.-mediated settlement may shift the region’s geopolitical orientation, but its durability will depend on local ownership and implementation.

Constitution-Making as Diplomacy

One of the most striking features of the current process is the transformation of constitution-making into a tool of foreign policy. Traditionally, constitutions are expressions of popular sovereignty, reflecting internal consensus. In Armenia’s case, however, external expectations appear to be shaping the agenda.

This raises important normative questions. Can a constitution retain legitimacy if it is perceived as externally driven? Comparative experience suggests that externally influenced constitutional processes—such as those in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Agreement) or Kosovo—often face long-term challenges related to ownership and legitimacy.

At the same time, proponents argue that Armenia’s situation is unique. Given the security environment and the need for peace, aligning constitutional language with international norms may be both pragmatic and necessary.

Yet, regardless of the competing arguments surrounding the reform, its implementation will ultimately hinge on whether it secures sufficient public legitimacy through the referendum process. This raises a key question for Armenia’s political future: what would happen if voters reject the proposed changes?

Scenarios: What If the Referendum Fails?

A failed referendum would have significant implications. Domestically, it could weaken the government’s authority and deepen political polarization. It might also signal public resistance to perceived concessions, particularly if the reforms are framed as externally imposed.

From a geopolitical perspective, failure could complicate the peace process. Azerbaijan may interpret it as a lack of commitment, potentially delaying or derailing negotiations. External mediators, including the United States, could face credibility challenges if agreements they support are not ratified domestically.

One possible scenario is a repeat referendum following revisions to the proposed text, an option that the Armenian Prime Minister has not ruled out. This approach has precedents in other countries, but it carries risks of reform fatigue and further polarization. Alternatively, the government could attempt incremental reforms, though this may not satisfy external expectations.

Regional Comparisons

Comparative examples from the South Caucasus offer useful insights. Georgia’s constitutional reforms, particularly those in 2017–2018, were domestically driven but also influenced by European integration goals. Azerbaijan, by contrast, has used constitutional amendments—such as those in 2016—to consolidate executive power.

Armenia’s case is distinct in that constitutional reform is directly linked to a peace process. This creates both opportunities and risks. On one hand, it allows for a comprehensive rethinking of the state’s legal and political framework. On the other, it exposes the process to external pressures that may undermine its legitimacy.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Armenia’s constitutional reform debate illustrates how deeply intertwined domestic legal processes and international politics have become. What might once have been a technical discussion about constitutional design is now a central component of regional diplomacy.

To ensure legitimacy and sustainability, the government should first publish a draft text and enable broad public consultation, as transparency is key to building trust. Second, reforms should reflect not only external expectations but also a coherent vision for Armenia’s future. Third, any constitutional concessions should be balanced by clear guarantees in the peace agreement.

Finally, the sequencing of elections and constitutional reform must be carefully managed. The June 7, 2026 parliamentary elections served as a de facto test of public support for the government’s broader political and diplomatic agenda, including constitutional change. Ultimately, the success of constitutional reform will depend on its ability to balance legal coherence, democratic legitimacy, and geopolitical pragmatism. If managed carefully, it could mark a turning point in Armenia’s development and contribute to a more stable South Caucasus. If not, it risks becoming a source of internal division and external vulnerability.

Suggested citation: Anna Vardanyan, A Constitution at the Crossroads: Armenia’s Reform Debate in a Shifting South Caucasus, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Aug. 14, 2026, at: class=”gmail_default” st1yle=”font-family:tahoma,sans-serif”>