Armenia is currently undergoing a seismic change in how society relates to the state. While high politics remains an important factor, a growing number of citizens are starting to actively judge governments on their ability to improve everyday life.
August 7, 2026 – Anna Vardanyan – Analysis
Armenia is navigating one of the most consequential periods in its post-Soviet history. The legacies of the Armenian Genocide, the Nagorno-Karabakh wars, and the 2023 exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh continue to shape how citizens view the state, its institutions, and its ability to provide security and justice. Following the June 2026 parliamentary elections, debates over political legitimacy have become increasingly intertwined with questions of memory, identity and national belonging.
State legitimacy in Armenia is not determined by elections or constitutional authority alone. It is built – or eroded – through people’s everyday experiences with public institutions, local governance and official narratives. These perceptions are further shaped by actors beyond Armenia’s borders. Diaspora communities, international organizations, foreign governments and transnational media all influence public debate and competing visions of Armenia’s future.
Journalists, civil society representatives, displaced communities, and other local voices offer a window into how legitimacy is understood and contested in a rapidly changing political landscape. Their experiences reveal that trust in the state is continuously negotiated through lived experience, collective memory and transnational connections, making legitimacy an evolving social process rather than a fixed institutional condition.
State–society legitimacy after the 2026 parliamentary elections in Armenia
Armenia’s parliamentary elections, held on June 7th 2026, became an important test of state legitimacy in a post-conflict society still grappling with the consequences of the 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, the 2023 forced displacement of more than 100,000 Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, ongoing peace negotiations with Azerbaijan, and a changing geopolitical orientation toward closer cooperation with the European Union.
According to the Central Electoral Commission, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party won 49.7 per cent of the vote, retaining its parliamentary majority. At the same time, the Strong Armenia Alliance and the Armenia Alliance became the main opposition forces. Several established parties failed to pass the electoral threshold. The results reflected continued support for the government’s reform agenda but also revealed persistent political polarization and competing visions of Armenia’s future.
International observers from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) concluded that voters were offered a genuine political choice within a professionally administered electoral process conducted under an overall sound legal framework. At the same time, observers reported a highly polarized campaign, unequal opportunities for contestants, allegations of misuse of administrative resources, pressure on some public sector employees, and foreign interference during the campaign, recommending further reforms to strengthen electoral integrity.
Public debate following the elections extended beyond the conduct of voting itself. Media coverage, civil society organizations, and political actors focused on broader questions of government performance. These included post-conflict recovery, border security, judicial reform, anti-corruption measures, economic stability, and assistance for displaced families from Nagorno-Karabakh. These issues shaped public perceptions of whether state institutions continued to meet citizens’ expectations.
Opposition parties challenged aspects of the campaign and electoral process through legal mechanisms, questioning the fairness of political competition while pursuing institutional avenues to contest the results. Although these challenges did not alter the constitutional outcome, they reflected continuing disagreements over democratic governance rather than rejection of electoral institutions themselves.
Independent journalists and domestic election-monitoring organizations played a central role in documenting alleged irregularities, scrutinizing campaign financing, monitoring compliance with electoral law, and providing platforms for competing political perspectives. Organizations such as the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly–Vanadzor, Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center, and other civic groups continued to monitor electoral processes and advocate for greater accountability and transparency.
International actors also influenced domestic perceptions of electoral legitimacy. Assessments by the OSCE/ODIHR, the European Union, and other international partners generally recognized the elections as competitive while encouraging continued democratic reforms and stronger institutional safeguards. These external evaluations became part of Armenia’s domestic political debate, illustrating how legitimacy is increasingly shaped through interactions between national institutions, civil society, and international actors.
The 2026 parliamentary elections therefore demonstrated that electoral legitimacy in Armenia extends beyond the formal declaration of results. While constitutional procedures confirmed the legal authority of the new government, public confidence continued to depend on the state’s ability to address security concerns, displacement, economic challenges, and democratic reform in the aftermath of conflict.
Memory, statehood and legitimacy
For many Armenians, trust in the state has been shaped less by constitutional debates than by a succession of national crises. The memory of the Armenian Genocide, the 2020 war, the nine-month blockade of the Lachin Corridor, and the mass displacement from Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023 have become benchmarks against which political leadership is judged. As Benedict Anderson observed, shared historical narratives help define national identity – but in Armenia those narratives are reinforced by recent lived experience.
The humanitarian collapse of 2023 brought these questions into sharp focus. Within a week, more than 100,000 Armenians fled Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, making it one of the largest and fastest population movements in the region’s modern history. Many arrived after days without reliable food, medicine or fuel. This all followed months of restrictions on the Lachin Corridor that the International Court of Justice had ordered Azerbaijan to unblock.
Public confidence in the Armenian state quickly became linked to its practical response rather than official rhetoric. Government data showed that around 100,000 displaced people received emergency financial assistance, more than 73,000 households benefitted from housing support, and over 16,000 displaced children were enrolled in Armenian schools within weeks.
Yet humanitarian agencies warned that the emergency response was only the first step. As displaced families settled across Armenia, the focus shifted to affordable housing, access to employment, mental health and psychosocial support, education, and long-term integration. The UNHCR noted that the housing market was already under severe strain, while sustainable accommodation, livelihoods, and mental health support remained among the most pressing unmet needs. This underscored the gap between emergency assistance and durable solutions.
These experiences reshaped public debate. For many displaced families, confidence in the state was shaped by everyday interactions with public institutions – registering for assistance, securing housing, accessing healthcare, and finding employment – rather than by official statements alone. An inter-agency Rapid Needs Assessment conducted by the UN, IOM, UNHCR, UNICEF and the Armenian government identified access to cash assistance, housing, health services, livelihoods, and education among the most immediate concerns of newly displaced households. Subsequent IOM assessments also highlighted the need to strengthen refugee registration systems while expanding employment opportunities, healthcare, and mental health support as key factors for long-term integration. The crisis also mobilized Armenian diaspora organizations, which raised millions of US dollars in humanitarian assistance and lobbied foreign governments. At the same time, international media and human rights organizations amplified scrutiny of developments on the ground.
Scholars including Laurence Broers, Nina Caspersen and Thomas de Waal have argued that in conflict-affected societies legitimacy is negotiated through lived experience as much as through formal institutions. Armenia illustrates this vividly: citizens increasingly evaluate the state not only by its legal authority but by its ability to provide security, respond to crises, and restore confidence after war and displacement.
Contested memory in Armenia and the South Caucasus
The political meaning of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has remained deeply contested in Armenia. The First Nagorno-Karabakh War was widely remembered by many Armenians as a struggle for self-determination and national survival, becoming closely associated with the consolidation of post-Soviet statehood. The defeat in the 2020 war, however, challenged this narrative and triggered a broader debate over the meaning of victory, loss and responsibility. Public discussions increasingly questioned not only military strategy but also the assumptions that had shaped Armenia’s security policy for decades.
The crisis also exposed competing interpretations of the past and present among political actors, veterans, journalists and civil society groups. Explanations of Armenia’s defeat in 2020 developed along two main lines. Some analysts emphasized the broader geopolitical and military imbalance, pointing to Azerbaijan’s increased defence spending, military modernization, and strategic partnership with Turkey as decisive factors behind the outcome. Others focused on Armenia’s internal vulnerabilities, including problems in military reform, strategic planning and political decision-making. Within Armenia, debates over accountability led to calls for a deeper investigation into the causes of the defeat. A parliamentary investigative commission was established in 2022 to examine the circumstances of the 2020 war, while analysts and civil society actors continued to debate issues ranging from military preparedness to governance failures.
These disagreements revealed that collective memory is not a fixed national narrative but an ongoing debate over what citizens expect from their state and political leaders.
The Armenian experience also reflects broader regional patterns. Thomas de Waal argues in Black Garden that the conflicts of the South Caucasus are sustained by mutually exclusive historical narratives in which each society emphasizes its own experiences of victimhood while often overlooking those of neighbouring communities. Similar dynamics can be observed in Azerbaijan, where official memory strongly emphasizes the displacement of Azerbaijanis during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War and celebrates the restoration of territorial integrity following the 2020 and 2023 military victories. In Georgia, collective memory remains shaped by conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where questions of displacement, sovereignty and Russian intervention continue to influence political discourse and public perceptions of the state. Across the region, historical memory therefore functions simultaneously as a source of national cohesion and as a barrier to reconciliation.
Laurence Broers further argues that these memory cultures should not be understood as isolated national phenomena but as interconnected “translocal” processes in which narratives circulate across borders through media, diaspora networks, academic institutions, humanitarian organizations, and digital communication platforms.
Ultimately, memory in the South Caucasus is not only about the past. It shapes how citizens evaluate governments in the present – whether states can provide security, respond to crises, and offer a credible vision for the future.
Everyday statehood: how Armenians experience the state
In Armenia, trust in the state is increasingly shaped not only by elections, constitutional reforms, or foreign policy decisions, but also by everyday encounters with public institutions. The concept of “everyday statehood”, associated with scholars such as James C. Scott, highlights how citizens judge government authority through practical experiences: accessing services, receiving protection, and seeing whether institutions respond to their needs.
Since the 2018 Velvet Revolution, public expectations of the Armenian state have changed significantly. While national security remains a central concern, many citizens increasingly evaluate governance through transparency, accountability, public services and institutional effectiveness. The post-revolution government placed anti-corruption reforms, judicial changes and greater public participation at the centre of its agenda, raising expectations about the state’s ability to deliver meaningful reforms. These changes have been discussed in reports by the European Commission.
Journalists and civil society organizations have played a major role in shaping these expectations. Investigative media outlets have exposed corruption, examined military and governance failures, and brought local grievances into national debates (e.g. Hetq, CivilNet, Investigative Journalists NGO). Civil society groups have also become important partners in areas such as humanitarian assistance, legal support, democratic reform and community development. Organizations working with displaced communities after 2023, for example, helped document needs and advocate for better state responses. The Transparency International Anticorruption Center Armenia has maintained extensive records of these changes.
The experience of Armenians displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh illustrates how legitimacy is tested through daily interactions. For these communities, the state’s credibility has been measured through practical questions: whether assistance programmes function effectively, whether housing support reaches vulnerable families, whether administrative procedures are accessible, and whether authorities provide clear information about the future.
For residents living near conflict zones, the reliability of local services and the government’s ability to respond during crises often matter as much as broader national security policies. Interviews with residents of Tavush and Syunik show that border communities often view the state presence not only through military protection but also through the availability of reliable public services and local infrastructure.
Veterans and families affected by war similarly evaluate the state through concrete support systems, including healthcare, pensions, employment opportunities and recognition of sacrifice. Symbolic commemorations alone are often insufficient without corresponding institutional support.
Generational differences have become increasingly visible in how Armenians define legitimate statehood. While many older citizens, shaped by the Soviet collapse, the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, and decades of security concerns, continue to emphasize territorial protection and national security, younger Armenians have increasingly connected state legitimacy with democratic governance, civic participation, economic opportunity and institutional accountability. Surveys of Armenian youth have highlighted strong interest in education, employment prospects, participation in decision-making, and a more accountable relationship between citizens and institutions.
Social media has transformed political debate in Armenia by creating a space where citizens, journalists, activists and officials directly contest competing interpretations of government performance. Platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and messaging applications have become important sources of political information and mobilization: an Internews survey found that social networks, blogs, vlogs and podcasts were among the main sources of political and social news for Armenians, while digital platforms were also used by activists to organize humanitarian initiatives after the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh displacement.
Ultimately, state legitimacy in Armenia is built not only in parliament or during elections but through thousands of everyday interactions between citizens and institutions. These experiences determine whether the state is perceived as responsive, capable, and worthy of public trust.
Translocal narratives: diaspora, international institutions and political mobilization
State legitimacy in Armenia is increasingly shaped through transnational networks linking domestic actors with diaspora communities, international organizations, and digital platforms. These interactions have become particularly visible since the 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and the forced displacement of the Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023.
According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Diaspora Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, an estimated seven million Armenians live in more than 100 countries worldwide, compared with Armenia’s resident population of fewer than three million. Diaspora organizations have long influenced Armenian politics through humanitarian assistance, investment, lobbying and advocacy, particularly on issues such as recognition of the Armenian Genocide and post-conflict recovery.
The September 2023 humanitarian crisis further demonstrated the political significance of these transnational networks. Within days of Azerbaijan’s military operation, more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians fled Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, creating one of the largest episodes of forced displacement in the South Caucasus in decades. The response extended far beyond the Armenian government: the United Nations coordinated an Emergency Refugee Response Plan involving 60 humanitarian partners, including 43 Armenian NGOs, while diaspora organizations in France, the United States, Lebanon and elsewhere launched parallel fundraising campaigns and humanitarian initiatives. At the same time, numerous diaspora organizations publicly questioned the Armenian government’s handling of the crisis and peace negotiations, revealing competing understandings of state responsibility rather than a single diaspora position.
International institutions have also become important benchmarks against which citizens evaluate governance. Since the entry into force of the EU-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) in 2021, cooperation has expanded in judicial reform, anti-corruption measures, public administration, and democratic governance. Following the 2022 border escalation, the European Union deployed the European Union Mission in Armenia (EUMA) to monitor the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, while the OSCE and the Council of Europe continue supporting electoral integrity, rule-of-law reforms, and human rights initiatives. These engagements have reinforced public expectations regarding transparency, accountability and institutional performance.
Digital communication has accelerated these translocal dynamics. Diaspora organizations, journalists and civil society groups increasingly use social media to coordinate humanitarian assistance, organize political campaigns, and influence public debate across borders. The same platforms have also become channels for misinformation and competing narratives surrounding the conflict, illustrating how digital media simultaneously strengthens civic mobilization and intensifies political polarization.
Together, these developments suggest that legitimacy in contemporary Armenia is no longer negotiated solely between citizens and state institutions. It increasingly emerges through interactions among domestic actors, diaspora communities, humanitarian organizations, international institutions, and transnational information networks, each shaping public expectations of governance, accountability and state responsibility.
This article was produced within the framework of the “Write East” programme of the Leibniz Research Network Central and Eastern Europe and during the author’s research stay at the Leibniz Centre for Modern Oriental Studies (ZMO), Berlin, Germany.
Anna Vardanyan is an Armenian political journalist and researcher specializing in defence, international relations, and security issues in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.