The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) presented its final report on the parliamentary elections held in Armenia on 7 June. The document combines positive assessments of the organization of the vote with serious concerns regarding the conditions of political competition, the actions of the Central Electoral Commission (CEC), and law enforcement practices.

As a result, the report provides arguments for both sides of Armenia’s political divide. The ruling force can point to PACE’s recognition that the elections were well organized and that the newly elected authorities received a “clear mandate” from the public. The opposition, meanwhile, can refer to the problems identified by observers, including the CEC decision that resulted in one opposition party being left without parliamentary representation. This combination became one of the key outcomes of the discussion of the report in Strasbourg.

However, the main political conclusion of the PACE report on Armenia’s parliamentary elections was the assertion that the results of the vote demonstrated Armenian society’s choice in favor of a European path.

“The election results demonstrated the Armenian people’s choice of a pro-European path”, the concluding section of the PACE report, presented and discussed in Strasbourg on 28 September, states.

At the same time, European observers pointed to a number of problems surrounding the electoral process. The final PACE document therefore represents a combination of two assessments: on the one hand, recognition of the political choice made by society and the mandate received by the elected authorities; on the other, critical observations regarding the conditions of political competition and certain decisions by the electoral administration.

The Armenian People Chose a Pro-European Path

The observers linked the election results not only to the distribution of parliamentary mandates but also to the country’s foreign-policy direction. Following its assessment of the European choice, PACE noted that Armenian society had demonstrated democratic resilience despite identified shortcomings and external pressure, which observers described as unprecedented.

The next conclusion concerns the elected authorities themselves: the newly elected authorities received a clear mandate from the people, which they must now implement.

The document therefore effectively establishes three interconnected conclusions: society made a pro-European choice, demonstrated democratic resilience, and gave the elected authorities a mandate to implement that choice.

“Clear Mandate” — The Main Emphasis of the Authorities

Presenting the report, Damien Cottier, Chair of the PACE delegation observing the elections, said that the elections were generally well organized and that voters were offered a genuine choice between political alternatives.

At the same time, observers stressed that elections cannot be assessed solely on the basis of election day itself: problems arose before the vote, during the campaign, and after the elections. The report states that, despite identified shortcomings and external pressure of unprecedented scale, Armenian society demonstrated democratic resilience. The document also concludes that the newly elected authorities received a clear mandate from the people.

This conclusion became the main emphasis of representatives of the ruling political force following the publication of the document. Ruben Rubinyan, Deputy Speaker of the Armenian National Assembly, quoted this part of the report.

“Despite the identified shortcomings and unprecedented external pressure, society demonstrated its democratic resilience. Thus, the newly elected authorities received a clear mandate from the people, which they must now honorably implement”, Rubinyan wrote.

Hayk Konjoryan, leader of the Civil Contract parliamentary faction, also highlighted PACE’s positive assessments. According to him, the elections were pluralistic and well organized, while voters were offered a genuine choice.

But the Same Report Contains Serious Criticism

At the same time, PACE identified a number of problems. Observers pointed to strong political polarization, reports of vote-buying, the use of administrative resources, and shortcomings in mechanisms for the effective and timely appeal of violations. The document also refers to pressure on public-sector employees to participate in events organized by the ruling party. At the same time, observers recorded pressure from business representatives on employees in connection with participation in opposition events.

PACE also drew attention to the large number of criminal proceedings related to vote-buying. According to data cited in the report, more than 200 proceedings were initiated, predominantly against opposition representatives. Observers linked this to the risk of creating an impression of selective application of law-enforcement mechanisms.

In its recommendations, PACE calls for an end to the electoral prosecution of opposition representatives, guarantees of due process in election-related cases, and stronger regulation of the use of administrative resources.

The Most Controversial Issue — Three Polling Stations

The most specific criticism by PACE concerns the decision of the Central Electoral Commission to invalidate the voting results at three polling stations and not hold repeat voting. According to the report, at two polling stations, military personnel were allowed to vote after the officially established closing time. At the third polling station, ballots for one of the opposition parties were unavailable for most of the day.

PACE considers it particularly problematic that, after invalidating the results, the CEC did not organize repeat voting and, in the observers’ assessment, failed to provide sufficient justification for the decision.

The consequences of this decision were politically significant. Prosperous Armenia received 3.99% of the vote, placing it just below the four-percent threshold and leaving the party without parliamentary representation. According to PACE observers, taking into account the results from the annulled polling stations could potentially have allowed the party to cross the threshold and secure parliamentary representation. As a result of the redistribution of mandates, the ruling Civil Contract party obtained the majority required to control three-fifths of the seats in parliament.

PACE explicitly recommends amending the Electoral Code and establishing a clear procedure for repeat voting in situations where the fundamental parliamentary representation of a political force is at stake.

External Pressure — Another Central Theme

Another significant section of the report addresses foreign interference. PACE stated that Russian interference and external information operations in a Council of Europe member state had reached an unprecedented level.

Observers also referred to trade restrictions, energy-related threats, diplomatic pressure, and information operations which, in their assessment, could have influenced electoral behavior.

At the same time, the report does not focus exclusively on the Russian factor. It also mentions public statements by Western and European politicians in support of the incumbent authorities as a form of external interference, although observers distinguish between such statements and what they assess as significantly more serious coercive pressure from Russia.

Election Day and the Pre-Election Campaign — Two Different Assessments

An important feature of the document is the distinction between the assessment of election day itself and the assessment of the electoral cycle as a whole.

Observers generally assessed election day positively: voting was peaceful and well organized, and the process received a positive assessment at the overwhelming majority of polling stations observed.

At the same time, PACE emphasized that the democratic character of an election cannot be assessed solely on the basis of what occurred on election day.

According to the observers, the main problems arose during the campaign period: polarization, external pressure, violations of campaign-financing rules, the use of administrative resources, vote-buying, pressure on campaign participants, and problems with subsequent judicial remedies.

Why the Report Proved Acceptable to Both Sides

This is precisely what makes the current PACE assessment distinctive. For the authorities, the most important conclusion is the recognition that Armenian society chose a pro-European path and that the newly elected authorities received a clear mandate. For the opposition, other provisions of the document are more important — above all, the criticism of the CEC decision that affected Prosperous Armenia’s parliamentary representation, as well as the observations concerning administrative resources, vote-buying, and the application of law-enforcement mechanisms.

In other words, the report did not reduce the elections to the simple formula that they were either “good” or “problematic”.

PACE simultaneously recognized the political significance of the election results and pointed to institutional problems that need to be addressed.

The European Choice — Now the Authorities’ Responsibility

The final part of PACE’s formulation is also important. The observers did not limit themselves to stating that Armenian society had chosen a European path. They linked this choice to the responsibility of the new authorities, stating that the mandate received from the people must now be implemented.

Thus, in the interpretation of the report, the European choice is not merely a foreign-policy orientation. It also implies further strengthening of democratic institutions, improvement of electoral legislation, ensuring equal conditions for political competition, and effective protection of electoral rights.

For this reason, the final PACE report can be read simultaneously as political recognition of the direction chosen by Armenian society and a set of requirements concerning the quality of democracy that should accompany that direction.

 

Journalist
Marine KHARATYAN

#ARMENIA

#EU

29.09.2026 06:45