The autumn session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) once again brought issues of foreign interference, the resilience of democratic institutions and freedom of political competition to the forefront. These issues have different dimensions across the South Caucasus: in Armenia, they are primarily linked to the assessment of parliamentary elections and external pressure; in Georgia, to the crisis of democratic institutions; and in Azerbaijan, to restrictions affecting independent media, the opposition and civil society.

These situations cannot be reduced to a single model. However, PACE documents provide an opportunity to examine a common question: how resilient are state institutions when external pressure coincides with domestic political polarisation and restrictions on public scrutiny?

Armenia: Foreign Interference During Elections

In its report on Armenia’s parliamentary elections of 7 June 2026, the PACE election observation mission stated that Russian interference and foreign information operations had reached an “unprecedented scale” for a Council of Europe member state.

The document refers to direct external pressure during the election campaign, including trade restrictions and security-related threats. Observers also pointed to manipulative information content and a polarised media environment.

During the debate on 28 September, Sona Ghazaryan, a member of the Armenian delegation, spoke about disinformation, cyberattacks, the dissemination of false narratives and attempts to undermine public trust in democratic procedures. She also linked foreign influence to economic pressure.

Her remarks reflect the position of a representative of the Armenian delegation. The conclusion regarding the scale of foreign interference is also contained in the official report of the observation mission. However, specific claims concerning the motives and actions of individual actors should be considered in light of the wording of the original source.

At the same time, the report does not absolve Armenian institutions of responsibility for domestic shortcomings in the electoral process. It identifies deficiencies in campaign finance oversight, the use of administrative resources, cases of vote-buying and the limited effectiveness of judicial appeals.

This distinction is important: protecting elections against external pressure and ensuring a level playing field for political forces must be pursued simultaneously.

Georgia: Systemic Concerns Over Democratic Institutions

With regard to Georgia, PACE has expressed broader criticism of the state of democratic institutions. In Resolution 2664 (2026), adopted on 24 June, the Assembly stated that the conditions for genuinely democratic elections were absent in the country at that time.

The document links this assessment to pressure on the political opposition, civil society and independent media, as well as to deep political polarisation. PACE called on the Georgian authorities to end unjustified restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly and to initiate an open political process involving different political forces and civil society.

This was a June resolution, not a new decision adopted during the autumn session. Nevertheless, it remains an important context for assessing Georgia’s relations with the Council of Europe.

Unlike the Armenian report, which focused on specific parliamentary elections, the resolution on Georgia addresses the broader state of democratic institutions and the country’s obligations to the Council of Europe.

Azerbaijan: Restrictions on Independent Journalism

Another set of concerns relates to the situation in Azerbaijan. In Resolution 2663 (2026), adopted on 24 June, PACE expressed serious concern over the systematic suppression of independent voices and restrictions affecting the media, political opposition and non-governmental organisations.

The document states that, according to the Council of Europe Platform for the Protection of Journalism, 36 journalists were in detention in Azerbaijan at the time the resolution was adopted. PACE also expressed regret that Azerbaijan had not submitted the credentials of its delegation for 2025 and 2026 and had consequently not participated in the Assembly’s work during that period.

These assessments relate to the June 2026 resolution and should not be presented as the outcome of a new vote during the autumn session.

From a regional analytical perspective, the Azerbaijani case is particularly relevant in terms of media freedom, public scrutiny and compliance with international obligations. At the same time, it cannot automatically be equated with the situations in Armenia or Georgia: the political circumstances differ, as do the conclusions formulated by PACE.

The Common Challenge: Trust in Institutions

A comparison of the three countries shows that external influence is only one part of a more complex picture. Political stability also depends on the extent to which citizens trust elections, courts, the media and mechanisms of public scrutiny.

In Armenia, PACE simultaneously acknowledged that voters had a genuine choice and called for shortcomings in the electoral process to be addressed. In Georgia, the Assembly pointed to systemic problems affecting the democratic environment. In Azerbaijan, its criticism focuses on restrictions on independent journalism, the political opposition and civil society.

These assessments differ in scope and substance, but they raise a common question for all three states: how can political autonomy be safeguarded without restricting citizens’ rights and freedom of public debate?

For Armenia, it is particularly important to ensure that measures to counter disinformation do not become a pretext for arbitrary restrictions on the media or political opponents. For Georgia, the key priorities remain restoring trust in democratic institutions and creating conditions for free political competition. In Azerbaijan’s case, PACE documents emphasise the need to protect independent journalism and civic space.

External pressure does not eliminate the need for domestic reforms. On the contrary, trust in state institutions, judicial independence, transparency in the political process and media freedom are essential conditions for strengthening society’s resilience to foreign interference.

 

Journalist

Marine KHARATYAN

#ARMENIA

#GEORGIA

#RUSSIA

#AZERBAIJAN

10.10.2026 08:30