The crisis of the Armenian opposition: Impeachment failure and political exhaustion

The Armenian political scene has resembled a chaotic theater in recent weeks, with actors trying to regain their influence without a clear script or public support. The impeachment process against Nikol Pashinyan initiated by Edgar Ghazaryan and Narek Malyan, followed by the nomination of Edmon Marukyan by former Civil Contract Party members Hovik Aghazaryan and Hakob Aslanyan, as well as the proposal of Davit Hambardzumyan by the Republican Party and the “I Have Honor” alliance, reveal the deep crisis of the opposition. These events not only demonstrate the fragmentation and lack of strategy of the opposition, but also signal that the Armenian political scene is stuck in a quagmire of exhausted figures and old methods.

The Beginning of Impeachment: Ghazaryan, Malyan, and Public Discontent

Edgar Ghazaryan and Narek Malyan initiated an impeachment process against Pashinyan in the National Assembly in May 2025. Their arguments focused on Pashinyan's loss of Artsakh, border concessions, and foreign policy failures, which they believed had jeopardized Armenia's national security. However, this move was perceived more as a symbolic gesture than a realistic plan, as impeachment required a two-thirds majority of the parliamentary votes, 71 votes, which the opposition did not have.

Ghazaryan and Malyan’s initiative, despite its limited capabilities, reflected a segment of the public’s dissatisfaction with Pashinyan’s government. Pashinyan’s approval ratings have plummeted since the 44-day war of 2020, allowing the opposition to capitalize on that dissatisfaction. However, their inability to rally behind a united front has become the first obstacle to this process.

Aghazaryan, Aslanyan and Marukyan's nomination: Internal unrest

Against the backdrop of the impeachment process, expelled deputies from the Civil Contract party, Hovik Aghazaryan and Hakob Aslanyan, unexpectedly showed activity. Having severed ties with Pashinyan, they nominated Edmon Marukyan as a candidate for prime minister. This move raised many questions, since Marukyan, who was the leader of the Bright Armenia party and a supporter of Pashinyan during the 2018 revolution, until March 2024 held the position of Ambassador-at-Large to Armenia, appointed by Pashinyan himself.

The nomination of Marukyan by Aghazaryan and Aslanyan was perceived by the opposition as unacceptable. Hayk Mamijanyan, the leader of the “I Have Honor” bloc, declared that Marukyan “is no different from the current leadership” and bears the same responsibility for the country’s crisis. This position demonstrated the internal divisions of the opposition: even with a common goal against Pashinyan, they were unable to agree on a common candidate. Aghazaryan and Aslanyan’s move also highlighted the internal cracks in the “Civil Contract,” which had begun in late 2024, when Pashinyan demanded their resignation from parliament, accusing them of leaking state secrets.

Republican Party and "I Have Honor": Hambardzumyan's Nomination and Strategic Failure

In response to Marukyan’s nomination, the Republican Party and the “I Have Honor” alliance, led by Serzh Sargsyan, nominated Davit Hambardzumyan, the mayor of Masis. This choice, however, only deepened the opposition’s perceptions of the crisis. Hambardzumyan, despite his local successes, lacks national recognition or political weight. His nomination could have been Sargsyan’s attempt to present a “new face” free from the stigma of the Republican Party’s corrupt past, but it was perceived as evidence of the opposition’s personnel shortage.

In comparison, in the 2021 elections, the “I Have Honor” bloc nominated Artur Vanetsyan, the former director of the National Security Service, who, despite his controversial past, was more recognizable. Vanetsyan’s nomination, however, failed, partly due to voters’ fear of the return of “former” ones, and partly due to internal opposition competition. Hambardzumyan’s selection shows that Sargsyan has tried to avoid such mistakes, but his candidacy lacks the charisma or influence needed to mount a serious challenge to Pashinyan.

The Consummation of the Opposition: The Roots of the Political Crisis

These events reveal three main problems facing the Armenian opposition: fragmentation, personnel crisis, and lack of public trust.

1. Division : The impeachment process failed because the opposition could not agree on a unified candidate. The Hayastan bloc, for example, had announced that it was ready to provide its 28 votes against Pashinyan, but the nomination of Marukyan by Aghazaryan and Aslanyan thwarted those efforts. The nomination of Hambardzumyan by the I Have Honor bloc only deepened those divisions.

2. Personnel crisis : The opposition candidates, Marukyan and Hambardzumyan, reflect the lack of new, convincing leaders. Marukyan’s connection to Pashinyan makes him unacceptable to the traditional wing of the opposition, while Hambardzumyan’s inexperience at the national level makes him a weak candidate.

3. Lack of public trust : The Armenian public, as the dynamics of public sentiment show, is tired of both the Pashinyan government and the opposition linked to the “former” Republican Party and Kocharyan. The 2024 protests, for example, led by Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, the leader of the Tavush Diocese, showed that public discontent exists, but the opposition is unable to turn it into political capital. The nomination of Hambardzumyan, who is linked to Sargsyan, will most likely be perceived as an attempt to return to the old regime.

   
   

Pashinyan's position: Stability in the face of crisis

Despite the opposition’s efforts, Pashinyan’s position remains relatively stable. The “Civil Contract” preserves his parliamentary majority, and the opposition’s failure to form a united front gives him a strategic advantage. Pashinyan’s actions against Aghazaryan and Aslanyan, including their expulsion from the party and the opening of a criminal case against Aghazaryan, demonstrate his determination to control the domestic opposition. Moreover, Pashinyan’s foreign policy maneuvers, such as deepening relations with the EU and distancing himself from Russia, allow him to maintain some support among pro-Western voters.

The opposition's endgame

The impeachment process launched by the Armenian opposition, marked by the initiative of Ghazaryan and Malyan, the nomination of Marukyan by Aghazaryan and Aslanyan, and the nomination of Hambardzumyan by the Republican Party, has exposed a deep crisis in the political arena. The opposition, despite the presence of public discontent, has exhausted its resources to offer a convincing alternative. Their fragmentation, personnel shortages, and negative perceptions of their “former” members hinder them from mounting a serious challenge to Pashinyan.

Armenia’s political future depends on whether the opposition can find new leaders and programs that will win public trust without repeating the mistakes of the past. For now, however, this latest impeachment trial only underscores the opposition’s exhaustion and Pashinyan’s ability to remain steadfast in the face of crisis.