The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) “welcomed the progress of Armenia in its democratic development since the change of political leadership in 2018” in an adopted resolution on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia” at its winter plenary session.

The authors of the resolution praised Armenia for successfully emerging “from the serious political crisis triggered by the outcome in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.” “Armenia has been able, in a difficult context, to continue to progress on the path of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and this deserves to be welcomed,” the document stressed.

A recent publication by the Varieties of Democracy Institute for 2022, which considered the snap elections in Armenia in 2021, also acknowledged the progress, which gave pride to the Armenia’s PM Nikol Pashinyan, who claimed that “Armenia entered 'top league' of democratic countries.”

“For the first time in the history of our country, Armenia is not defined by the term "electoral authoritarian," but by "electoral democracy,” said Pashinyan.

However, several indicators are far from being optimistic. In particular, several high-profile cases targeting politicians, judges and media became a focus of public discourse, casting a shadow over democracy and rule of law in the country.

Such is a recent case of judge Boris Bakhshyan, who was arrested right after he released the opposition-minded commander Ashot Minasyan. The defence links it to the very decision he made which was objectionable to the authorities.

Earlier, Bakhshiyan was deprived of immunity by the sanction of the Supreme Judicial Council on the basis of a petition from the Prosecutor General’s Office. The case was initiated under part 3 of Article 348 of the Criminal Code (illegal arrest with grave consequences). Under current law, the details of criminal cases against judges are not made public.

The opposition claims that this case is fabricated and along with other cases jeopardises the independence of the justice system.

“The government does not tolerate independent judges,” said a member of the “Armenia” opposition fraction Aram Vardevanyan, speaking about Bakhshyan’s case. “The law enforcement implements political orders. This is an unprecedented challenge to the existence of law as such.”

A government system with political powers concentrated in one person or one leading political group, was always a challenge for Armenia and endangered the democracy and human rights for decades. However, many in Armenia see the difference between the past and present political system in an unprecedented lack of tolerance to political dissent. Evidently, loyal and satisfied with the government policies was always a safe and repression free form of existing since the Soviet period, however this is not a form a country in democracy should follow.   

The Armenian Parliamentary opposition defines this intolerance to political dissent as “dictatorship” and strongly argues the conclusions in the report adopted in the PACE, claiming that instead of “making progress” Armenia is “moving from democracy to dictatorship.”

A member of opposition party “With Honour,” also a member of the Armenian PACE delegation Hayk Mamijanyan voted against the resolution.

“Our team is fighting against Nikol Pashinyan, against lies, that is why I could not vote for a resolution that contains 99% of lies,” told Hayk Mamijanyan. “If you read the resolution, you may seem that we live in Switzerland. The resolution tries to convince me that there is no persecution against me and my friends, my friends and I were not put to jail dozens of times for peaceful protests, that there is no persecution against journalists, the legislation has not been changed to restrict freedom of speech, and that the country Constitution is not violated,” Mamijanyan stated.

Responding to the criticism of the Armenian opposition, Boriana Aberg, an author of the PACE resolution, noted that the report was prepared following the principle of impartiality.

“The resolution focuses on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia, and obviously deals with the problems with the judiciary and attacks on the freedom of speech,” she said.

Another concern is the freedom of media in Armenia. Multiple amendments restricting media were adopted since the revolutionary authorities entered power in Armenia. Amendments were introduced to the civil code, which envisaged a drastic increase of penalties for publishing offensive and defamatory comments in the media and social networks and even a prison term. Media outlets and individuals convicted of slander could be fined as much as 6 million drams ($12,450).

The new law was initiated by Alen Simonyan, the deputy speaker of Parliament, who is also a close ally of the PM Pashinyan. Simonyan believes that higher penalties will prevent the slander in the media. “Today it is easy to quickly register sites that would then insult and slander people under the name of a news site. The changes in the law will reduce the lies and slander that today anger not only the person to whom it refers, but also the person who reads it,” he said. “When the media outlet or the citizen realises that some financial responsibility will be imposed on them, I think they will be more careful.”

Earlier this year, the first conviction on the adopted law was taken against a citizen of Armenia who insulted Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. According to the Prosecutors Office, the person called a police station in September last year and swore towards Pashinyan and other high-ranking officials using “sexual swear words.” 

The bill was highly criticised by rights organisations and media experts both at home and abroad.

“It is unfortunate that the Armenian government is supporting fines that will stifle free expression and threaten the financial viability of media outlets in the country,” said Marc Behrendt, the director for Europe and Eurasia programs at the U.S.-based human rights organisation Freedom House.

The recent statement of the Union of Journalists of Armenia emphasised the severe deterioration of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Armenia at the highest level. “The authorities of the Republic of Armenia continue to target the media and journalists at the lowest level,” says the statement.

“For some time now, the authorities have launched a total attack on the mass media from various platforms and in various formats, and the speeches by certain representatives of the ruling party are merely a manifestation of that total attack,” the statement says. “With all the drawbacks, free speech and free press have remained the unique institutions that are trying to counterbalance and restrain the authorities, which are moving towards dictatorship day after day,” said the authors of the statement.

“If you hold a public role in a country with democracy, you must be prepared to get criticism. However, the criticism became a criminally persecuted in Armenia,” told Armen Mkrtchyan, a media expert, a member of the National Committee on TV and Radio, who left the office in November 2021. “Notably, there is not a body to determine what exactly constitutes an insult, and where is the red line between the criticism and insult. It is not written anywhere,” said Mkrtchyan.

The current members of the Armenian government defend the provisions, which they opposed and highly criticised when they were in opposition. They used to condemn the former regime for the very changes in the law for trying to use these as a leverage to suppress the freedom of speech.

“Freedom of speech is important to protect one’s own rights, and a pillar for democratic development. I have a strong feeling that all the above mentioned is an attack on freedom of speech, which takes away our freedom and is a step toward dictatorship,” told Mkrtchyan.

Data accumulated from a recent public opinion survey conducted by the International Republican Institute’s (IRI) Center might be evidence for further polarisation and political tension in Armenia.

The survey particularly revealed that Nikol Pashinyan’s rating irreversibly falling, and today the number of ardent opponents who mistrust Pashinyan consists of 33% of respondents. In Yerevan, this figure is 42%. Moreover, only 11% of the respondents of Armenia are fully satisfied with the way democracy is developing in the country.

“The current government lacks a cohesive communication strategy to combat the divisive issues in the society, often relying on ad hoc solutions that hinder the democratisation process,” said Andranik Shirinyan, the head of the Freedom House in Armenia.

“Following the Velvet Revolution, the new wave of disinformation, attacks, and threats against civil society and independent media, largely capitalises on the social fragmentation surrounding Armenian society. The recent restrictive measures against freedom of speech and free media, the criminalisation of grave insults, the indictment against Yezidi human rights activist Sashik Sultanyan, are extremely concerning for us and represent a move away from democratic norms, Shirinyan said.

Sashik Sultanyan was accused in inciting ethnic hatred between Armenians and Yezidi. International and national human rights actors expressed serious concern about his prosecution and required clarification about his proceedings from the Armenian government.

“Freedom House has been constantly ringing the alarm bells about these issues. I once again reiterate Freedom House’s, our international partners’ calls to drop the charges against Sashik Sultanyan and revoke the laws that interfere with freedom of speech. Instead, the government should work on incentives to support and protect independent journalism and civil society, which are the most steadfast advocates of citizens’ rights in Armenia,” said Shirinyan.

Oksana Musaelyan is a reporter based in Yerevan. She is also a founder of Refugee Voice Advocacy and Rights Protection NGO in Armenia, and a finalist of the UK Alumni Award from Armenia for 2021-2022.