BETWEEN HOPE AND CHALLENGES

In early October, the Armenian parliament adopted a statement on establishing peace with Azerbaijan, supporting the joint declaration signed by the leaders in Washington and the initialling of the agreement on peace and the establishment of interstate relations. The statement was adopted by 64 deputies, with two abstentions. The opposition did not participate in the process, and therefore left the chamber.

This event marks a potentially historic turning point, with the formal parliamentary approval creating political legitimacy for the further peace process. The opposition's decision not to participate in the vote, coupled with its public criticism, could signal a potential for political instability, manifesting through avenues such as parliamentary blockades, public protests, and the utilisation of media pressure.

How sincere are Armenians in their desire to establish peace?

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that there had been attempts to disrupt the signing of the peace agreement. It is clear that there will be further developments in the future.

The sincerity of society's desire for peace is determined by a combination of personal experience, fears, material incentives and ideologies.

The following factors can be considered positive indicators of sincerity in this process. These include the fatigue from the conflict: repeated military clashes and heavy human losses create a demand for security and stability. Economic calculation is another key factor to consider. Peace facilitates access to investment, transport corridors and the restoration of regional trade, which are material incentives important for various sections of society and business. In an interview with the Armenian radio station ARKA, Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan made the following statement: The Washington Declaration has announced that Armenia is to be unblocked, a move which the country has been striving for over the past 35 years.  The third factor is the political elite. If the ruling team actively promotes peace as a strategy, part of society is inclined to trust it, especially when there are visible steps and international guarantees. Hayk Khanzharyan, head of the ruling Civil Contract faction, has stated that parliament should "officially confirm this fact, support the restored peace, and call on all interested parties to strengthen and develop this peace."

The following factors may be considered when evaluating the authenticity of Armenians' pro-peace sentiment and its potential stability:

1. The national trauma and mistrust experienced by the region is having a significant impact on the loss of territory and the internal discussions about the status of refugees and displaced persons. These issues are fueling revanchist narratives.

2. Diaspora and ideological centres:

Certain members of the diaspora and nationalist organisations may perceive peace as a concession and disseminate ideas that reject the agreement. The Armenia and Honour factions have evaluated the draft parliamentary statement "On establishing peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan" as "a document of geopolitical adventurism, unilateral concessions, bargaining with national interests and an uncertain future, the introduction of which in the National Assembly is intended to send a new wave of misinformation, empty promises and false hopes to the masses."

3. Information environment–radical groups and uncontrolled media can fuel fears and conspiracy theories, reducing public confidence in the negotiations.

The demand for peace in Armenia is both authentic and diverse. There is both war fatigue and a significant amount of mistrust in society. Institutional and communication measures are required to translate the declaration into lasting peace. The "Combat Brotherhood", a public association in Armenia formed by veterans of the Karabakh war, made a noteworthy statement on this matter: The final agreement (treaty) is not intended to establish true, sustainable and long-lasting peace. This is dependent on the Armenian Constitution being amended.

Therefore, the Armenian authorities are keen to stress the symbolic and practical nature of the statement (opening up communications, unblocking trade). The opposition and nationalist observers have expressed concerns about the document, citing potential implications for sovereignty and accusing the leadership of compromising national interests.

Assessment of potentials: opposition vs. revanchists

The potential risks of disrupting the peace process are derived from several sources and vary in strength.

The first source is the parliamentary and party opposition. The strength of the opposition is directly proportional to its size and its ability to capitalise on opportunities. The opposition does not have sufficient representation in parliament to block the declaration, further ratification of the agreement, demand amendments or set conditions (legal procedures, referendums). However, it has sufficient strength to create unrest in the country, block transport, hold permanent demonstrations and rallies, etc.

The second source is comprised of former political leaders and military figures. There are numerous examples of this, including former Armenian presidents Ter-Petrosyan, Kocharyan and Sargsyan, other representatives of the Garabagh clan, leaders and members of terrorist organisations such as Dashnaktsutyun and Gnchak, and members of opposition parties. Once a decision has been made, former leaders, commanders and influential military leaders are able to mobilise their supporters. The capacity to act is contingent on their interactions with security forces and the accessibility of their own organisational infrastructure. Institutionally controlled armies, where the state holds a monopoly on power and there is no division of authority, are less susceptible to coups. Conversely, the presence of parallel centres of power can heighten the risk of such events.

The third source is street movements and radical groups. Mass street protests have the potential to disrupt the process, particularly if they are accompanied by blockades, violence or the seizure of administrative buildings. In this regard, the government's information campaign is of paramount importance, given the significant influence of social media and traditional media.

The fourth source is abroad, in the form of the diaspora and international players. The diaspora has the capacity to provide financial support or moral endorsement for revanchist initiatives. Furthermore, international players with conflicting interests have the capacity to directly and indirectly influence the dynamics.

Even a cursory examination of the risks leads to the conclusion that the threat of disruption is real but not inevitable. The key points are the degree of consolidation of power in Yerevan, control over the security forces, the effectiveness of the legal ratification process, and the quality of communication with the public.

Development scenarios and likely indicators of deterioration

The progression of the peace process is contingent on the efficacy of Pashinyan's policies and the influence of external factors and actors on these processes.

A positive scenario would involve consolidation. In this scenario, parliament ratifies the peace agreement, the referendum is held legitimately, economic integration begins, and the level of protests falls. Key indicators of this shift include stability in the media, a decline in societal incidents, and investment agreements.

The next scenario is stagnation (delayed implementation). The agreement has been initialled, but its ratification and implementation are being hampered by ongoing legal disputes and protests.

Indicators of this include the blocking of parliamentary procedures, an increase in protests and legal claims.

The third scenario is destabilisation (breakdown). This could involve mass protests, a partial boycott of key institutions, and the risk of armed clashes. Indicators of this include the seizure of administrative buildings, divisions within the army, and external sanctions/isolation.

What can be done?

The authorities and civil society must develop a public and accessible action plan without delay. International guarantors and monitoring missions should be involved before and after the ratification of the decisions taken. It is imperative to initiate a programme of integration and economic support for the affected regions.

A draft law on the transition period should be prepared and reviewed by independent legal experts. It is recommended that national discussions and hearings be organised, with the involvement of veterans and local community leaders.

It is also imperative to enhance oversight of the financing of radical groups and to ensure transparency in the funding of political entities.

Armenia is currently at a pivotal moment in its history, navigating a transition from a past characterised by challenges and setbacks to a future that is yet to be shaped. The declaration of peace adopted by parliament is not just a diplomatic gesture, but an attempt to move from the logic of conflict to the logic of creation for the first time in many years.

However, it is important to recognise that peace is not merely a concept that can be created on paper. Achieving this will require political determination, trust, and consistent effort from the authorities, society, and those who have become accustomed to a lifestyle characterised by threats rather than opportunities. The primary challenge for Yerevan is to maintain internal balance, resist pressure from revanchist forces and convince its own citizens that peace is not capitulation, but an opportunity for development.

Parliamentary support was merely the first step in a new chapter for Armenia. The words chosen for inclusion in the book – trust, recovery, development, or once again mistrust, blockade and fear – will determine not only the country's politics, but also its fate.

Armenia now has a rare historical opportunity to change its trajectory: to move from defence to creation, from isolation to regional partnership. The key question is whether it will be able to maintain its current trajectory and transform a fragile declaration of peace into the foundation of a real, lasting and long-awaited future.