Introduction: The Electoral Context and Preceding Developments
On November 16, elections to the Council of Elders of the Vagharshapat community were held. These elections were of significant public and political importance for several reasons.
First and foremost, the elections resulted in the formation of the enlarged Vagharshapat community, which merged the former Vagharshapat community—comprising the city of Ejmiatsin and the village of Voskehat—with the enlarged Khoy community (17 settlements). The conditional starting point of the unification process is generally considered May of this year[i]. Although the stated reasons for her resignation were personal and family-related, for a considerable period before it, the media had actively discussed allegations of corruption involving Diana Gasparyan and her close associates. Notably, approximately one month after her resignation, criminal charges were formally brought against her[ii].
Following Gasparyan’s resignation, the “Civil Contract” faction, which held a majority in the Vagharshapat Council of Elders, had the opportunity to elect a new community head from among its own members. However, this option was not pursued, and the council sessions convened to elect a community head were obstructed by the “Civil Contract” faction itself. Under such circumstances, the legal framework allows the Prime Minister to appoint an Acting Head of the community. Argishti Mekhakyan—formerly Governor of Armavir Province and Head of the Khoy community—was appointed to this position. He subsequently became the leading candidate on the “Civil Contract” party list in the elections[iii].
Parallel to these developments, a draft amendment to the law on administrative-territorial division was introduced, proposing the merger of Khoy and Vagharshapat and the completion of the unification process through the first regular elections of the Council of Elders. The necessity of this amendment was justified by arguments related to improving the efficiency of community governance, stimulating economic development, and fostering human capital development[iv]. Contrary to these claims, however, alternative assessments circulated suggesting that the merger was driven by narrow political calculations aimed at consolidating the ruling party’s position in Vagharshapat and generating new legitimacy—particularly in light of the preceding corruption scandals and the ongoing tensions between the authorities and the Church. The extent to which these claims correspond to reality will be examined in detail in this paper.
Another factor that rendered these elections particularly significant was the fact that they were the first to be conducted under the revised electoral legislation. The amended regulatory framework was addressed in one of our previous articles[v]. This paper also assesses the effectiveness of the law-enforcement and implementation practices applied during the elections.
A further circumstance underscoring the importance of the Vagharshapat elections is that they constituted the final local self-government elections preceding the parliamentary elections scheduled for next year. Barring unlikely and unforeseen political developments (as was the case in Vanadzor), the next elections will be the regular parliamentary elections, expected in June 2026[vi]. In this sense, the Vagharshapat elections served as a preparatory stage for political forces, public authorities, civil society, and other stakeholders. Compared to the nationwide arena, political actors were provided with a smaller yet practical testing ground in which to apply approaches, narratives, technologies, and models of cooperation ahead of the parliamentary elections.
Pre-Election Campaign and Election Results
The pre-election campaign began on October 22 and lasted, as stipulated by law, for 24 days. Overall, the campaign proceeded in a relatively calm atmosphere, although several incidents stood out[vii]. According to certain assessments, the campaign was accompanied by instances of abuse of administrative resources[viii]. Violations of the ban on charitable activities were also recorded; in one such case, a school principal supportive of the authorities—who simultaneously served as a precinct election commission chair—was arrested. Following the voting day, additional arrests took place, this time involving representatives of the opposition[ix]. Another episode of tension during an otherwise peaceful campaign was the arrest of the Catholicos’s brother and nephew in Voskehat on charges related to obstruction of campaign activities[x].
A total of eight political entities were registered to participate in the elections: seven parties and one alliance, while one party withdrew during the registration process. The participating forces were as follows:
- “Victory” Alliance, composed of the “Ahead” Party and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), headed by Sevak Khachatryan;
- “Pan-Armenian Front”, headed by former military officer Artyom Simonyan;
- “Republic” Party, headed by political scientist Harutyun Mkrtchyan;
- “Mother Armenia” Party, headed by former head of the Dghs community, Grisha Harutyunyan;
- “Free Democrats” Party, with Vahram Azatyan as the first candidate on the list;
- “Heritage” Party, headed by former military officer Arkadi Paytyan;
- “Civil Contract” Party;
- “Fatherland” Party, headed by writer Khachik Manukyan.
The mandatory political debate introduced by the amendments to the Electoral Code was held on Public Television, albeit on the voluntary initiative of the organizer. The debate featured the leading candidates of six political forces. Notably, the two forces that did not participate nonetheless managed to surpass the electoral threshold and secure mandates. This does not necessarily indicate that participation in the debate was detrimental, but rather suggests that the non-participating forces assessed that their electoral prospects would not improve through debate participation—an assessment arguably confirmed by the election results.
The electoral threshold was set at 4% for parties and 6% for alliances. As a result of the vote, three forces surpassed the threshold:
- Civil Contract – 15,298 votes (48.5%)
- Victory Alliance – 10,051 votes (31.8%)
- Mother Armenia – 1,692 votes (5.3%)
Accordingly, the forces obtained 19, 12, and 2 mandates, respectively. It is noteworthy that following the community enlargement, the Vagharshapat Council of Elders expanded from 27 to 33 members.
According to the submitted financial reports, Civil Contract spent the largest amount during the campaign period -approximately 55 million AMD, and Mother Armenia spent approximately 13 million AMD. Interestingly, campaign expenditures largely corresponded proportionally to the electoral outcomes.
Due to changes in the legal framework, public authorities encountered certain challenges. While the organizational aspects of the elections were largely implemented without major issues, shortcomings were observed in oversight—particularly financial oversight—and in the timely provision of financial disclosures.
Conclusion
Summarizing the issues and observations outlined above, several points merit attention. As in Gyumri, despite having the opportunity to elect a community head from within the existing council, the authorities opted to proceed with new elections to form a new Council of Elders. Unlike the Gyumri case, however, the authorities succeeded in securing an absolute majority of mandates and independently assuming community governance. In this regard, the elections are likely to generate a positive backdrop in terms of the authorities’ confidence in their public standing, approaches, and methods[xi]. Conversely, the opposition—unlike in the Gyumri scenario—faces a greater need for introspection.
At the same time, it is necessary to assess the extent to which community enlargement contributed to the authorities’ victory. An analysis of precinct-level results by community indicates that Civil Contract secured a majority of votes in both enlarged communities. Moreover, in the non-enlarged community, despite nearly equal results with the opposition Victory Alliance, Civil Contract could have assumed community governance through a coalition format, judging by the positions expressed by the Republic Party during the debate and on other occasions.
The greatest beneficiary of the enlargement was Mother Armenia, which secured its mandates in Vagharshapat exclusively due to the votes obtained in the Khoy community. It should also be noted that community enlargement enabled Civil Contract to nominate Argishti Mekhakyan as its candidate—a scenario that would not have been possible without the merger. Consequently, it is difficult to assess what the election outcomes might have been with a different candidate. Furthermore, without the merger, the Council of Elders would have been smaller, which would also have affected mandate distribution.
Therefore, it may be concluded that community enlargement did, to a certain extent, contribute to the authorities’ electoral success and their ability to assume sole control of community governance. However, it is not unequivocal that, in the absence of enlargement, the authorities would have been doomed to defeat or to a repetition of the Gyumri scenario.
Tigran Mughnetyan
[i] https://www.azatutyun.am/a/incho-u-e-diana-gasparyany-toghnoum-pashtony-kp-its-hrazharakani-patcharnerits-chen-khosoum/33416010.html
[ii] https://www.hetq.am/hy/article/175639
[iii] https://www.hetq.am/hy/article/175645
[iv] https://www.e-draft.am/projects/8718/justification
[v] https://council.am/entry/6009/2026-tvakani-yntrutyunneri-hastatvac-xaxi-kanonnery/
[vi] https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1168099452086508&set=a.529839559245837
[vii]https://hcav.am/ind-obs-28-10-2025/ viii https://hetq.am/hy/article/178003
[viii] ——————————
[ix] https://www.azatutyun.am/a/33594011.html
[x] https://www.azatutyun.am/a/kalanavorvel-e-amenayn-hayots-katoghikosi-eghbayry/33580195.html
[xi] https://www.azatutyun.am/a/kalanavorvel-e-amenayn-hayots-katoghikosi-eghbayry/33580195.html
