As Armenia gears up for its parliamentary elections, the political landscape is buzzing with promises from eighteen different parties. They’re all out on the campaign trail, meeting voters and offering up a slew of commitments. But a closer look, especially by the experts at the Armenian Council analytical center, reveals a troubling trend: many of these promises aren’t just unrealistic; they’re completely detached from reality. It’s like a magician promising to pull a rabbit out of an empty hat – entertaining, perhaps, but ultimately impossible.
One of the most attention-grabbing promises comes from the opposition Strong Armenia party, led by Russian businessman and billionaire Samvel Karapetyan. Despite being under house arrest for allegedly inciting power seizure, Karapetyan has made a bold claim. He’s pledged that if his party comes to power, they would, within a week, enact what he calls the “Safarov Prevention Law.” This law, he asserts, would specifically prohibit Azerbaijanis from buying or receiving land in Armenia. This sounds like an urgent, vital measure, right? But the Armenian Council experts quickly debunk this. They point out that a law already exists and is firmly in place, preventing foreign citizens from owning land in Armenia. Karapetyan’s promise, then, appears to be a calculated move to grab headlines and sway voters who might not be aware of existing legislation. It’s akin to promising to build a bridge over a river that already has three perfectly good bridges – a big declaration, but ultimately unnecessary and misleading. The “Safarov” in the proposed law’s name refers to Ramil Safarov, an Azerbaijani army officer who, in 2004, infamously murdered an Armenian lieutenant, Gurgen Margaryan, while he slept, during a NATO-sponsored program in Hungary. Safarov was later extradited to Azerbaijan, pardoned, promoted, and given an apartment, sparking outrage in Armenia and leading to a ten-year suspension of diplomatic ties with Hungary. This historical context makes Karapetyan’s “Safarov Prevention Law” a potent, emotionally charged slogan, even if it aims to address a problem that, legally speaking, doesn’t exist in the way he presents it.
The Strong Armenia party isn’t stopping there with their dramatic claims. They’re also making a dual promise that’s equally questionable: creating 300,000 jobs while simultaneously warning of an impending “return” of 300,000 Azerbaijanis to Armenia. Party leader Karapetyan frames this “return” as a joint plot by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, suggesting it would derail his party’s economic plans and take jobs away from Armenians. It’s a classic fear-mongering tactic: promising prosperity on one hand, while stoking anxieties about a fabricated threat on the other. This conjures an image of a politician trying to sell you a miracle cure while whispering dire warnings about a phantom illness. Armenian authorities, including Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan and Prime Minister Pashinyan, have outright dismissed these claims, calling them “a product of a sick imagination” and a cynical attempt to introduce a non-existent issue into the domestic political agenda. Pashinyan even suggested that Karapetyan should be held accountable for acting against Armenia’s state interests by spreading such baseless information. It highlights a dangerous game where political narratives are built on misinformation, designed to manipulate public sentiment rather than offer genuine solutions.
Another political figure, businessman Gagik Tsarukyan, leader of Prosperous Armenia, is advocating for “guaranteed peace” and suggesting that Armenia needs not just one, but several international “guarantors” in its peace process with Azerbaijan. What raises eyebrows is his inclusion of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko among these potential guarantors, alongside Pakistan and Russia. The Armenian Council experts rightly point out the irony, labeling Lukashenko as a “symbol of marginalization in the civilized world,” particularly given Belarus’s transformation into a Russian outpost. It’s like asking a known arsonist to be a fire marshal – the credibility is simply not there. Tsarukyan, however, seems undeterred, even citing a recent call between French President Emmanuel Macron and Lukashenko as justification for his belief that Armenia can and should work with Belarus. This indicates a worrying disconnect from global realities, where some politicians overlook international standing and ethical considerations in their pursuit of perceived alliances. His suggestion, therefore, comes across as a desperate attempt to find solutions in unlikely places, potentially undermining the very peace he claims to seek.
Tsarukyan’s party also presents a set of economic promises that raise a fundamental question about fiscal responsibility: they pledge to “cut taxes” while simultaneously “raising pensions.” For anyone with even a basic understanding of economics, these two actions are inherently contradictory. It’s like promising to spend less money while buying more things. The party’s electoral program outlines specific measures: halving property tax, aligning minimum pensions with the minimum consumer basket, increasing and indexing pensions annually, establishing ten tax-free industrial zones, and exempting microbusinesses from turnover tax. While some of these measures, like indexing pensions to inflation, are sound, the overall package of cutting revenue while increasing expenditure is unsustainable without a clear and credible plan for alternative funding or significant economic growth. This approach suggests a willingness to promise anything to garner votes, even if it means presenting an economically unviable plan. It speaks to a common political tactic of trying to please everyone, regardless of the practical implications.
In essence, the pre-election period in Armenia is rife with political posturing and promises that, upon closer inspection, crumble under scrutiny. From misleading claims about land ownership to fear-mongering about population shifts, and from economically contradictory proposals to seeking dubious international guarantors, some political parties appear to prioritize sensationalism and short-term voter appeal over credible, well-thought-out policies. The analysis by the Armenian Council serves as a crucial reminder for voters to look beyond catchy slogans and dramatic pronouncements, urging them to scrutinize the feasibility and truthfulness of what their prospective leaders are offering. It underscores the vital role of an informed electorate in distinguishing genuine solutions from political illusions, especially in moments as critical as national elections.