Since its independence in 1991, Armenia has faced a turbulent journey marked by systemic corruption, authoritarian tendencies, and socio-economic instability. The newly sovereign nation inherited a fragile political and economic system, further destabilized by the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and subsequent challenges, such as economic collapse and mass emigration. Despite moments of hope, particularly during the 2018 Velvet Revolution, the promise of democratic reform has been overshadowed by persistent governance failures and public distrust.
The aftermath of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war represented a critical turning point for Armenia. The 44-day conflict resulted in significant territorial losses and the displacement of thousands of ethnic Armenians. For many, the November 2020 ceasefire agreement symbolized national humiliation and betrayal. Yet the unrest extended beyond immediate war grievances, revealing deeper dissatisfaction with governance, socio-economic inequalities, and a crisis of national identity. Initially spontaneous and emotionally charged, the protests quickly evolved into organized movements, with refugees, families of fallen soldiers, and opposition figures uniting to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, widely seen as a symbol of national failure.
The Homeland Salvation Movement, a coalition of 17 opposition parties led by figures such as Vazgen Manukyan, attempted to harness the public’s discontent to force Pashinyan from office. Protest tactics evolved from mass gatherings and emotionally charged demonstrations, such as storming government buildings and organizing vigils for fallen soldiers, to more strategic actions. These included roadblocks, occupations of public spaces, and coordinated media campaigns to amplify their message. Social media proved instrumental in mobilizing participants, disseminating information, and countering government narratives. Symbolic acts, such as planting Armenian flags along contested borders and holding marches in historically significant locations, imbued the protests with a sense of continuity and existential urgency.
Despite these efforts, the opposition’s fragmented nature and its ties to Armenia’s pre-2018 political elite severely undermined its credibility. Many Armenians saw these figures as emblematic of the corruption and inefficiency that had plagued the country for years. This perception limited the movement’s ability to gain widespread support, even as public frustration with the government grew.
In 2022, the protests reached a new level of intensity, fueled by fears of further territorial concessions to Azerbaijan and dissatisfaction with the ceasefire’s implementation. Known as the “Resistance Movement,” these demonstrations demanded stronger security guarantees for Artsakh’s population and a firmer stance against Azerbaijan. Protesters employed disruptive actions such as blocking major roads and occupying government buildings, while clashes with security forces became more frequent. The June 2022 protests escalated into violent confrontations, reflecting growing polarization within Armenian society.
In 2024, the protests had taken on a more symbolic and moral dimension. Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan emerged as a leading figure, framing the movement as a defense of Armenia’s sovereignty and dignity. His leadership brought cultural and religious resonance to the protests, appealing to deeply rooted notions of national identity. Galstanyan’s slogan, “Armenian, Armenia, Homeland, God,” captured this sentiment, while religious rituals and nationalist rhetoric added layers of spiritual and cultural significance. Demonstrations held at historically significant sites further amplified the movement’s emotional impact, reinforcing its ties to Armenia’s collective identity.
The protests in Armenia, particularly the developments from 2020 to 2024, reveal important insights about the dynamics of political mobilization, governance, and societal resilience. These findings shed light on the broader challenges faced by fragile democracies in post-conflict contexts:
Symbolism and Leadership Without Strategy: The “Holy Struggle” movement effectively harnessed religious and cultural symbolism to mobilize diverse societal groups and connect deeply with Armenia’s national identity. Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan’s moral leadership brought cultural resonance and spiritual authority to the movement, further amplifying its appeal. However, this reliance on symbolic actions and moral authority without actionable governance strategies or policy frameworks exposed significant vulnerabilities. Galstanyan’s association with former political elites further undermined the movement’s credibility. While symbolism and moral leadership can inspire public engagement, they must be accompanied by practical strategies and institutional reforms to translate public discontent into systemic change. The movement’s limitations illustrate the critical need for leadership that balances emotional mobilization with a clear vision for sustainable impact.
Public Distrust as a Persistent Barrier: A recurring obstacle in Armenian protests has been the pervasive public distrust in political elites. While dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s leadership was widespread, opposition movements failed to gain credibility due to their association with pre-2018 ruling figures. This underscores the need for independent, forward-looking leadership that resonates with public aspirations.
Protests as Catalysts, Not Solutions: The Armenian protests succeeded in mobilizing societal groups and articulating grievances but lacked the structures necessary to transition from resistance to reform. This underscores the importance of building intermediary institutions and durable networks that can bridge the gap between activism and governance.
Structural Challenges in Post-Soviet States: The reliance on charismatic figures and the absence of robust civil society institutions perpetuated cycles of unrest without addressing root causes such as systemic corruption, economic inequality, and governance weaknesses. Long-term investments in institutional development are essential to break this cycle.
The Role of Socio-Economic Grievances: Economic dissatisfaction, marked by unemployment, emigration, and perceptions of corruption, played a central role in driving public discontent. Addressing these grievances requires comprehensive reforms that tackle both economic and governance issues simultaneously.
Institutional Responses to Protest Movements: Prime Minister Pashinyan’s dual strategy of repression and democratic engagement highlights the complexities of managing dissent in fragile democracies. While snap parliamentary elections in 2021 renewed his mandate, they failed to address the deeper societal fractures fueling unrest.
The Paradox of Mobilization: The protests illustrated a paradox common in social movements: their strength lies in uniting diverse groups around shared grievances, but this diversity often undermines cohesion and long-term strategy. Building broad-based coalitions with a unified vision is critical for achieving systemic change.
Lessons for Post-Conflict Societies: Armenia’s experience highlights the importance of combining symbolic actions with practical governance strategies, fostering inclusive political cultures, and addressing structural weaknesses. The failure to produce credible alternatives to existing leadership emphasizes the need for nurturing new political leaders who can articulate visions for systemic change.
Conclusion: Toward a Resilient Future
Armenia’s protests reveal the complexities of sustaining momentum for reform in fragile democracies characterized by weak institutions, public mistrust, and centralized power. While these movements articulated public grievances and reasserted national identity, their inability to transition into actionable reforms underscores the need for robust organizational frameworks and inclusive political cultures.
Moving forward, Armenia must address foundational issues to transform public dissent into a platform for sustainable change. By fostering transparency, building institutional capacity, and nurturing new leadership, the nation can redefine its path toward resilience and democracy. Armenia’s journey serves as both a cautionary tale and a source of hope, illustrating the interplay of leadership, societal resilience, and the pursuit of justice in the face of adversity.