Many in Armenia are increasingly classifying the country among those states where democratic institutions are gradually losing their substance. This was stated on July 15 by political analyst Tatevik Sogoyan during discussions on the topic "Armenia on the Path to Authoritarianism."

According to the political analyst, three fundamental principles were formulated after World War II to determine whether a state is democratic: a free electoral process, the separation of branches of power, and the protection of human rights.

Evaluating the situation in Armenia through the prism of these criteria, Sogoyan noted that the thesis that the current government has never resorted to election falsification long served as a moral justification for various controversial decisions by government representatives. However, in her view, events during recent elections have cast doubt on this argument.

The political analyst believes that the processes that took place cannot be viewed as anything other than interference in the expression of citizens' will. In particular, she pointed to the situation involving tens of thousands of voter votes that were subsequently rendered invalid or unaccounted for by the decision of the Central Electoral Commission (CEC), which annulled the voting results in several polling stations. She expressed particular bewilderment at the argument regarding the need to protect the will of the majority of voters. Sogoyan questioned how taking into account the votes of one group of citizens could violate the rights of the remaining participants in the vote. In her opinion, the very fact that tens of thousands of votes were effectively excluded from the final tally casts doubt on the full implementation of the principle of free elections.

The political analyst considers the existence of a real separation of powers to be the second most important criterion of democracy. According to her, problems in this area were laid down as early as the stage of Armenia's transition to a parliamentary system of government. Sogoyan believes that the very design of the system, which provides for a stable parliamentary majority, initially created prerequisites for the dominance of a single political force. As a result, in her opinion, the legislative and executive branches of power are actually closely linked, significantly weakening the mechanisms of mutual control. At the time, proponents of the reforms argued that potential risks would be offset by an independent judicial system capable of limiting abuses of power. However, according to the political analyst, this did not happen.

Moreover, Sogoyan is confident that in recent years, the government has consistently strengthened its influence over the judicial system. As an example, she mentioned changes related to the work of the Supreme Judicial Council, as well as reforms of the Constitutional Court. According to her, changes in the composition of the Constitutional Court were carried out in violation of the Constitution and aimed to ensure the adoption of decisions beneficial to the authorities. The political analyst also points to pressure on representatives of the judicial system through disciplinary procedures, administrative mechanisms, and various forms of influence. In her opinion, this has led to the judicial system losing its capacity to act as an independent arbiter in relations between the state and the citizen. Consequently, the second key element of democracy—the system of checks and balances—has effectively been destroyed.

The third criterion of democracy—the real protection of citizens' rights and freedoms—is also failing to function in Armenia, according to her. Today, she noted, there are growing questions in Armenia regarding the level of protection for freedom of speech, the right to work, freedom of movement, the right to participate in political life, and the expression of one's own opinion. The political analyst cited an incident involving her mother, Arpine Sogoyan—a physician and head of the women's consultation clinic at one of Yerevan's polyclinics—who publicly argued with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan during an election campaign in the Arabkir district and was subsequently dismissed from her job under the pretext of staff downsizing. According to her, such cases have long ceased to be isolated. She believes that practically every citizen can provide numerous examples of situations where human rights were put at risk or did not receive proper protection from the state.

Summarizing her assessment of the state of democracy in Armenia, Sogoyan noted that a process of "Azerbaijanization of Armenia" is taking place. By this, she means a situation where formal democratic institutions continue to exist but gradually lose their actual substance. As an example, the political analyst pointed to the argument commonly used in Azerbaijan that the country has all the necessary democratic structures—a parliament, an ombudsman, and state institutions. However, the issue lies not in the existence of these institutions themselves, but in whether they perform their functions and are actually capable of limiting power. According to Sogoyan, a similar trend is observed today in Armenia, where democratic mechanisms are preserved formally rather than substantively.

At the same time, the political analyst drew attention to the shifting position of the West. In her opinion, European states and the United States are increasingly less likely to evaluate their partners solely through the prism of democracy and human rights. Today, she believes, geopolitical interests and foreign policy loyalty are coming to the forefront. According to her, Western rhetoric is increasingly raising questions not about the quality of democracy in these countries, but about how well they align with the interests of the Western community.