The 7 June 2026 parliamentary elections offered voters a genuine choice among political alternatives in a well-run process, although direct pressure from abroad, in the form of escalating trade restrictions and security threats were observed during the campaign, aimed at unduly influencing voters in favour of the opposition, international observers said in a preliminary statement released today.
The campaign was highly confrontational, with divisive rhetoric, and was marked by allegations of vote-buying and other electoral violations that led to numerous criminal proceedings against opposition candidates and activists, resulting in many opposition supporters refraining from actively engaging in the campaign. This, along with pressure on public-sector employees to attend ruling party events, and recently introduced social and economic measures, raised concerns about the equality of opportunity to campaign, the statement says.
Persistent foreign pressure and interference remain problematic
"The concentration of arrests and criminal prosecutions against opposition figures contributed to perceptions of selective justice, while a polarised media landscape, inflammatory rhetoric, misinformation, and persistent foreign pressure and interference challenged Armenia’s democratic resilience and the integrity of public debate," said Farah Karimi, special coordinator and leader of the short-term Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) observer mission. "This underscores the importance of continued efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, safeguard fundamental freedoms, and foster public trust in democratic processes".
“The Armenian elections took place in a particularly tense geopolitical context, with direct foreign interference,” said Damien Cottier, head of the delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. “In particular, pressure and threats from the Russian authorities reached an unprecedented and worrying level.”
The process was governed by revised election-related laws and regulations that provide a sound basis for democratic elections. Changes in recent years were mostly introduced through extensive consultative process and worked to improve the legal framework, but some gaps and ambiguities persist, and a number of previous OSCEand Council of Europe’s Venice Commission recommendations remain unaddressed.
The election administration managed technical preparations professionally and efficiently, and enjoyed stakeholders’ trust. Election day proceedings were assessed overwhelmingly positively in the vast majority of polling stations observed.
Armenian authorities took limited steps to address disinformation
Online campaigning was extensive, and its regulation is limited, reducing transparency and oversight. The online campaign was confrontational and divisive. The OSCE mission noted the use of manipulative, false and AI-generated content disseminated by some candidates, as well as inauthentic and third-party accounts to discredit opponents, the government and the electoral process. Overall, the authorities took steps to address disinformation, but the transparency and effectiveness of these efforts were limited by the lack of publicly available information.
Amendments to campaign finance rules expanded the definition of campaign expenditures, increased donation and expenditure limits, and redistributed oversight responsibilities. Still, a number of gaps remain, limiting transparency, accountability and integrity of party and campaign finance.
Competitive media environment, but more female participation needed
Despite gender quotas for the election administration and parliament, as well as financial incentives for parties maintaining gender-balanced governing bodies, women’s participation in public and political life remained low. Women comprised 37.3% of candidates.
The media environment is pluralistic but polarised, and the OSCEmission media monitoring found that most outlets were instrumentalised by contestants to amplify mutual insults and divisive campaign rhetoric, offering little substantive analysis of contestants’ platforms. Public television displayed clear bias in favour of the ruling party, contrary to its legal obligations and public mandate. At the same time, several private outlets portrayed the government negatively and provided favourable coverage to selected opposition contestants. All combined, this undermined voters’ opportunity to make an informed choice.
Learn more about how the Parliamentary Assembly monitors elections in Europe
