What is the situation for human rights in Armenia today?

“There is so much more apathy in Armenian society today.”

“The expectations from the [2018] revolution in Armenia were unrealistically high, and now, especially after the second Nagorno-Karabakh war, so many people are finding themselves in such a disappointing situation. People are so tired of politics and the information overload coming from politicians and the media.”

The progressive human rights agenda appears to have lost its relevance in the aftermath of the war and displacement of people from Nagorno-Karabakh, and particularly in the lead-up to the upcoming elections, it is almost absent from political discourse.

“Human rights no longer dominate the government’s agenda like they did during the revolution, but at the same time, some progress is being made – some reforms are being implemented on human rights. Many organisations work with the government to promote progressive changes on domestic violence, sexual violence, etc.”

“Additionally, years of attacks on civil society representatives in Armenia have led to a climate of self-censorship. There is certainly room for silence as a conscious action, as an act of rebellion, but what I think we are seeing a lot of in Armenia is self-censorship on political topics.”

“This began to appear during COVID, and then the war – Armenian civil society began to stay silent on certain topics to avoid being attacked by certain groups, or to be associated with certain groups. As an example, after the Revolution, there were many attacks on the new government by the right-wing opposition and their supporters, and civil society too had its criticism, but held back in order not to be associated with the opposition. Also, speaking vocally now about pro-peace discourses, many fear being attacked, so many remain silent.”

You have spoken about the polarisation of society and civil society in Armenia. What are your observations?

“Three things have polarised Armenian society, and they’re connected. The Velvet Revolution and Nikol Pashinyan as a prime minister, the second Nagorno-Karabakh war, and collective trauma within civil society.”

“The war has been highly polarising, but paradoxically, it has also been a point of solidarity between civil society and the wider public. With humanitarian aid, for example, there was solidarity among civil society, which organised to support people.”

But after the war, after the forced displacement of people, nationalistic leanings were revealed within many civil society figures. Disillusioned, they perhaps had a problem with how Armenia lost the war, thinking that Armenia could have won the war if not for Pashinyan and his government.

“Pashinyan himself, as a prime minister, is a deeply polarising figure.”

“Some civil society representatives have a huge problem with Pashinyan and his policies, for example, towards the EU and Russia, and do not want him as prime minister. At the same time, there are parts of civil society who still think that he is, at least, a democratic leader, and they continue to work with him and his government on various causes and reforms.”

“And then there is the collective trauma within civil society, also connected to the war. There is a wide acknowledgement of this trauma, but very little action towards healing.” 

“I think that civil society needs to heal before we can help the general public.”

“A few months ago, Socioscope organised a series of discussions on collective trauma with civil society representatives. The goal was to explore and define three key concepts—resilience, trauma, and collective trauma and analyse their psychological, historical, and social dimensions.”

“The meetings clearly showed that in open, safe, and supportive environments, participants were willing to deeply re-evaluate their individual and shared experiences contributing to collective resilience and community healing.”

“Such trauma-informed conversations and the creation of safe spaces for them can play a meaningful role in the broader healing process.”

What are your thoughts on NGO-isation within the Armenian context

“It’s the critical concept of civil society or grassroots initiatives becoming more institutionalised. The institutionalisation and professionalisation of civil society.”

“It can lead to losing ground with the communities when you are more donor-driven, being more in line with donor agendas, neo liberal policies of donors, and donors encourage you to become more institutionalised. Grants are tied to more bureaucratic structures and capacities for reporting. Many organisations in Armenia have become more professionalised over the years, and we see it outside of Armenia too. It’s everywhere.”

“Of course, there are good and bad sides to NGO-isation, but the bad side is that the diversity of civil society starts to decline, and when you speak of civil society, you speak mostly of institutions and not activists, people.”

“The institutionalisation and “NGO-isation” of civil society can sometimes lead to mutual alienation as it creates an environment where partnerships, shared agendas, and solidarity-driven action are pushed into the background.”

“In this context, Armenian civil society actors have also raised concerns that institutional growth—despite its advantages such as stability, expertise, and political influence, may threaten the social roots of civic movements if it occurs in conditions of disconnection from the broader public.”

How are disinformation and propaganda shaping public opinion in Armenia?

“It had a lot of impact during the COVID pandemic, during which anti-CSO narratives were on the rise. It had a very negative impact on public opinion because people were scared and very vulnerable. There were all these conspiracy theories and attacks on gender and sexuality topics. People were linking George Soros to everyone, civil society, the new government etc, and there were many attacks on the Open Society Foundation, including physical attacks.”

“During the last couple of years, these topics have been less dominant in public discourse and in the media. These narratives have been used again after COVID and after the war to manipulate public opinion, but I don’t think it has had the same impact this time. The public apathy is so high that they have not reacted.” 

However, next year, there will be elections in Armenia. We anticipate a horrible pre-election process. 

“We have already seen that the authorities, the opposition, the church… really start to push their political agendas even though official campaigns are a long way away.”

“I want to highlight just one example of how civil society can become a target in this process.”

“Now in Armenia, there is a clash between the Prime Minister and the Armenian Apostolic Church. Pashinyan started writing posts on his Facebook page criticising the Church in a way that used extremely inappropriate, sexist language. Women’s organisations wrote a statement criticising – we also joined the statement – calling on Pashinyan to stop using sexist language in his posts.”

“Then, Pashinyan’s wife released her own statement in response, blaming the women’s organisation that criticised her husband, asking, “Where were you when I was being attacked?” Her conclusion was that since civil society criticises her husband, they should be considered as opponents.”

“I think this is very indicative and a good insight into what will come.  I’m sure there will be attacks on civil society coming from various groups during the election period. We should be prepared; we should plan for resilience.”

How has the United States’ funding freeze impacted Armenian civil society?

“It has seriously impacted every part of civil society, but especially independent media outlets, and civil society organisations focused on democracy, anti-corruption, and election monitoring.”

“I know that certain organisations were completely or mostly dependent on U.S. funding, not only through USAID but the National Endowment for Democracy, for example. These are mostly research organisations or think-tanks.”

“Funding has really been cut down in Armenia, and the financial stability of organisations is really at risk. Now, projects are very short-term with limited budgets.”

“Also, there is a knock-on effect. It’s not only about the U.S. cutting its budgets or freezing activities, but when they do, other donors have to rethink their priorities. Their budgets also have to be cut, or redirected for emergency causes.” 

At the same time, this is also a window of opportunity to rethink our own role as civil society. Armenian CSOs are now thinking about how to diversify funding, how to become more financially sustainable and less dependent on Western donors.

“We’re talking about how we could find resources within the local context, how we could work with the diaspora–these kinds of ideas are already being discussed.”

What is the current primary goal for civil society in Armenia? What role do you see for Human Rights House Yerevan in this?

“So we had many discussions within civil society. My organisation, Socioscope,  is researching, trying to understand the transformations of civil society after the revolution and after the war–what is civil society’s role now?”

“What I think civil society should do now is to make a return to the public sphere and reclaim its place with the people. We have grown distant from them – we sometimes use really elitist language, our conversations happen at an expert level, and this does not connect with the public. We need to build networks of solidarity between civil society and the public.”

“As an example, we’ve conducted research on disinformation, and when we conducted expert interviews and focus groups with the public, many experts seemed to think that the public does not understand disinformation. They cannot tell the difference. But in the focus groups, when we speak to people, we see that they really use media literacy techniques to analyse the information they receive and which outlets they can trust.”

Civil society also needs to radicalise the need for democracy. It’s not only about fair elections, but also about social justice. It’s what is really needed in Armenia. We need people to own their freedoms.

“I think we can achieve this if we become more proactive in our approach–not only reacting to what hate groups say, but to proactively articulate narratives around the need for radical democracy. By the radicalisation of democracy, I mean the transformation of democratic processes in a way that goes beyond formal institutions and electoral mechanisms, aiming to address structural inequalities and empower all people, especially marginalised and most vulnerable groups. This means expanding the scope of democratic demands to include not only political rights but also economic, social, and cultural justice.”

“I think Human Rights House Yerevan could play a role in this, because we are a group of like-minded organisations, and while we haven’t prioritised this work yet, I hope that the House can become a place for open discussions, radical ideas on human rights, and on public issues. I hope that we can be the facilitators of these discussions.”

Armenia has recently formally declared that it wishes to join the EU. How do you see this path unfolding for Armenia?

“I see this more as a symbolic gesture aimed at a domestic audience than as a serious international initiative–and I think it’s somewhat artificial. I think it’s more directed towards the Armenian public.”

There is something here about articulating Armenia’s agency as an independent state, and that we can choose our own path, whether it is closer ties with Europe or otherwise. 

“To me, it’s more of an anti-Russia statement at this moment in the country, rather than real EU ambitions. I don’t think any Armenian politician really believes that the EU is going to accept Armenia any time soon. I also think it’s probably the same for figures from the wider civil society who have pushed this agenda.”

“It could also be seen as testing public attitudes, trying to gauge where the Armenian public is on these issues. Various studies and research show that there is a low level of trust towards Russia and also an eagerness to join the  European Union.”

“There may also be some aim to activate these anti-Russian attitudes within the public, and so I doubt that there are very serious negotiations going on from the Armenian side–maybe there are. However, as long as Armenia is still a part of the Eurasian Economic Union and still has very close ties with Russia and a huge economic dependence on Russia, I don’t believe this can seriously lead to anything.”

“A genuine EU integration process for Armenia would require far more than selective reforms. It would involve a structural and political transformation that requires a certain political capacity. First of all, I think Armenia as a state should unambiguously define EU integration as a national priority and not just as a balancing act between Russia and the West. Secondly, a transparent dialogue with the public on EU integration should take place. Thirdly, it also means the timely implementation of CEPA commitments, strengthening democratic institutions, protection of human rights – especially those of vulnerable groups, and many more.”

Given the deteriorating human rights situation in Georgia, what role can or should Armenian civil society play in the region?

First of all, having what is happening in Georgia as an example, we need to be very conscious of what can happen and how quickly it can happen.

I hope it will not. But we are seeing some autocratic tendencies emerging within the Armenian government, and the opposition is much worse.. So we need to monitor this and have some plans in place. 

Civil society in Armenia can really support its Georgian colleagues, to be in contact with them, and to also function as a safe space for them if they need it. 

Arpy Manusyan

Arpy Manusyan is the President and Research Director of Socioscope NGO (a member organisation of Human Rights House Yerevan), where she has been engaged in research since 2008. Her work focuses on public and critical sociology, with a particular interest in the intersection of social research and social change, civil society, and contentious politics in Armenia. Manusyan’s research also explores questions of agency, gender, and sexuality, war and peace narratives, as well as human rights, civic movements, and political ideologies in Armenia. She holds an MSc in Sociology from Yerevan State University.