Corruption

Corruption in Armenia remains systemic and deeply embedded across state institutions, despite Nikol Pashinyan ’s initial 2018 anti-corruption promises during the so-called Velvet Revolution. The Civil Contract government has prosecuted former officials and oligarchs, including Robert Kocharyan and others associated with the pre-2018 Republican Party of Armenia , but international observers and domestic critics argue that these cases reflect selective justice rather than systematic reform. The judiciary remains vulnerable to political interference. Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index and Freedom House assessments have consistently rated Armenia poorly on rule of law, judicial independence, and control of oligarchic capture.

The Constitutional Court as a Tool of Political Control

The Constitutional Court standoff (2019–2026) exemplifies how Pashinyan’s government weaponized anti-corruption against the judiciary itself. In May 2019, after the Constitutional Court suspended a trial of former President Robert Kocharyan, Pashinyan called for “mandatory” vetting of judges. By September 2019, facing favorable Constitutional Court rulings on Kocharyan’s appeals, Pashinyan’s parliamentary allies moved to dismantle the independent court. In October 2019, parliament requested the dismissal of Constitutional Court Chair Hrayr Tovmasyan, who had resisted executive pressure. On June 22, 2020, three judges were dismissed (Alvina Gyulumyan, Hrant Nazaryan, Felix Tokhyan) and Tovmasyan was demoted from the chairmanship. Three new judges were elected in September 2020, followed by the election of Arman Dilanyan as Court President/Chair in October 2020. By March 2026, all nine sitting judges on the Constitutional Court had been appointed under the Civil Contract government, ensuring institutional capture. In September 2024, Tovmasyan was convicted of abuse of power in absentia, though the statute of limitations prevented sentencing—a symbolic prosecution that cemented the message that judicial independence would be punished. This sequence shows that Pashinyan’s anti-corruption campaign extended to eliminating an institution that could constrain executive power, replacing judicial independence with executive-aligned judges.

Prosecutions of opposition figures, military officers, and civil society actors have raised concerns about the use of anti-corruption mechanisms as instruments of political control. The detention of Artur Vanetsyan and other opposition figures, along with accusations of torture and coerced confessions, suggest that anti-corruption rhetoric serves broader consolidation of power rather than institutional accountability. Business figures connected to Pashinyan’s inner circle have faced less rigorous scrutiny despite documented wealth accumulation. The Armenian Center for Political Rights and international human rights organizations have documented how selective prosecution, pretrial detention, and scandal narratives can become tools for eliminating institutional independence and neutralizing political rivals.

The absence of genuine anti-corruption reform has allowed oligarchic networks to persist and adapt under new political leadership. State capture by favored business groups, preferential awarding of contracts, and informal power structures tied to Pashinyan’s administration continue to limit economic competition and rule of law. Dr. Benyamin Poghosyan and others have noted that Armenia’s corruption problem cannot be separated from its broader vulnerability as a small state facing military pressure from Azerbaijan and regional isolation. The weaponization of anti-corruption against political opponents has delegitimized reform itself, making it harder for future governments to pursue genuine institutional change without being perceived as continuing a pattern of revenge prosecution.

Groong episodes that include this tag

Below are all Groong episodes tagged with Corruption.