Executive Summary
National security is often discussed from a traditional, state-centric perspective, emphasizing military capabilities and economic strength. In Armenia, this understanding is accompanied by some voices advocating for a strong leader capable of uniting Armenians around a single national ideology, portraying democracy as weak or inefficient.
However, the importance of democracy extends beyond its normative values. Democracy also serves important security functions. First, functioning democratic institutions contribute to institutional resilience and political continuity. Second, political pluralism provides a framework for competing ideas, policy priorities and policy alternatives, strengthening strategic adaptability. Third, democratic legitimacy can strengthen domestic political authority and, under certain circumstances, reduce dependence on external powers. Finally, as Robert Putnam's two-level game framework illustrates, domestic political constraints may provide democratic governments with certain advantages in international negotiations.
Democracy should therefore not be regarded merely as a desirable attribute of governance, but as an essential component of Armenia's national security architecture.
Introduction
The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, the 2021 and 2022 military attacks by Azerbaijan occupying sovereign territory of Armenia, and the forced displacement of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians in 2023 have intensified the debate within Armenian society about national security in the context of democracy. While the main focus continues to be on traditional security factors, such as military capabilities and economic strength, other dimensions of national security, particularly those related to the system of governance, receive considerably less attention.
Furthermore, the emphasis on traditional sources of power has been accompanied by calls for a strong leader capable of uniting Armenians around a single national ideology. In this context, certain segments of the political landscape portray democracy and political pluralism as inefficient or potentially divisive, suggesting that they undermine national unity. Although these views do not represent the entire spectrum of political debate in Armenia, they raise an important question about the relationship between democratic governance and national security.
Beyond traditional sources of power and security, democracy should also be recognized as an integral component of national security, contributing to institutional continuity and resilience. This raises the central question: How can democratic governance contribute to Armenia's national security?
Institutional Resilience and Political Continuity
One of the major differences between democratic and authoritarian systems in terms of political stability lies in the degree of institutionalization and institutional continuity. This does not, of course, mean that all authoritarian systems have weak institutions. However, while some authoritarian systems tend to be less institutionalized and more dependent on individual leaders, functioning democracies generally rely on established institutions and mechanisms that ensure political continuity.
More concretely, Azerbaijan has developed a governing structure characterized by clan- and family-based networks and concentrated political power. While Azerbaijan’s authoritarian system can be considered more flexible and “strong" in certain short-term situations, such arrangements can create considerable dependence on individual leaders and families in long-term, potentially increasing political vulnerability during leadership crises or other crisis situations.
For example, in the event of an unexpected loss of political leadership, functioning democracies generally possess established constitutional and institutional mechanisms to ensure continuity. In contrast, highly personalized authoritarian systems may face greater uncertainty and vulnerability during political succession, potentially leading to increased political instability. Thus, institutional continuity can serve as an important component of national security by reducing the state's vulnerability to leadership crises.
Democratic Legitimacy
The relationship between Belarus and Russia on the one side and Armenia and Russia on the other portrays another important dimension of democracy, namely democratic legitimacy. High domestic democratic legitimacy can lead to greater external strategic autonomy for states and provide them with more room for maneuver.
Based on the example of Belarus and Armenia, we can see that the Belarusian system, which is considered authoritarian, became increasingly dependent on Moscow, with President Alexander Lukashenko relying on Russian support to remain in power. On the other side, higher democratic legitimacy in Armenia created more favorable circumstances to withstand Russian pressure and act more independently. A good example of this can be observed in Armenia's 2026 parliamentary elections. Despite Russian interference during the election campaign, the generally positive assessments of international observers made it more difficult for Russia and pro-Russian political forces to challenge the election results and portray them as undemocratic.
This does not, of course, mean that the foreign policy choices of Belarus and Armenia are exclusively determined by the democracy variable. However, democratic legitimacy can increase strategic autonomy, as governments with stronger domestic legitimacy may be less dependent on external powers for political support and, consequently, less vulnerable to external influence.
Political Pluralism
As mentioned in the introduction, some segments of the political landscape, including political commentators, are in favor of a single national ideology, which indirectly means that they neglect the role of political pluralism.
Democracy and political pluralism, in contrast to the populist notion of a unified popular will, recognize that there are individual interests, differing from each other, that have to be aggregated into certain political programs. A democratic political landscape rejects the populist, utopian, and potentially anti-democratic assumption that there is one single national ideology, and thus offers different programs and ideologies based on different priorities.
This approach is supported by Hannah Arendt’s concept of political philosophy, according to which human diversity is one of the fundamental conditions of political life. Although everybody is equal before the law, life experiences and worldviews differ, which contradicts the idea of complete uniformity of political views in society. Therefore, the purpose of democracy is not the establishment of a single ideology, but rather ensuring the free expression of different viewpoints, political competition and participation in public decision-making.
The problem with a single national ideology is that its imposition could lead to a more authoritarian system. This, however, does not mean that a shared national identity is impossible or unnecessary. The existence of a shared national identity does not necessarily imply the existence of a single political ideology. Rather, different interpretations of national interests have to be articulated by different political parties.
From a national security perspective, political pluralism allows for competing approaches to security challenges and provides opportunities to question existing policies, develop alternatives, and correct political miscalculations.
Democracy in International Negotiations
Another argument concerns the role of domestic constraints in international negotiations. In democratic systems, governments often have less room for maneuver in political decision-making, as they have to take into account the positions of parliaments, political parties, and different societal groups. While such constraints are often considered a weakness, they may, under certain circumstances, provide states with a stronger bargaining position internationally. According to Robert Putnam's two-level game framework, international negotiations take place on two interconnected levels: At the domestic level, the range of politically acceptable agreements (the so-called win-set) is determined for subsequent approval or ratification, while at the international level, governments negotiate with their vis-à-vis.
In terms of our argument, this means that states with less domestic flexibility may have stronger negotiating positions because their vis-à-vis recognize the constraints within their political systems. Provided that an agreement has to be reached, the more flexible negotiating partner may be more likely to approach the less flexible one.
During the 2002 EU budget negotiations, France faced considerable domestic pressure from farmers, limiting the government's room for compromise, which was recognized by other European states and could strengthen France's negotiating position.
Amid Azerbaijan's demand for constitutional change in Armenia, Armenia could, under certain circumstances, have a stronger negotiating position, as it would be considerably more difficult for Armenia to adopt a new constitution and meet Azerbaijan's demands. First, there is no sufficient parliamentary majority for such a constitutional change, and second, a referendum could also produce a negative result. Provided that an agreement has to be reached or a peace treaty signed, Azerbaijan, being the more flexible negotiating partner in this particular case, may have to soften its demands.
Challenges to Armenia's Democratic Development
While Armenia was able to improve its democracy after 2018, Freedom House indicates stagnation in 2025 and 2026, with Armenia receiving 54 out of 100 points in both years. International observers have confirmed that elections in Armenia have become freer and fairer. However, at the same time, there are issues regarding institutionalization and the functioning of institutions, especially within the judicial system. According to Freedom House, Armenia received only 1 out of 4 points regarding judicial independence.
Second, there is a lack of clearly defined political ideologies in Armenia, and the political system remains largely person-centered. On the one hand, this is not comparable to authoritarian systems characterized by family- and clan-based structures, as fundamental democratic principles, including political competition and freedom of expression, continue to function. However, the personalization of politics, polarization between two political poles, and the lack of clearly articulated political ideologies represent major challenges for Armenia's democratic development.
From a national security perspective, these challenges may weaken institutional resilience and limit the development of competing strategic approaches, thereby reducing the state's capacity to respond effectively to internal and external crises.
Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
Taking the above-mentioned arguments into account, democracy and democratic institutionalism play a crucial role in Armenia's national security environment and are among the factors that can help Armenia withstand foreign influence. While consolidated democracies may generally be more effective in terms of institutional continuity and crisis management, as well as maintaining strategic autonomy through democratic legitimacy, there are several issues Armenia has to address.
First, Armenia has not only to prevent democratic backsliding but also to strengthen its institutional capacities, especially the independence and functioning of the judicial system.
Another important aspect of strengthening the institutional order within the state is moving away from person-centered political parties and governments towards more ideology-based political parties. In Armenia, political power is largely concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister, who is also the chairman of the governing party, which maintains a parliamentary majority. While combining the positions of Prime Minister and party chairman is common in many parliamentary systems, the person-centered nature of Armenian politics further contributes to the concentration of political power.
Against this background, another issue fostering person-centeredness is linking the person of the Prime Minister to European integration and democracy. While Nikol Pashinyan was one of the main figures of the Velvet Revolution, democracy and democratic progress should not be understood as synonymous with, or solely connected to, one person.
For the establishment of a democratic system, it is important not only to ensure the accountability of the government at the national level, but also the strengthening of democratic principles at the local level. The latter can contribute to the formation of political alternatives, the promotion of a new generation of political leaders and the development of parties' institutional capacities independently of individual leaders.
A possible long-term solution is thus to develop a more ideology-based political landscape, with parties promoting ideas and ideologies rather than individual personalities. In order to strengthen an ideology-based understanding of politics in Armenia, it would be necessary to implement projects, especially educational projects, on the history of political ideologies and to foster deeper exchanges between Armenian and, for example, European political parties.
Last but not least, the debate on a strong leader and a single national ideology shows that democracy as a system of governance is often misrepresented. Democracy should not only be seen as a system based on values such as freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of choice, but also as one of the cornerstones of national security and societal resilience.
