What message did Armenian voters actually send in the 2026 elections? And can Armenia’s European path survive the disinformation, external […]
What message did Armenian voters actually send in the 2026 elections? And can Armenia’s European path survive the disinformation, external pressure, and polarisation reshaping its politics?
Tatevik Matinyan, human rights advocate and chairperson of Armenia’s Institute of Liberal Politics, joins Ricardo Silvestre to unpack the results, the propaganda playbook that echoes what we’ve seen in Hungary and Georgia, and what Armenian civil society really needs from Brussels — beyond diplomatic visits and government support. A candid conversation about the fragile situation in the region, the stakes of getting EU–Armenia relations right, and why cynicism spreads faster than reforms.
This podcast, as well as previous episodes, is available on SoundCloud, Apple Podcast, Stitcher and Spotify.
The School of Liberal Politics that Tatev mentions can be found here.
And Tatev’s YouTube page (in Armenian) can be found here.
This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with the Movimento Liberal Social and the Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.
Ricardo: Welcome to the Liberal Europe podcast. I’m your host, Ricardo Silvestre, and thank you so much for listening to today’s episode. For this conversation, I’m very happy to bring you Tatevik Matinyan. She is a human rights advocate and chairperson of the NGO Institute of Liberal Politics in Armenia. Tatev is a human rights expert, a licensed mediator, and she has a background in criminal justice. She now focuses on human rights protections, promotion of women’s rights, and fighting hate speech. We talk about the latest election results, the disinformation and polarisation around the elections in Armenia, the actual and future relationship between Armenia and the European Union, and the support needed by Armenian civil society. After our main conversation, please stay to hear a little more about the path Tatev chose before I got her on the podcast. But now, with no further ado, I bring you Tatev Matinyan.
Ricardo: I’m here with Tatev Matinyan. Tatev, thank you so much for coming to the podcast.
Tatev: Hello, thank you for having me and for the opportunity to talk about developments in Armenia.
Ricardo: It’s so great to have you here, Tatev. You were very kind to join us to talk about the elections in Armenia — something we naturally care a lot about, not only because of the future of Armenia, but because of the future of Armenia in the EU. And also because of your connection to liberal ideology and liberal politics. Let’s first zoom out and talk about what happened in the Armenian election, particularly this tug of war between getting closer to the EU and maintaining traditional reliance on Moscow — something we see in your region with other countries too. So tell us: what was your analysis of the election results, and what message did the Armenian electorate send?
Tatev: Thank you very much. It’s a very challenging and long-story question. Let me put it into several parts. First, I would like to underline that there was huge interest from the population in participating in these elections. We have about two and a half million registered voters, and one and a half million of them participated — a huge, huge number. Almost half of them, around 700,000-something, voted for the ruling party, Civil Contract. As you mentioned in your question, this can also be interpreted as a vote for Civil Contract’s external political direction — that is, the EU direction. Right now, especially among the younger population, we see people willing to move in that direction. But we also see this huge contrast. We see polarisation — absolute polarisation — which also leads to hate speech, which we may talk about a little later. What we see here in Armenia is a historically high percentage of dislike or even hatred towards Russia. It is also supported by propaganda, and by the economic sanctions that are happening right now in Armenia. And it is happening because of uncertainty. On one hand, people don’t want to be controlled by Russia anymore. But on the other hand, they are not certain if the European path will happen, and will happen in the near future. Here is another challenge we need to work on, because people want this change right now, immediately. And whenever they don’t see it, they say: again, they lie to us. It’s politics, and we’re going nowhere. So the message after the elections is that we are for the European path of Armenia. We want to go there. But the main concern is how, and when.
Ricardo: There have been some very interesting movements — for example, the visit of the European Commission President to Armenia and also Azerbaijan. Do people in Armenia see these steps, even if they may seem a little symbolic, as evidence that there is interest from the EU, translated by our leaders? Or do you think cynicism can overcome that?
Tatev: This is more the emotional part — that we are a country that can be interesting. But meanwhile, on the ground, when people produce their apricots or flowers, they cannot take them to Russia anymore, and taking them to Europe isn’t realistic right now. It directly touches their pockets and their money. They feel: okay, where should I go? Right now it’s the vacation period in Armenia, and it’s almost impossible to get an appointment for a Schengen visa. And now you’re like: okay, where is the path? Where should I go? This is where we need to work harder to explain to people that this is a long-term process. Just having a visit isn’t going to solve all the problems — it’s diplomacy. Then we need to translate it into steps and actions. And it will be a long path to walk.
Ricardo: Now, let’s move to something you care a lot about, which is the protection of the democratic political environment. Some international organisations observing the elections noticed immense external pressure and aggressive disinformation campaigns. You work in this area. Tell us first about the dangers you saw, and then the resilience of Armenian civil society.
Tatev: The concentration of hate speech is abnormal in Armenia. And the worst part we noted is that it’s not just during the pre-election period or the election period itself. It started long before. It began even during the elections of 2021, and it was just—
Ricardo: Let me interrupt you, Tatev — but do you see that there’s a strategy, or is this just organic? This kind of polarisation, is there someone behind it directing it? It can’t be just organic and so well organised.
Tatev: I see strategy, because I see two absolute opposite camps fighting each other. One camp says Russia will come. The other says Europe will never come. And the worst part is that we saw even physical violence during these elections, when hate speech took the form of physical violence — one party fighting another on the streets, which is the worst part. People started labelling each other: you are pro-Russian, they are pro-European. They started hating each other physically, which is the most dangerous thing in small communities like Armenia. Another issue is that media literacy is not equally developed in rural and non-rural areas of Armenia. When these very well-organised disinformation campaigns started, civil society and good media outlets conducted very strong fact-checking campaigns and highlighted all the problems. So in Yerevan we had one picture, but in villages, where people are mainly attached to traditional TV and are far away from fact-checking and media literacy, they just consumed the information provided officially, as they saw it. This makes a lot of difference, and creates a lot of problems. I should give credit to civil society in the country — they are really very much focused on fact-checking and finding the truth. But we also need to remember that people consume whatever they want to consume. If they hear that this person is pro-Russian and they want to believe it, no fact-checking will change the situation. This is another issue — people have these understandings and feelings inside them, and a short period will not be enough to change their perspective. What we do is develop strategies and work outside of Yerevan with people, helping them understand that misinformation and disinformation are the most powerful tools for the digital wars in our region, and explaining how these digital wars and disinformation can guide them in the wrong direction. This is one of the main areas we need to work on for the coming five years, because it also hurts Armenia-EU relations and the future development of them.
Ricardo: That is so interesting, Tatev. Talking with other colleagues and other activists around Europe, it’s uncanny how the playbook is all the same. In Hungary, it was pretty much — listening to you — the same thing our colleagues describe there: the drying up of information in rural areas. People just see what the state wants them to see, and then it’s hard to change that. As you mentioned, digital literacy is not very developed. So let’s continue with that, because this is the work you do. How do you see a shift in this paradigm, and how can the European Union help? Do you think there is an entry point where those of us in the EU can help civil societies in Armenia bridge that gap?
Tatev: This is another challenge civil society faces right now, because the EU mainly supports the government in economic and other aspects, and civil society support is being left out. But it’s really important to underline that when governments make reforms, they don’t care that much about explaining the ideas behind those reforms, the needs behind them, and so on, to people living on the ground — while civil society is the one that talks with people and explains the situation. Right now, we really need large-scale support for civil society working especially outside of Yerevan, because — as you may know — half of the population of Armenia lives outside of Yerevan. We need to focus a lot of attention on people working there. Those people are the engine of the economy, and any economic changes will first of all influence their lives. So the first thing is to start working directly with civil society, understanding the real needs of the people there, and starting to talk openly. We, as people who travel to Brussels and talk to politicians there, know that not everybody is very interested in or happy about Armenia becoming another EU candidate. But we also understand what the homework is and what should be done. This information should be transferred and reach civil society, and through civil society to regular people, to make the situation understandable for them. Otherwise, information like a parliamentarian in Brussels saying “we’re not interested in Armenia because Armenia doesn’t even share a border with the EU” has a huge influence on people, and they say: you see, they are lying again. We’re going nowhere. We are left out without Russia, and with no interest from Europe. So the first thing is to think strategically and to reach people on the ground, talk to them, and explain how it happens — explain that each person has homework to do. In our spot, whatever we do — whether I’m growing flowers, or making brandy, or whatever — if I want to be part of a large family, what do I need to change in my agriculture or other aspects? And we also need this huge new generation of new politicians who understand the world at large. And we need large-scale educational campaigns, both in Yerevan and outside.
Ricardo: Are you hopeful that a new generation of politicians in Armenia — with this push, and, as you said, both good things and bad things — will make a difference? You just mentioned one, which is resistance to change. But on the other hand, there is interest in continuing the European project and including Armenia. Do you think that can naturally grow? Or do you think the resistance, particularly from pro-Russian sectors, will continue to maintain pressure on the status quo? Or do you think the wave is unstoppable at this moment?
Tatev: The situation is fragile. It is fragile, from what I see, because propaganda has a huge influence — believe me — especially since everything gets more sensitive after the war, and uncertain future relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan create fear of another possible war. All these pressures, especially the existential and physical threats, still make people question whether the chosen path is correct. So it’s impossible to leave it as a natural move, because there is no stability in the region yet. That is why I am absolutely confident that this should be a strategic, well-planned action — a planned action to support people, to support people like me who believe in an EU future for Armenia, to promote those ideas, and to educate a new generation that believes what you believe in is the real future and development of Armenia.
Ricardo: That’s a great point. And hopefully the EU does that, and we learn from our mistakes in Georgia. The result of the election opens a lot of possibilities, but also creates a need for reforms, and those reforms then fit into the larger picture you just described, which is having a strategy. So tell us: what is needed in your country, apart from financial and political support? You just mentioned that there is a lot of support for the government, which could be misunderstood. Tell us how these two tracks can run at the same time — Armenia doing the reforms it needs to do, and the EU helping people like you do the groundwork.
Tatev: First, I would like to underline that the final results of the elections are still with the Constitutional Court of Armenia, and we are still waiting for its decision, which will be issued on the 4th. So let’s see how it goes. The main issue that creates the problem is that we also need to have proper checks and balances on what the government does. Right now, we have three main parties in the parliament. There is Civil Contract, the ruling party, with about 49% of the votes. There is Stronger Armenia, led by Samvel Karapetyan, a Russian-Armenian. And there is the Armenia Alliance, led by the second president Robert Kocharyan. This creates a very worrying situation for the Armenian parliament. We need to act outside of parliament, as civil society, to create a clear “barking dog” situation — to send clear messages and highlight the problems. The first thing is: we are on the path of visa liberalisation. If we succeed in this area, it will send a very good message to people who believe that reforms are in process and are actually happening. What should be done by the EU for people like us is not just to push us away by saying “you are not clearly in a position” or “in an area of” — something like that — but to try to involve us. When I travel to Brussels, I hear: first go and decide where you are going to be, and then come to us. That’s a very negative message to me, because it’s kind of pushing us away, while we, as a liberal institution, have a clear path and want to go through the European integration procedure. But we need to have the understanding that we are supported. And we do not lie to civil society, as civil society does not lie to the population, by saying: yes, it will happen. It just needs some time to work through.
Ricardo: We have a couple more minutes, and I want our listeners to get involved and learn more about this. You are the chairperson of the NGO Institute of Liberal Politics. So, you are part of the family. Tell us about the work the Institute does, and how people can follow the Institute — and yourself, if you’d like — online.
Tatev: Thank you for this opportunity. First and most importantly, we run a school of liberal politics, which started seven years ago. We have two cohorts every year. This is one of the main missions we work for: educating new liberals in a country, so they can bring the idea and the ideology of liberalism to all parties, to civil society, and wherever they work. We also conduct a lot of projects both in Yerevan and outside, to promote women’s participation in the political and economic life of Armenia — because we want women to be bold in political life. We want them to be strong, not just to take the opportunity of legislation that says that every third person on an electoral list should be a woman. It shouldn’t be just like that. Women should be supported, be strong, and take the opportunity of leading. This is the second main goal we’re working on. The third is rule of law and democracy, which means we work a lot on making sure the legislation and procedures that Armenia adopts are in line with liberal values and can take us on the European integration path. You can follow us on Instagram and Facebook, which are still very popular in Armenia, at Institute of Liberal Politics. I’m also very active on my personal YouTube channel, explaining legal developments in Armenia. So Institute of Liberal Politics and Tatevik Matinyan are the names to follow if you want to stay updated on what’s happening.
Ricardo: I’m going to put all the links in the podcast show notes, so you can follow the work done by the Institute, and also her YouTube channel, to get to know the kind of messaging she generates and how we can help improve it. Tatev, this was fascinating. Thank you so much for your time. Naturally, as you can imagine, I was quite saddened by what you just said a minute ago — that sometimes in Brussels you hear people saying: well, we’re not that interested in having Armenia in the EU. Let me assure you, and the people who have listened to this in Armenia, that I believe a large majority not only wants our brothers and sisters from Armenia to join us, but to join us in full status, as a European country associated with this European Union project. So — to be continued. But thank you so much for your time.
Tatev: Thank you so much. I believe in the bright future of Armenia and Armenia–EU relations.
Ricardo: And thank you very much for the work you do for that.
Ricardo: So Tatev, tell us a little about yourself. What was the path you chose before I got you here on the podcast?
Tatev: I am a human rights expert and a licensed mediator, practising in Armenia and also working in international courts. Right now, I am focused on human rights protection, promotion of women’s rights, and combating hate speech and bullying at schools. Although my background is in criminal justice, I have switched a lot to human rights protection because I see the necessity of doing so. Legislation in Armenia is quite good, but the practice is not developed to the same degree, and we need promotion, especially for women’s rights. That’s why I switched my entire path. Now, I am the leader of the Institute of Liberal Politics in Armenia. It’s a think tank. This is where we try to promote liberalism, because we have a school of liberal politics, and we are focused mainly on the protection of human rights and democracy in Armenia.
Ricardo: Was that interest with you from a young age, or did it come later in life — as you started to think about your career, what your interests would be? Or was it always with you?
Tatev: Interesting question. I started working with human rights organisations even before I went to university. I was a school student, already interested in the death penalty debate, and whether it should exist in Armenia or not. That was the period when I joined the human rights institutions in Armenia and started attending all possible trainings and conferences. Only after that did I understand that I needed to become a professional lawyer. So it was all the way around, as it doesn’t normally happen — but my way was through practice.
Ricardo: Very good. So what comes next for someone like you in Armenia? Would you get involved in politics? Will you continue to do this NGO work? There’s also the future with the EU that we talked about a minute ago. Where do you see yourself going in your professional and interest-based future?
Tatev: That’s a very challenging question for me, because until now I have kind of been in and out of political life. Running an institution affiliated with the liberal party is also about being involved in political life, but not directly. Right now I feel absolutely confident doing the background work — preparing women to enter political life, assisting them in organising their campaigns, and so on. But as you know, active political life just finished here in Armenia, and the next elections will be in five years. So let’s see how it goes. I think being in politics is not just about being somewhere. It should be the point at which you have something to say and something to bring — especially for women. I believe we need to be bold in politics. Otherwise, it’s just senseless.
Ricardo: Indeed. I will have you back on the podcast so we can talk about that. But we will be following your career very closely here on the podcast. Thank you.