Public Reaction

Initial public response to the gunmens’ call for an uprising was lagging, and mostly restricted to Founding Parliament sympathisers. Many remained hesitant to take the side of the gunmen, despite identifying with their cause, due to disagreement with their violent methods.

Within days, prominent lawmaker, Nikol Pashinyan, who had gained praise for his efforts to de-escalate the tense standoff with riot police, called for a peaceful rally near the site of the hostage crisis, only to be dismissed by the more radical protest leaders, (which included former ASALA, and Founding-Parliament members) who feared that he had gained too much popularity over the issue, and risked “Hijacking” their movement for political gain. This rift over peaceful regime change vs. violent overthrow was exemplified when Pashinyan’s suggestion that “a peaceful nationwide campaign backed by the majority of Armenians can force Sarkisian to quit” was shot down by Varujan Avetisian who retorted “You can fight against a dictatorship only with arms. There is no other option.”

The Authorities’ Response

Throughout the siege, the police, apparently aware of the large sway the Sasna Dzrer carried, were careful not to kill any of the gunmen for fear of turning them into martyrs, and risk escalating the situation. This was evidenced by the fact that all of the wounded gunmen had received carefully inflicted wounds in the leg. While armoured vehicles and SWAT groups maintained a strict perimeter around the compound, exchanging sporadic gunfire, and at times, negotiating the release of the final two hostages, police response to demonstrators was much more incoherent.

Violent confrontations with protesters in the first few nights in Erebuni’s blue-collar ‘Sari Tagh’ neighbourhood which included the use of flash-bang and concussion grenades, as well as random arrests of bystanders off the street by security forces, helped to incite larger protests. The number of demonstrators began to swell as those whose previous reluctance to show support for the gunmen had been overcome by frustration with an excessive use of force by the police, threatening to further destabilise the situation. Two weeks of nightly protests in downtown Yerevan and the Erebuni district saw crowds of up to 10 000 people take to the streets.

A lack of coherent leadership and precise goals amongst the demonstrators, exasperated by a series of arrests of protest leaders by police contrasted with complete silence on the part of the President and senior government officials to contribute to a leadership crisis. The situation reached a focal point on the night of the 29th of July when riot police charged peaceful protesters with the help of plain clothed, iron rod wielding bodyguards of a pro-government MP. Journalists from CivilNet and Radio Free Europe were also beaten in what proved to be a targeted attack on the press. As riot police began methodically searching for and arresting any young men in the Sari Tagh neighbourhood, one bystander lost an eye, while a little girl’s dress caught fire after a flash-bang grenade went off. Police also arrested demonstrators while they were receiving treatment at the hospital.

These acts were widely condemned by RFE/RL, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders, leading the President to eventually call an inquiry into these actions.

By Saturday, the gunmen ignored an ultimatum, and a second police officer was killed in yet unclear circumstances. The protests culminated in a large-scale demonstration, which blocked Baghramyan Avenue for a number of hours (where one man was self-immolated, and eventually succumbed to his wounds). The gunmen finally announced, on Sunday, that they were ready to “end their armed struggle” claiming to have achieved their goal of inciting a public uprising, bringing an end to a 15-day standoff.

Causes and Motivations

Pundits have noted that despite the appearance of an outpouring of support for the gunmen by the general public, the continuous protests over the last two weeks reveal a deeper undercurrent of frustration within the country. Dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the economy, the country’s security situation, as well as a lack of dialogue with civil society has lead many to search for any forum to vent their grievances.

Observers have linked the current state of unrest with a failure of the social contract between the Government and its citizens. Protesters have pointed out that the Sargsyan administration has had a poor record of dealing with some of the most pressing issues facing the nation. Indeed, in his inaugural speech, following a hotly contested, and deeply controversial election process in 2008 in which 10 people lost their lives, President Sargsyan called for unity in order to achieve “reconciliation, development, and future of Armenia”. He also pledged to fight against rampant corruption, nepotism, and soviet-era bureaucratic practices warning that “tax evasion and corruption must be regarded as a disgraceful and condemnable phenomenon “.

Despite Sargsyan’s first term being marred by the wake of the Great Recession, which, due to unsound fiscal policies of the previous administration, disproportionately affected Armenia, and triggering a new wave of out-migration, certain early successes did help distinguish this new government from its predecessor. Under Sargsyan, restrictions on freedom of the press, and public demonstrations were greatly relaxed, resulting in the flourishing of civil society, while close cooperation with EU and USAID advisors resulted in the creation of e-governance mechanisms, reducing small-scale corruption in the business sector, in addition to streamlining state bureaucracy. The nomination of the non-partisan former head of the Central Bank, Tigran Sargsyan as a technocratic Prime Minister also served to mend differences. He oversaw a considerable improvement of the business climate in Armenia, as the country now ranks as the No1 place in Europe to start a business. The effects of modest police reform have also gained recognition.

Although these reforms garnered praise from international observers, much of their effects failed to trickle down to common citizens, who saw their real incomes stall, and economic opportunities dissipate. A lack of serious political will to tackle large-scale corruption and nepotism, as well as reluctance to dismantle prominent commodity-based cartels with links to government officials proved to be a veritable stumbling block for sustainable progress, affecting both real economic growth, as well as a growing feeling of disenfranchisement amongst citizens.

This growing sense of resentment towards real or perceived government impunity materialised itself outside the traditional political sphere, into a wave of increasingly well-organised, and principled civil dissent directed towards the Sargsyan Administration. Small-scale, yet successful protests against restrictions on street vending, and environmental concerns, such as the Mashtots Park protests, gradually culminated into sustained protest actions by the President’s second term.

Though some have criticised opponents of the government for being too impatient for change, or overly cynical, statistical data has substantiated a great deal of these grievances. In the eight years since Sargsyan has been at the helm, indicators have shown that progress has slowed down considerably. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) levels have not yet recovered from the Recession, unemployment rose from 16.4% to 18.5%, poverty has increased by 11%, foreign direct investment had steadily declined by almost 73%, while up to 300 000 people are estimated to have emigrated during the Sargsyan presidency according to the Armenian National Statistical Service.

The fact that Armenia has made only superficial progress in tackling corruption, judicial reform, and democratic consolidation in the past 8 years, according to the Freedom House Index, which classifies Armenia as a “semi-consolidated authoritarians state”, has contributed to a general sense of frustration, due to a feeling of being shut out of any participation in the policy-formulation process. This feeling of disenfranchisement has rendered people susceptible to more ‘radical’ alternatives.