The question of voter turnout has added intrigue to the parliamentary elections in Armenia.

High voter turnout on election day in Armenia's parliamentary elections could significantly impact their outcome. A high turnout is sought by the opposition, not the ruling party. Moscow's attempt to support pro-Russian forces could also yield unexpected results.

As "Caucasian Knot" reported, Moscow's actions ahead of the parliamentary elections in Armenia demonstrate to the Civil Contract electorate that Nikol Pashinyan's policies could lead to isolation from a strategic ally, leading to an outflow of party supporters. At the same time, political scientists pointed out, pressure could promote social cohesion and, conversely, boost Nikol Pashinyan's ratings.

The results of pre-election sociological surveys conducted in Armenia in May show the ruling Civil Contract party in the lead, but the level of support for Nikol Pashinyan's political party varies significantly across studies. Sociologist Armen Khachikyan, political scientists Alexander Iskandaryan and Mikael Zolyan, and post-Soviet expert Narek Sukiasyan commented on these data for the "Caucasian Knot."

High voter turnout on election day primarily benefits the opposition, not the Civil Contract, according to sociologist Armen Khachikyan.

“Low turnout is beneficial to the current government. The logic is this: when turnout is low, the core of the electorate, functionally or ideologically aligned with the government, votes, guaranteeing their victory. Consequently, high turnout is beneficial to the opposition, as it includes an uncommitted and unpredictable mass of voters capable of disrupting the government’s plans,” he told the Caucasian Knot.

He attributes the differing results of the Breavis and Gallup polls to technical differences in their methodologies. "Such discrepancies may be due not only to methods but also to psychological factors. For example, external pressure and fear, which suggests the possibility that respondents are concealing their true preferences. The discrepancy in results is also due to the fact that the surveys are conducted at different times, as the political situation in the country changes," he noted.

Turnout in the upcoming parliamentary elections in Armenia will be a key factor influencing the final results, according to political scientist Alexander Iskandaryan. "If turnout is low, it will play into the authorities' hands, because the Civil Contracts electorate is already mobilized and is highly likely to show up at the polls, while voters dissatisfied with the government, especially younger and more educated Yerevan residents, may stay home, seeing no acceptable alternative. Therefore, with low turnout, the authorities have a significant chance of achieving a favorable outcome," he told the "Caucasian Knot."

According to him, a high turnout could change the overall picture of the elections. "On the contrary, the opposition needs a high turnout—only this can give it a chance to change the balance of power. If we manage to attract an additional 20-30% of those who usually don't vote, the situation could change significantly," he noted.

According to political scientist Mikael Zolyan, Gallup International is not trusted in Armenia because it has no connection to the real Gallup. "If I had to choose between these polls, I would trust the Breavis poll more. As far as I understand, Gallup International in Armenia isn't quite the same as the classic Gallup. In any case, even according to their data, the Civil Contract party retains an advantage. As for Gallup, their poll essentially reflects the strategy of pro-Russian forces: running in the elections with separate lists and then forming a coalition in parliament," he told the Caucasian Knot. Zolyan notes that there are serious problems with sociology in Armenia. "During the last election, polls produced completely different figures depending on whether the polling company was aligned with the opposition or the government. Now the situation has become a little more balanced, but we still see many contradictory studies that are either clearly biased or have significant methodological differences. Sociological forecasts in Armenia are still in their infancy, so all polls should be treated with skepticism. Personally, I try to focus on the data of the International Republican Institute [.....] as the product of a respected international organization, but no study can provide absolute certainty," he noted.

Sociological forecasts in Armenia are still in their infancy, so all polls should be treated with skepticism.

Surveys may also fail to reveal objective reality because respondents often conceal their sympathies for a particular party, the expert noted.

“A rather unique situation has developed in Armenia. In authoritarian countries, people are usually afraid to admit their support for the opposition, but here, to some extent, we’ve seen the opposite effect: due to the harsh criticism of Pashinyan after losing Karabakh, many may hide their support for the government. But it also works the other way. Therefore, I don’t think the logic of ‘fear of power’ applies here unambiguously: there are people who vote for Pashinyan but hide it, and there are those who hide their opposition views. As for who the undecided will choose between: experience shows that, ultimately, their votes are distributed among all parties in roughly the same proportions as among those who have already made up their minds, unless something extraordinary happens. Moreover, many of those who now call themselves undecided will likely simply not show up to vote: as previous campaigns have shown, people often say they’ll vote, but on election day, they don’t show up to the polling stations,” he noted. he.

Moscow's dictatorship could play into Pashinyan's hands

The political scientist does not rule out that the Kremlin's attempts to help pro-Russian forces could result in additional support for Pashinyan. "Could Moscow's pressure on Pashinyan mobilize the undecided? This is pure speculation, but it seems to me that some voters, even those critical of Pashinyan, may go and vote for him out of protest against external dictates. However, I wouldn't exaggerate the significance of these events for the undecided," concluded Mikael Zolyan.

Moscow's pressure could be a disservice to pro-Russian forces

The threats and harsh rhetoric recently coming from Russia are aimed at influencing the will of Armenian voters, but the results of this pressure could vary, according to post-Soviet expert Narek Sukiasyan.

“Russia’s goal is to create a more favorable playing field for pro-Russian forces or to weaken the ruling party by making them more responsive to Moscow’s interests. However, Moscow’s pressure could be a disservice to pro-Russian forces. Dissatisfaction with Russia in Armenian society is largely national, not partisan, in nature, and external pressure does not increase Russia’s appeal,” he told the Caucasian Knot.

In his opinion, Russia’s attempts to interfere in political processes abroad do not always produce the results Moscow desires. “Russia lacks the professional tools to influence public opinion in Armenia. Russian projects in a number of countries, such as Hungary and Moldova, show that even with active intervention, the favored candidates often lose. The main tool of Russian influence is the instillation of fear, but this does not translate into votes. The behavior of undecided voters is determined not by the appeal of opposition forces, but by the lack of a positive alternative from Russia,” he emphasized.