During a briefing with journalists, the Speaker of Armenia’s National Assembly, Alen Simonyan, made a rather sharp and even derogatory statement against the opposition. According to him, there is no real opposition in parliament, only certain individuals preoccupied with securing their own political future by trying to find a place within different forces.
This statement can undoubtedly be considered offensive to the opposition camp. Yet beyond the emotional reactions, it is worth paying attention to the deeper subtext. Simonyan’s words are primarily directed at one of the main players of the parliamentary opposition — the “Armenia” faction led by Robert Kocharyan. And it is precisely this team that must draw conclusions — not only as the main opposition force but also because their own behavior has allowed such remarks to be made.
Some members of Kocharyan’s team still seem convinced that sharp speeches, tough questions, or fiery rhetoric are enough to form a real opposition. However, the ruling power, as we see from Alen Simonyan’s statement, does not take this seriously. Moreover, they are criticized not for being harsh, but for being vague and politically inactive.
In the same context, Serzh Sargsyan’s recent remarks made in a conversation with journalists are noteworthy. Referring to the examples of Nepal and France, Armenia’s third president reaffirmed his stance, clearly suggesting to avoid confrontation and pursue political change through a civilized path. By emphasizing the impeachment agenda, Sargsyan effectively sends a message to the opposition: do not wait for a “revolution” in 2026, as the current regime dreams, but act today — within the framework of constitutional mechanisms.
Simonyan’s statement, in this light, should be seen as a sobering signal. If the opposition — especially Kocharyan’s team — still seeks public support and genuinely intends to be the driving force of change, then it is time to move beyond rhetoric and engage in real political work.
Sargsyan’s message — as the position of a statesman with rich political experience — should be understood not through the prism of personal animosity or rivalry, but at the level of state thinking. Political maturity also lies in recognizing and accepting a reasonable proposal from the opposite camp for the sake of national interests.
Unfortunately, even today, certain political circles remain dominated by personal ambitions, hindering the formation of a unified opposition agenda. Yet it is necessary to act together, proving that unlike the “Alens,” they are not “scarecrows” but viable political forces.
Opinion by journalist Ani Terteryan