Friday’s thwarted military coup in Turkey was not the region’s only political turmoil last week. On Sunday, 17th of July, a group of armed men stormed the Patrol-Guard Service Regiment in Erebuni Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, and took hostage a number of police officers. The attackers killed one officer, wounded four others, and at the time of this writing, four policemen are still being kept hostage.

The armed group is demanding the release of Zhirayr Sefilian, the leader of a small oppositional movement called Founding Parliament. Three members of the group that stormed the police station “Daredevils of Sassoun” (“Sasna Dzrer”) belong to that Movement. Most of the members of the Sasna Dzrer are the veterans of Karabakh war, and for obvious reasons, are highly sensitive about the ongoing negotiations over Karabakh between Sargsyan and Aliyev that were initiated by Russia. The negotiations come after the largest escalation of the Karabakh conflict since the armistice on April 2-5 erupted, during which both sides suffered heavy losses. With the mediation of Russia on April 5 active military operations were halted, and Russia continues to oversee the conversation between the two sides. "We announce the start of an armed revolt. We are the brother-in-arms and political comrades of Zhirayr Sefilyan," says the statement of Sasna Dzrer group. Sefilian was arrested on June 20 and charged with illegal acquisition and possession of weapons. Investigators said he and his supporters were planning to seize government buildings and the television transmission tower. Sefilian is a Lebanese-Armenian by birth, and gained military experience fighting in an Armenian quarter of Beirut during the Lebanese Civil War before moving to Armenia with his family in 1990. During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Sefilian commanded a unit of fighters that took control of the city of Shusha from Azerbaijani forces in 1992, scoring one of the first significant military victories for the Armenian side in the conflict.

As the siege is still continuing, a number of clashes between the police and peaceful demonstrators protesting for the freedom of political prisoners have taken place. Ombudsman’s Office of the Republic of Armenia reports about cases of apparent violations of citizens’ rights by the police. The apparatus of the Ombudsman also called the demonstrators to adhere to peaceful demonstrations and prevent aggression and harassment against the law enforcement officials.

Hundreds of the Armenian citizens joined the march yesterday in the center of Yerevan to protest the current political regime and demanding the resignation of President.

Surely, the most straightforward way to deal with this event is to label the armed rebellions “terrorists” in violation of the Constitution and weakening the legitimacy of political regime in Armenia. But what kind of rational interpretation can be offered when a group of armed people starts taking hostages in peaceful times? Doubtless, that any armed and illegal action against the government and even more so, against civilians, cannot be justified.

However, the siege has to be perceived and analysed within the broader political, economic and social context inherent to the institutional structure of the country. Various layers of the Armenian system starting with the judiciary and ending with education are highly corrupted. Bribery and nepotism are reportedly common practice among government officials, who are rarely prosecuted or removed for abuse of office. Corruption is also believed to be a serious problem in law enforcement. A five-year initiative to combat graft, announced in 2008, did not make meaningful headway.[1] Furthermore, the public seems to be less and less convinced of the government’s ability to make positive changes regarding corruption in Armenia.

Ongoing negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh initiated by Russia behind closed doors and zero involvement of the citizens regarding the negotiations is only adding to their frustration and fear that the government is isolating other actors from influencing decisions on vital national issues. The siege is not about a particular group of particular people, but about the system and its functioning in general. In line with the argument, this in no way can justify the use of violence in order to achieve one’s own goals. And this represents a serious dilemma: the discontent of citizens with the ruling regime may prompt some of them to support the opposition group that seeks to enact its political goals using violence, a real litmus test for the Armenian government.

[1]Freedom House Report, 2015.