So when you look at the architecture of legacy
political institutions, right, there's almost
always this expectation of permanence. Oh, absolutely.
built to last. Right. You think of like heavy
stone columns, these sprawling bureaucracies
and parties that have just been entrenched for,
you know, over a century, passing laws at a glacial
pace. Yeah, the whole system is designed to project
stability. Exactly. It feels like it's built
to last forever. You build the fortress and then,
well, you stay in the fortress. But when you
step into the recent political history of Armenia,
that architectural model just completely shattered.
It really does. It's a totally different paradigm.
Yeah. We are not looking at a stone fortress
today. We are looking at a political phenomenon
that functioned more like a highly calibrated,
perfectly timed explosive charge. I like that
analogy because it completely reconfigured the
national landscape and then almost as quickly
as it appeared, it was just gone. Just poof,
gone. Right. And we tend to view politics as
this game of long -term survival and slow entrenchment.
But this case study challenges that entire assumption.
And that flash point is the focus of our deep
dive today. We're analyzing source material that
details the brief but incredibly eventful lifespan
of the Way Out Alliance, or as it's also known
in Armenian, the Yelk Alliance. Yelk Alliance,
right. So the mission for you listening today
is to understand how a political coalition that
existed for less than two years. I mean, just
21 months to be exact. Which is nothing in political
time. Literally nothing. How they managed to
coincide with and truly help drive a massive
shift in a nation's entire trajectory. We're
going to examine the mechanics of how they went
from a tiny parliamentary minority to the absolute
center of a national revolution. But before we
dissect the mechanics of their strategy, we really
do need to establish the parameters of our analysis
here. Right. The disclaimer. Yeah. So the source
text we're working from outlines some very specific
geopolitical and ideological stances held by
the Weigh Out Alliance. The documents explicitly
describe their platform as featuring anti -Russian
sentiment. pro -Europeanism, Armenian civic nationalism,
and strong opposition to the Eurasian Economic
Union or the EAEU. Right. And our role here,
just to be super clear, is to strictly remain
impartial analysts of the text we've been provided.
We are not taking a left -wing or a right -wing
side. Definitely not. We're not endorsing any
of these geopolitical viewpoints, and we're not
criticizing them either. We're simply unpacking
the historical data, the stated ideologies, and
the strategic timeline as presented source just
so you can understand the historical mechanics
of this specific alliance exactly just sticking
to the facts in the text okay so let's unpack
this set the stage for us what exactly was the
way out Alliance and who are the architects behind
it well the official founding date is December
12th 2016 the way out Alliance was established
as a liberal centrist coalition but And this
is important. It wasn't some grassroots movement
that organically swelled up from the streets.
Right, it wasn't just a bunch of people with
protest signs suddenly forming a party. No, not
at all. It was a highly structured, top -down
merger of three distinct pre -existing political
parties in Armenia. Okay, who are the players?
So you had the Civil Contract Party led by Nikol
Pashinyan, then you had Bright Armenia led by
Edmund Marukian, and you had the Hanrapatutin
Party led by Aram Sargsyan. And Sargsyne was
a former prime minister, right? It was, which
brought significant institutional weight to the
table. And they unified under the color orange,
which served as their visual signature throughout
all their campaigns. So bringing three established
leaders together, especially when each already
controls their own party apparatus, I mean, that
requires a massive forcing function. It really
does. It's not easy to share power. No. I view
this kind of political maneuvering like a corporate
tiger team. or, you know, like a musical super
group. Oh, super group. Yeah, I like that. Yeah.
You have three leaders who are used to operating
independently, but they look at the political
landscape and realize they just cannot break
through the institutional noise on their own.
So they pool their resources for a highly specific,
high stakes objective. They aren't merging their
companies forever. They're forming a temporary
syndicate to execute a hostile takeover. That
structural analogy aligns perfectly with the
ideological glue that bound them together. According
to the source, while their shared foundation
was broadly defined as liberalism, the actual
thrust of their partnership was their foreign
policy and economic stance. The EAEU stuff? Right.
They believed that Armenia's decision to integrate
into the Eurasian Economic Union was a fundamental
mistake that was actively harming the country.
And just for context for you listening, the EAEU
is essentially a Russia -led economic bloc. Joining
it deeply ties a nation's trade, tariffs, and
economic regulations to Moscow and the other
member states. Right. So the Alliance's proposed
alternative was this sharp pivot toward the West.
They were distinctly pro -European, advocating
that Armenia should renegotiate its position
to sign an association agreement and a deep and
comprehensive free trade agreement. with the
European Union. So this wasn't just like a minor
tweak to import taxes? No, not at all. It was
a proposal to completely reorient the nation's
geopolitical axis. That was their unifying concept.
A clear pivot away from the reigning paradigm,
offering voters a literal way out. Hence the
name. Exactly. The source also mentions Armenian
civic nationalism as a core tenet. And that is
a crucial distinction to make, because civic
nationalism, unlike ethnic nationalism, bases
national identity on shared citizenship, shared
values, and adherence to democratic institutions.
Right, rather than purely on ethnic lineage or
ancestry. Exactly. It's an ideology focused on
building a modern state apparatus. Which naturally
complements their pro -European institutional
focus. Yeah. But there's a detail in the source
that reveals a lot about their internal operating
procedures because this was not a big tent movement
welcoming anyone who agreed with their manifesto.
No, they were actually quite exclusive. Very.
There was another party, the Union for National
Self -Determination, and they were also a liberal,
pro -European party. They saw this task force
forming and officially requested to join the
Alliance before the elections. And the way out
Alliance just completely ignored them. Yeah,
the source explicitly notes their request was
simply never responded to. They literally left
a willing, ideologically aligned partner on red.
It's pretty brutal. It is. In the middle of trying
to build a national coalition to challenge the
government, ghosting another pro -European party
seems counterproductive on the surface. But it
tells you that this was a tightly controlled,
highly curated strategic partnership. Right.
They didn't want to dilute the decision -making
power among too many factions. Exactly. They
only wanted specific players who brought undeniable
tactical value to the table. And curation is
crucial when you're trying to maintain agility.
What's fascinating here is the real challenge
isn't drafting the manifesto or designing the
orange banners. The ultimate litmus test for
any political task force is the ballot box. You
have to translate that curated ideology into
tangible institutional power. So that brings
us to their first major reality check. the Armenian
parliamentary elections in April 2017. They have
the leadership triad, they have the clear pro
-European message, and the results finally come
in. And they secure 122 ,049 votes. That translates
to 7 .78 % of the national vote, earning them
nine out of the 105 seats in the National Assembly.
placing them firmly in the opposition. Nine seats
out of 105. Yeah, I have to challenge the efficacy
of that outcome. Really? Why? Well, if you form
a joint task force, bring in a former prime minister,
merge three -party infrastructures, and your
grand debut results in less than 10 % of the
parliament, I mean, that looks like a failure
to launch. Was this actually a defeat disguised
as a victory, or was it a calculated foothold?
I get why you'd see it that way. It's easy to
look at a single -digit seat count and dismiss
it. especially when their rhetoric was about
reorienting the entire country. But we have to
look at the mechanics of parliamentary systems.
OK, how so? Nine seats grant you a legally recognized
institutional platform. It's a beachhead. It
provides parliamentary immunity to your key leaders.
It guarantees official speaking time on the floor,
access to legislative committees, and a legitimate
microphone that the state media is obligated
to cover. Ah, so it's a wedge into the establishment.
Exactly. And the proof that they viewed it as
a strategic foothold rather than a defeat is
in their immediate next move. They didn't retreat
to lick their wounds. They pivoted their momentum
instantly. They went local. Just weeks after
the national elections, they jumped straight
into the 2017 Yerevan City Council elections.
Right. And Yerevan is the capital city. It holds
a massive portion of the country's population
and economic power. The Alliance put Nikol Peshinian,
the leader of the Civil Contract Party, forward
as their mayoral candidate. And they did way
better here. They did. They saw a significant
surge in their vote share. They captured 21 percent
of the vote, tallying over 70 ,000 votes, which
earned them 14 out of the 65 seats on the City
Council. OK, but there is a highly specific strategic
maneuver here that we need to unpack. Pashinyan
ran as the face of this local campaign. He successfully
wins a seat on the city council and then he refuses
the mandate. He does. He gives up the seat. He
chooses to remain in his parliamentary role as
an MP in the National Assembly. Why on earth
go through the grueling process of a campaign,
secure the seat, and then refuse it? Well, it
comes down to understanding the mechanics of
proportional representation systems. The goal
of running Pashinyan wasn't necessarily to have
him manage municipal services or oversee city
zoning laws. Right, he didn't want to deal with
trash collection. Exactly. The goal was to maximize
the party's overall vote share. In a list -based
voting system, you put your most visible, dynamic
leader at the top of the ticket to pull in the
maximum number of votes. He was the primary draw
for the electorate. So he acts as the gravitational
pull for the entire party list. Yes. And once
that 21 % vote share was secured, earning the
Alliance 14 total seats, those seats were locked
in for the party. By refusing his personal mandate,
Bashinian simply allowed the seat to pass to
the next person on the Alliance's list. Oh. That's
clever. It is. He secured the local power base
for his coalition, but realized his personal
utility was much higher on the national stage.
He needed to be in the National Assembly, using
that nine -seat parliamentary foothold to keep
hammering the central government. It's a master
class in resource allocation, positioning your
most effective pieces where they generate the
most leverage. OK, so they have 14 seats in the
capital city council and nine seats in the national
parliament. They are organized, they are loud,
and they've established clear beachheads. But
they were still a vast minority. They are still
the opposition. True. How does an opposition
party with just nine parliamentary seats suddenly
become the government? Because the data shows
that is exactly what happens next. To understand
that leap, we have to look beyond electoral math
and examine the dynamics of social movements.
Because the defining moment of the Way Out Alliance
wasn't an election. It was the 2018 Armenian
Revolution. Right. The source notes that the
Way Out Alliance didn't just sit in parliament
and issue press releases while the country shifted
around them. They actively supported the goals
of the revolution. They were in the streets,
participating in the protests, fundamentally
backing Nikol Pashinyan as the face of this massive
public uprising. This is where the specific architecture
of the Alliance proved its worth. You have this
inside -outside political strategy playing out
in real time. Nicole Pashinyan is out in the
streets, leading the marches, engaging with civil
disobedience, and acting as the charismatic lightning
rod for public frustration. But street protests,
no matter how large, often struggle to transition
into actual governance without an institutional
mechanism. Which is exactly why the alliance
mattered. While Pashinyan was applying maximum
pressure from the outside, he had the institutional
backing of his alliance partners, Bright Armenia
and Henrikh Petutian operating on the inside.
They were legitimizing the movement from within
the political establishment. They could use their
parliamentary privileges to demand inquiries,
protect protesters, and negotiate with the reigning
government using constitutional mechanisms. It
was a classic pincer movement. Here's where it
gets really interesting for you listening. When
you look at the electoral record table provided
in the source material, it is genuinely jarring.
Under the government column, it lists their status
as opposition for 2017 to 2018. Right below it,
for 2018 to 2019, it simply says government.
Just a complete flip. Yeah. There's no gradual
staircase of gaining a few seats every election
cycle. It's a sudden dramatic flip. It just goes
to show that formal structures like holding only
nine seats don't always dictate real world influence.
The existing political structure was upended.
The previous government stepped down and Nikol
Pashinyan was propelled into power. The way out
alliance, armed with only those nine original
seats, suddenly found themselves as the ruling
coalition of the country. When the institutional
wave hit, they were already on the surfboard.
Sometimes being positioned correctly when a cultural
or institutional wave hits is more important
than your initial market share. So the momentum
is at an absolute peak. They went from a scrappy
opposition task force to the driving force of
a successful national revolution. They possessed
the government mandate. They did it. They finally
have the power to enact the pro -European anti
-EAU policies they campaigned on. The most logical
next step would be to solidify that power, assign
cabinet positions among the three parties and
start governing. They don't do that. They don't.
On September 12, 2018, the Way Out Alliance was
officially dissolved. It's a stunning pivot.
I have to admit, reading this part of the timeline
was completely baffling. Why on earth would you
dissolve an alliance right after leading a successful
revolution? You finally have the wheel. You spend
21 months fighting tooth and nail to climb the
mountain. You finally plant your flag at the
summit. And your first executive action is to
kick your partners off the cliff and break the
flagpole. It defies conventional political logic.
Well, it defies logic. only if you view political
parties as permanent families or ideological
marriages. If you view them as tactical vehicles,
the dissolution makes perfect, ruthless sense.
Ruthless is the word. The source outlines the
strategic reasoning clearly. The constituent
parties, Civil Contract, Bright Armenia, and
Hand Repetition, agreed to participate in the
upcoming 2018 parliamentary and local elections
separately. But why voluntarily splinter your
own voting bloc? because the political gravity
of the nation had fundamentally inverted. When
they formed the alliance in 2016, they were outsiders
trying to breach the fortress. They needed each
other's weight, resources, and voter bases to
break down the door. But post -revolution, Nikol
Pashinyan and his civil contract party were no
longer outsiders. The revolution had made Pashinyan
the undeniable center of gravity in Armenian
politics. His personal popularity, and by extension,
his party's popularity, had entirely eclipsed
the need for the Alliance. Oh, I see. To use
a functional analogy, the way out Alliance was
a battering ram. Exactly. You design it, you
build it, and you use it to smash through the
heavy wooden doors of the establishment. But
once the doors are broken and you are standing
inside the castle, the battering ram is entirely
useless. You don't drag a massive cumbersome
siege engine into the throne room. You leave
it at the gate. A battering ram is the perfect
way to conceptualize it. The Alliance had executed
its specific function, and the source details
exactly how this newly splintered landscape played
out in the immediate aftermath, specifically
looking at the 2018 Yerevan City Council election.
Remember, the original Alliance skipped this
2018 municipal race as a unified front. because
they had already dissolved. Right. So how did
the pieces fall once the battering ram was dismantled?
Well, Nikol Pashinyan's party, civil contract,
went off and formed a brand new coalition called
the My Step Alliance, partnering with a different
group entirely, the Mission Party. OK. Capitalizing
on the post -revolution momentum, they absolutely
dominated. The My Step Alliance won the municipal
elections outright, and their candidate, Hek
Maruchin, was appointed as the mayor of Yerevan.
Total victory. And what about the rest of the
task force? What happened to Bright Armenia and
the Hand Repetition Party, the partners who provided
the institutional cover inside the parliament
while Pashinyan was in the streets? Without Pashinyan's
revolutionary momentum anchoring them, they had
to regroup entirely. Marukyan and Sargson merged
their two parties to form the Bright Alliance.
In that same 2018 Yerevan City Council election,
where civil contract took the mayor's office,
the Bright Alliance came in third place. Ouch.
Yeah, they secured just three out of the 65 seats.
From being equal partners in a triad that sparked
a revolution, to watching your former ally take
executive control while you were left scraping
by with three municipal seats, the brutal calculus
of political capital is unforgivable. Once you
are no longer necessary for the equation, you
are factored out. This raises an important question
about how we fundamentally evaluate the success
of political coalitions. We often judge institutions
by their longevity, right? Yeah, totally. We
assume a party that lasts a century is inherently
more successful than one that lasts a year. But
the Way Out Alliance challenges that metric.
It was not built for longevity. It was a highly
effective temporary mechanism designed to force
a literal way out. of the reigning political
paradigm. Once the paradigm shifted, the mechanism
disassembled itself. So as we synthesize the
data from this 21 month timeline, let's distill
the core mechanics for you listening to take
away. We've examined how three distinct political
entities utilize a shared ideological stance,
specifically opposition to the EAEU and a push
for European integration to form a highly curated
task force. We saw how a seemingly marginal nine
seat foothold in parliament was leveraged not
as the defeat, but as an institutional wedge.
We explored the mechanics of proportional representation
and how yielding a local mandate can position
a leader for national leverage. And, crucially,
we unpacked the inside -outside strategy of utilizing
parliamentary legitimacy to support a street
-level revolution. The overarching lesson here
is the prioritization of strategy over structure.
They didn't let the preservation of the Alliance
become more important than the ultimate objective
of the Alliance. When the landscape changed,
they adapted immediately, even if it meant dismantling
the very vehicle that brought them to power.
It requires a level of tactical agility that
most legacy institutions simply do not possess.
Which leaves us with a final thought for you
to ponder as you navigate the structures and
alliances in your own professional or civic life.
When you look at the life cycle of the Way Out
Alliance, its ultimate success immediately resulted
in its own dissolution. Is the natural life cycle
of any truly disruptive movement to inevitably
break apart and splinter once it transitions
from the rebellion into the establishment? Does
the very act of acquiring power destroy the coalition
required to achieve it? It's a fascinating thought.
The skills required to unite a diverse opposition
and dismantle an existing power structure are
fundamentally different from the skills required
to govern a new one together. You build the explosive
charge, you light the fuse, and it does exactly
what it was designed to do. You cannot be surprised
when there is nothing left but the shockwave.
Thank you for joining us as we unpack the mechanics
of the Way Out Alliance. Keep questioning the
permanence of the architecture around you. Sometimes
a way out requires entirely rewriting the blueprint.
We will catch you on the next deep dive.