Political statements against the Armenian Apostolic Church. A clash of geopolitical interests?

The Etchmiadzin Cathedral, the mother church of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Photo: Amazingness / Shutterstock

Armenia is often considered the most Christian country in the South Caucasus region due to its long history as the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion. Armenia officially adopted Christianity in the year 301 AD, making it the first nation to do so. While the region around Armenia has diverse religious affiliations, Armenia itself has a predominantly Christian population, with a large percentage adhering to the Armenian Apostolic Church.

As of 2011 most Armenians in Armenia are Christians (97 per cent) and are members of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is one of the oldest Christian churches. It is noteworthy that the Armenian Apostolic Church in its entire history has never been a purely religious, or even a predominantly religious structure. From the moment of its formation, it was primarily a state institution and had political and state support. In 2018, however, and in the wake of the Velvet Revolution and the changes in government, church-government relations sharply deteriorated. The sour relations reached an unprecedented peak this May, when Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan personally led propaganda against the church, accompanied by the use of offensive language in the public domain, even leading to the arrest of high-level clergymen.

This unprecedented anti-church campaign can only be compared to the early Soviet times when discrediting propaganda against the church became part of the state mechanism: higher clergymen were arrested, and the Church was deprived not only of its material base but also the opportunity to carry out educational, propaganda and social activities. At the same time, it is difficult to assess the current church-government conflict in Armenia as a purely internal political reality of the country. The conflict between Pashinyan and the head of the church, Catholicos Garegin II, threatens to deepen the division in society, impinge on the results of next year’s elections and negatively affect the peace negotiations with Azerbaijan, leaving an impact on the entire region.

Yet, context and analysis are necessary in order to understand where the incentives of this process originate and where they may lead. This includes taking into account the processes that have been ongoing since the 19th century in the West, and the reflections of which have also been observed in the Armenian context during the last 200 years. This refers to secularization and the issue of separation of church and state, which, originated in Europe, has essentially spread throughout the West, and today is already extending all over the world.

As Nelson Maldonado-Torres has written “Secularism has in many ways become the religion of the modern world”, yet classical theories of secularization contain generalized and teleological premises that are at odds with the complexities of empirical reality and the historical record. The diverse interpretations of secularism have produced more debate than consensus especially in postcolonial/post-Soviet nations such as Armenia. These are realities that appear as a cumulative process of numerous phenomena, both objective and subjective, and everything that is happening in Armenia today should be considered in this context. In essence, what today’s authorities are implementing as a policy towards the Armenian Apostolic Church is only part of larger geopolitical processes.

Today we live in a different context and global processes have led to the church becoming enclosed, limited within the framework of its spiritual and cultural activities. This is also stipulated by the constitution of Armenia; “in the Republic of Armenia, the church is separate from the state, and the Republic of Armenia recognizes the historically exceptional role of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the spiritual life of the Armenian people, in the development of national culture, and in the preservation of national identity”.

Nevertheless, there is a conflict of interest here. Even if the constitution enshrines the national background of the Armenian church and its nation-preserving, culture-creating activities throughout history, in today’s realities, the church, as the most established and powerful institution, is also an important, concrete political factor for the state. Policy towards the Armenian church today cannot be based only on abstract and formal legal principles: separation of church and state, “secular state”, etc. especially since they are borrowed from another historical environment, in which they have centuries of history and evolvement, in the case of Armenia, they are completely devoid of historical ground.

In other words, regardless of the realities we are dealing with today in the context of the separation of church and state, we must also consider the church as a political tool, because we must admit that the Armenian Apostolic Church is the largest public institution in Armenia. The Armenian Apostolic Church is much larger than even the Republic of Armenia, and being one of the most influential and vital public institutions, it cannot stay away from politics, nor refrain from responding or expressing an opinion on very important and also fateful issues of national and state significance. This is not a phenomenon which is purely personalized or conditioned by personal ambitions, but is a part much larger, global processes; a part of which has reached Armenia. And today we are in that reality.

Russia vs West: who is behind?

Along with all this, a discourse is actively unfolding in Armenian expert and public circles, according to which the conflict between the Armenian church and the authorities is considered as a symptom of the Russia vs. West “civilizational” or value-based clash.  In the same circles, they also consider it no coincidence that the situation in Moldova is approximately the same, and in Ukraine there are brutal persecutions against the Orthodox Church. Especially the pro-Russian circles in Armenia are inclined to the idea that the Pashinyan is tightening the rules of the game inside the country, making arrests, being confident that he will not receive any criticism from the outside, as it has been negotiated with the West, specifically with the EU.  This belief was further enshrined with a recent post by Emmanuel Macron, the French president, on his social media, in which he expressed his solidarity “in response to attempts to destabilize Armenia’s democracy”.

A Kremlin-affiliated propaganda channel intensified its activity with the arrest of Samvel Karapetyan, a billionaire of Armenian descent with Russian citizenship, who had publicly expressed his support for the Armenian church. Prominent Russian public and cultural figures, without taking turns, condemned this step by the Armenian authorities, and already in recent days, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the attacks on the Armenian Apostolic Church as “extremely worrisome and unjustified”. Lavrov’s statement was immediately followed by a harsh response from the Armenian foreign minister, Ararat Mirzoyan, urging him “not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Republic of Armenia”.

Against the backdrop of all this, pro-western analytical circles in Armenia are convinced that the Kremlin, which is interested in destabilizing the situation in Armenia and promoting chaos, may be behind the coup attempt in the country through the church. Even if the current weakened government stays in Armenia, its dependence on the Kremlin will only increase in such unstable conditions.

We can only conclude that it is concerning that the political statements against the church risk provoking a civil conflict in Armenia, and the situation could get out of control at any moment, especially considering that the church is frequented by 90 per cent of the Armenian population. A church-state conflict also raises concerns about escalating tensions in the region amid Yerevan’s fragile efforts to normalize relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Anna Vardanyan is an independent journalist, political analyst and researcher based in Armenia.

Armenia, Armenian church, church-state relations