The tension between the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church and the state authorities appears to be reaching a new level. Several months ago, the Primate of the Shirak Diocese, Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan, and the leader of the “Holy Struggle” movement, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, were arrested on charges of attempting to seize power and inciting mass unrest. In recent days, six clergymen from the Aragatsotn Diocese and its Primate, Bishop Mkrtich, have also been detained.
Are these events purely a legal process, or do they carry a political subtext? Hasmik Harutyunyan, an expert from the NGO “Rights Protection Without Borders,” shared her opinion on the matter.
According to her, what we have been witnessing in recent months is a trend of suppressing and silencing individuals through criminal cases in the Republic of Armenia, which is a dangerous phenomenon. “There are numerous instances where, even before any legal process has begun, directives are issued from the high tribune of the National Assembly at the level of the Prime Minister on how the police should act. To avoid being vague, let me cite an example: on June 12, an incident occurred in the National Assembly, and although no investigation or proceedings had yet taken place, the Prime Minister already characterized the police actions as lawful. This is direct interference,” the expert asserts.
Harutyunyan noted that in recent months, there have been frequent claims that the church is interfering in political processes. She emphasized that citizens, including clergy, have the right to freely express their opinions and participate in assemblies. “This may include dissatisfaction with certain issues, but the right to freedom of speech exists, and there are no restrictions concerning clergy,” she added.
According to Harutyunyan, it is important to understand how this process is assessed: not every gathering or expression of discontent is necessarily a political act. “It is necessary to listen to the clergy’s perspectives to determine whether their actions had a political orientation or not,” she added. The expert stressed that the politicization of the church has not yet been substantiated.
Harutyunyan believes it is crucial to clarify from what point and which actions of the clergy are deemed political by the authorities. “And why is there no similar or even comparable reaction when, with the use of all state resources, there is direct interference in church affairs? Why are the same or at least similar approaches not applied when the most critical guarantees enshrined in the Constitution and national legislation—prohibiting state interference in church matters—are violated? This seems to pass smoothly, and so far, no law enforcement agency has addressed this issue,” she noted.
When the Prime Minister states that he speaks against the Catholicos and demands his resignation, acting as a citizen of Armenia and a follower of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the statements of the clergy should be viewed in the same context. “Any clergyman can speak about the authorities, stating that they are acting as a citizen,” Harutyunyan emphasized.
She added that, at the highest level, the authorities should pursue a policy ensuring that the law enforcement system does not operate selectively and that it is clear to everyone where freedom of speech crosses into impermissible political processes. “Otherwise, it turns out that the latest posts on the Prime Minister’s official page can be made without consequences, but in any other case, criminal cases are initiated. This is the main problem: criminal justice today is used unilaterally, turned into a cudgel, a tool to suppress certain circles. It is also a signal to the broader public that if you have a different opinion, a different approach, or even support such an approach, you are likely to face the same consequences,” the expert asserts.