On the morning of June 27, chants of prayer at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in Vagharshapat were abruptly drowned out by protests. Worshippers formed a human barrier around the cathedral in an attempt to prevent the arrest of Archbishop Mikael Adjapahyan—yet another senior clergyman detained amid an intensifying political crisis in Armenia.
The growing rift between the Armenian Apostolic Church and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government, once confined to rhetorical skirmishes, has escalated dramatically into a campaign of arrests, raids, and criminal charges. For the third time in the past century, Armenia's most enduring institution—its Church—finds itself in direct confrontation with the state.
The Flashpoint: Arrests and Accusations
The arrest of Archbishop Mikael on charges of inciting the overthrow of constitutional order, followed by his two-month pre-trial detention, marked a new inflection point in the conflict. Two days earlier, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan—leader of the grassroots “Sacred Struggle” movement—was also taken into custody alongside several opposition figures. Authorities alleged the group had planned acts of terrorism and sought to usurp state power.
Prime Minister Pashinyan further inflamed tensions by sharing an article on his Telegram channel that accused the clergy of orchestrating a “criminal oligarchic plot.” The government’s rhetoric has sharpened considerably, with Church leaders now framed as not just dissenters, but potential subversives.
The Origins: War, Borders, and National Identity
The Church's increasingly visible political posture has its roots in Armenia’s post-2020 political landscape. Following the government’s widely criticized handling of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and its subsequent peace agreement with Azerbaijan, the Church openly sided with public protests. Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II even called for Pashinyan’s resignation.
Tensions deepened in 2024 during protests in Tavush Province over border demarcation with Azerbaijan. Archbishop Bagrat led a high-profile march from Tavush to Yerevan, giving rise to the Sacred Struggle movement—an alliance of clergy, students, and opposition parties that emerged as a potent challenge to Pashinyan’s authority.
Although the Church has not formally entered the political arena, it has become a de facto symbol of resistance—a unique institution combining moral authority, national symbolism, and deep public support.
Anti-Clericalism as State Strategy
By mid-2024, the government had adopted a markedly anti-clerical stance. Prime Minister Pashinyan accused the Church of acting as a “foreign influence agent” and hinted at legislative and fiscal measures to curb its independence. Proposals to tax the Church and seize its assets were floated in Parliament. The symbolic weight of these actions was significant—particularly when police attempted to block Catholicos Garegin II from attending a national ceremony in Sardarapat.
The government’s pivot from coexistence to confrontation culminated in calls for direct interference in the Church’s leadership. Pashinyan, in a notable departure from earlier statements, argued that the government should play a role in selecting the next Catholicos and proposed background checks for future candidates.
Meanwhile, his public commentary became increasingly inflammatory—referring to the Church as a “dusty closet,” disparaging clergy, and making personal attacks on the Catholicos. These verbal assaults soon gave way to institutional pressure: plans were announced to establish a state task force to replace Garegin II.
An Institution Under Siege—and Rising in Defiance
The Armenian Apostolic Church issued an unusually strong response, warning that state actions represented an attack on national identity and constitutional norms. Some political opponents went further, calling for the excommunication of the Prime Minister and his wife—an extraordinary suggestion in Armenian public life.
Support for the Church has grown beyond traditional religious lines. Many secular Armenians see the institution as one of the few remaining defenders of national dignity in an era marked by political volatility and economic hardship. The Church’s historic and cultural role—more than its religious function—has driven mass demonstrations, marked not by partisan slogans but by crosses, icons, and images of Etchmiadzin.
The Role of the Diaspora and Elite Figures
The conflict took an international turn with the arrest of Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, a prominent supporter of the Church. After criticizing the government's actions and threatening to “intervene” if necessary, Karapetyan was detained on charges of inciting the overthrow of the state. According to reports, the head of Armenia’s National Security Service refused to authorize the arrest, was dismissed, and replaced.
The Church stood firmly behind Karapetyan, characterizing the charges as politically motivated. The incident underscored the widening fault lines not just within Armenia, but between the government and powerful voices in the diaspora.
Political Crossroads: Toward the 2026 Elections
With national elections scheduled for 2026, analysts suggest that the Pashinyan administration’s hardline approach toward the Church may be driven by political calculus. Facing waning popularity and lacking major legislative achievements, the government appears determined to preempt any source of alternative authority—even symbolic.
“The Church is not seeking power, but its voice resonates deeply,” said political scientist Grant Mikaelyan. “This campaign may backfire, galvanizing a broader coalition of critics who feel alienated by the current government.”
Indeed, opposition lawmakers have already floated the idea of nominating senior clergy as interim leaders. Though the Church has declined direct political involvement, the symbolic weight of such proposals cannot be ignored.
Conclusion: A Crisis Beyond Politics
What began as a disagreement over policy has evolved into a national identity crisis. The Armenian Apostolic Church, with its centuries-old legacy, stands at the center of a battle over the country’s future—caught between tradition and transformation, sovereignty and populism.
As the 2026 elections approach, the question is no longer whether the Church will challenge the government—but whether Armenian society will rally around it as a moral counterbalance to a secular state losing public confidence.
The outcome of this confrontation may reshape not only the Armenian political order, but the cultural and historical foundations upon which the nation has stood for generations.
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.