A Dangerous Breach: Church, State, and the Moral Erosion of Armenian Democracy

· June 6, 2025

BY RAFFY ARDHALDJIAN

One of the foundations of a democratic society is the separation of church and state. In Armenia, this principle is constitutionally affirmed (Article 17), even as the Armenian Apostolic Church is recognized for its unique historical role in shaping national identity (Article 18). This balance reflects a long-standing tradition of negotiated boundaries between spiritual and civil authority—rooted in the Armenian National Constitution of 1863 in the Ottoman Empire, even as Etchmiadzin developed under a different legal framework within the Russian Empire.

This separation protects both institutions: shielding religion from state coercion and ensuring governance remains independent of sectarian influence. It preserves freedom of conscience and institutional pluralism—pillars of any functioning democracy. When this balance is violated, it is not only the clergy who are threatened, but the legitimacy of the state itself.

Amid growing controversy, the Prime Minister appeared to suggest—during recent public meetings with citizens—that he may have directed investigative services to examine whether members of the Armenian Church’s celibate clergy had broken their vows. While the exact nature and scope of this claim remain unverified, its implications have raised legitimate concern. The involvement of state institutions in matters internal to the Church undermines the constitutional principle of church-state separation. Just as the Church has no authority to question the private lives of state officials—such as, for instance, the marital lives of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Anna Hakobyan—the state has no institutional basis to intrude into the personal conduct of clergy within the Church.

Even more troubling is the timing. On May 26, a Swiss parliamentary commission launched a new “Peace Initiative for Nagorno-Karabakh.” Just a day later, the Armenian Church—in collaboration with international partners—convened a major conference in Bern focused on religious freedom and the protection of Armenian cultural and spiritual heritage in Artsakh. Rather than supporting this initiative, the Armenian government escalated hostilities. On May 29, Pashinyan, members of the ruling Civil Contract party, and his partner Anna Hakobyan launched a new wave of public attacks against the Church.

Meanwhile, regional pressure was intensifying. Allahshukur Pashazadeh, the Grand Mufti of the Caucasus and a close ally of the Azerbaijani regime, issued inflammatory statements claiming that Armenian religious sites—including the 1700-year-old Mother Cathedral of Holy Etchmiadzin—are located on “historical Azerbaijani lands” and have been “appropriated” by Armenians. These claims are not just offensive—they aim to delegitimize Armenian civilizational presence and prepare the ideological ground for cultural erasure.

In this context, the Armenian government’s choice to target its own Church—rather than defend it against external aggression—is not only petty but strategically disoriented. The sequence of events—the Bern conference, internal retaliation, and denial of Armenian heritage—suggests not coincidence, but a deliberate pattern.

It is nothing short of tragic that, while Armenia faces external threats and existential questions, its political discourse is collapsing inward—trapped in cycles of petty vendettas and internal disarray. At a moment demanding unity, strategic clarity, and institutional discipline, the country’s leadership seems consumed by self-inflicted distractions.

One must ask: is this misjudgment or design? With parliamentary elections approaching and sensitive peace negotiations with Azerbaijan underway, is the government creating internal crises to suppress dissent, distract the public, or weaken independent institutions such as the Church? If so, the erosion of Armenia’s civic and moral foundations may not be a mistake—it may be a tactic.

The opposition, though critical of the government, bears some responsibility. Rather than advancing a coherent vision rooted in sovereignty and reform, it has too often been pulled into reactive spectacle. Prioritizing outrage over ideas, it has failed to offer the principled alternatives that the country urgently needs.

The health of Church and state depends not on alignment, but on mutual restraint—and on a shared sense of responsibility to the enduring interests of the Armenian people. To allow a prime minister who presided over a catastrophic military defeat, with less than a year remaining in his mandate, to destabilize institutions and reignite foundational conflicts in the midst of a national crisis is not reform—it is recklessness. National values can and should be examined, but not through vulgarity and partisan spite.

In a recent social media post, Prime Minister Pashinyan used obscene language referring to a member of the clergy, telling him to “go hump your uncle’s wife”—a phrase disgraceful in any setting, let alone from the head of government. Nor is this an isolated moment. Speaker of Parliament Alen Simonyan, during a confrontation with a citizen in Yerevan, spat in the individual’s face. These are not random outbursts. They reflect a style of rule that confuses humiliation with strength and derision with legitimacy.

Armenia cannot reclaim its sovereignty or restore public trust with leaders who degrade institutions and insult their own citizens. In a time of regional encirclement and internal fragility, what is needed is not performance, but principle. Not spectacle, but seriousness. And above all, a renewed commitment to the Armenian people—and to the civilizational future they are still fighting to protect.

As Eurasianet recently noted in its coverage of this unfolding crisis, Armenia’s Prime Minister does not appear focused on governing or healing a fractured nation, but rather seems obsessed with forcibly reshaping an ancient people and its values. In the process, he is alienating his own base and deepening national divisions at a moment of profound vulnerability. That a leader defeated in war would expend his remaining mandate eroding social cohesion and targeting the pillars of Armenian continuity—rather than securing the nation’s future—reveals a dangerous inversion of priorities at a time when clarity and responsibility are imperative.

Raffy Ardhaldjian is a Fletcher School graduate and advisor to boards, public institutions, and NGOs. He focuses on pan-Armenian strategic questions spanning Armenia and its global diaspora.