Armenia's Parliament Endorses Plan to Reform Church Governance

The Armenian government has moved to formalize its intent to unilaterally replace the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, a step that has triggered a sharp legal and political controversy. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party included this commitment in its five-year Programme, which received approval from the National Assembly on August 25. The proposal directly challenges the current leadership of Catholicos Karekin, marking a unprecedented intervention by state institutions into the internal affairs of the oldest national church.

According to Forum 18, the government maintains that its objective is not to appoint a new leader but to restore the normal functioning of the Church’s internal bodies. Melanya Harutyunyan, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson, insisted that the state neither can nor wishes to appoint a Catholicos herself. She argued that the convocation of the National Ecclesiastical Assembly, the body responsible for such appointments, has been obstructed for 27 years, and that the government is merely seeking to enable this autonomous process.

Legal Framework of Religious Autonomy

Critics argue that the government’s actions contradict both domestic law and international human rights commitments. Armenian legislation recognizes religious communities as autonomous entities, granting them the right to decide on their own leadership and internal rules. Forum 18 highlighted that international standards require the state to leave such decisions to the religious community itself, rather than intervening to change the structure or appointment methods of the clergy.

The debate centers on whether the state can compel a religious body to convene its governing assembly as a prerequisite for leadership change. While the government frames the issue as a restoration of functional autonomy, the Church and legal observers view it as an overreach that violates the separation of church and state. This tension raises broader questions about the limits of executive power in a secular republic with a strong religious tradition.

Political Responses and Non-Engagement

Parliamentary reactions to the programme have been mixed, with several key figures choosing not to engage directly with the specific church-related provisions. Nazeli Baghdasaryan, a deputy from the ruling party who voted in favor of the programme, declined to answer questions about the legality of removing the head of an autonomous religious community, citing her status as a former spokesperson. Similarly, Lilit Galstyan, an opposition deputy and chair of the Human Rights Committee, did not respond to inquiries regarding her stance on the government’s plan.

The Office of the Human Rights Defender, led by Anahit Manasyan, also remained silent on the matter when asked by Forum 18. The lack of response from these oversight and legislative bodies leaves a significant gap in the public discourse. Without clear statements from the judiciary or human rights institutions, the legal validity of the government’s approach remains contested, relying largely on the political will of the executive branch.

Future Implications for Church State Relations

The outcome of this standoff will likely define the boundaries of religious freedom in Armenia for years to come. If the government succeeds in forcing the convocation of the Ecclesiastical Assembly under state pressure, it may set a precedent for state involvement in other religious communities. Conversely, if the Church or courts uphold the principle of complete autonomy, it will reinforce the legal barriers against political interference in religious leadership.

Observers are now watching for any legal challenges filed by the Church or civil society groups. The coming months will determine whether the National Assembly’s approval of the programme leads to concrete legal actions or remains a political statement. The stability of the relationship between the state and the Armenian Apostolic Church remains a critical factor in the country’s social cohesion and international standing.