The Church’s Political Interference and Its Impact on Armenia’s Sovereignty
According to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and the Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations, the Church and the State are two separate entities. Article 17 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion but clearly establishes that the Church has no authority to engage in state governance. The law further prohibits religious organisations from taking part in political campaigns, supporting parties, or interfering in the functioning of state institutions.
Despite these clear boundaries, recent years have seen a growing tendency among certain high-ranking representatives of the Armenian Apostolic Church to intervene directly in the political life of the country, in open contradiction to the spirit and the letter of Armenian law.
From Spiritual Leadership to Political Activism
The turning point came after Armenia’s defeat in the 2020 Artsakh war. Amid public frustration and emotional upheaval, instead of focusing on spiritual guidance and national healing, the Church hierarchy entered the political arena. Catholicos Karekin II publicly called for Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s resignation – an extraordinary act for the head of a religious institution and a direct violation of the principle of religious neutrality.
Following this intervention, a number of clergy transformed their pulpits into political platforms, labelling government officials as “evil,” “traitorous,” or “un-Armenian.” Sermons that should have been dedicated to moral and spiritual reflection were increasingly used to spread political propaganda, deepen divisions within society, and undermine the legitimacy of the country’s democratic institutions.
Over time, the rhetoric radicalised. Two archbishops in particular emerged as vocal political activists. One of them publicly urged the army to stage a coup and later reaffirmed that position when asked to clarify his words. Another openly organized an opposition movements, repeating slogans that portrayed the government as “Turk-loving enemies” and “demons,” and demanding the prime minister’s resignation.
These messages were accompanied by open references to “coordination with powerful centres abroad,” widely interpreted as links to Russian security structures. Such statements raise serious national-security concerns and demonstrate how religious authority can be used to legitimise foreign-driven narratives. Their discourse mirrors Moscow’s messaging almost word for word: The West is portrayed as hostile, and Armenia’s attempts to normalise relations with its neighbours are described as “treason.”
The situation escalated further when Armenia’s security services reported evidence suggesting that Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan had been involved in organising an armed coup aimed at storming Parliament and seizing power by force. If confirmed, this would represent an unprecedented breach of both national law and the Church’s moral code. The advocacy of violence stands in direct contradiction to Christian values of peace and reconciliation, and it gravely undermines the Church’s credibility as a spiritual institution.
This confrontation is not merely a dispute between Church and government; it goes to the heart of Armenia’s ability to remain a modern, secular, law-based state free from clerical and foreign control. Accordingly, the government not only has the right but also the obligation to protect the constitutional order, while safeguarding freedom of religion and ensuring that spiritual freedom is not exploited for political subversion.
Foreign influence and anti-sovereignty messaging
In several public statements, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan claimed to be “in touch with powerful centres abroad,” warning that Armenia would “lose its sovereignty” unless it followed Moscow’s guidance. In effect, Russia – through figures like Bagrat Galstanyan – seeks to pressure and intimidate Armenia’s government. Given that such statements can be interpreted as evidence of coordination with Russian security structures, Galstanyan’s actions could expose him to serious legal scrutiny in Armenia. This, in turn, raises a deeper concern: the extent of his and some other Church representatives’ dependence on Moscow, and the degree to which such ties threaten Armenia’s sovereignty.
This alignment has clear manifestations at the highest levels of the Church.
Catholicos of All Armenians, Garegin II, has received several high-profile Russian honours – including the Russian state Order of Honor awarded by President Vladimir Putin in November 2022, and a patriarchal decoration conferred with the blessing of Patriarch Kirill in March 2025.
These recognitions underscore unusually close ties between Etchmiadzin’s leadership and Russian state and church structures. Most recently, on November 4, 2025, Garegin II’s brother, Archbishop Yezras Nersisyan – who heads the Russian and New Nakhichevan Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church – was awarded the Order of Alexander Nevsky by President Putin, just days after Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan publicly questioned his alleged ties to the Russian security services.
The same clerics have also aligned themselves with Armenia’s institutional opposition – a political bloc led by figures such as Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, both long associated with Moscow’s interests. This alliance is less about domestic reform and more about restoring Russian influence. Together, Church representatives and opposition leaders have pursued the goal of removing the current government by any means, including through agitation and, at times, the threat of force.
Their rhetoric consistently calls for Armenia to “return” to Russia’s orbit, to abandon Western mediation, and to reject the process of normalising relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey unless Moscow directs it. In practice, this means obstructing every initiative that strengthens Armenia’s independence, sovereignty and regional role.
Manipulating Peace Agreements for Political Ends
The double standards are particularly evident in how these groups interpret peace agreements. The opposition and its clerical allies now glorify the November 9, 2020 Moscow-brokered statement, which they once condemned as “capitulation.” The sudden change of tone is not about principle but about geopolitics: they now call it a “dream deal “only, because it places Russia in a supervisory position over the so-called “Zangezur Corridor,” effectively giving Moscow control over one of the most important part of Armenia’s territory, which connects Armenia with Iran.
At the same time, they harshly criticise the U.S.-mediated declaration – the “TRIPP: Trump’s Route for Peace and Prosperity” – which pre-ratifies a peace framework between Armenia and Azerbaijan under Armenia’s own sovereign jurisdiction. This agreement promotes regional trade and connectivity with Western participation, which these forces reject precisely because it limits Russia’s role.
This reversal of attitudes exposes the true agenda of these actors. Their actions are not guided by patriotism or by concern for Armenia’s security, but by the desire to ensure that Russia remains the sole power-broker in the South Caucasus. The Church’s involvement gives this agenda moral cover and helps mobilise public sentiment under a religious banner, making political manipulation appear as spiritual duty.
Legal and Moral Consequences
By engaging in overtly political, at times non-peaceful activity the involved clergy have violated both civil law and moral authority. The Armenian Apostolic Church is a cornerstone of national identity, and it must retain independence from political battles to preserve public trust. Individual clergymen may hold personal opinions, but when they mobilise politically, organise protests, or call for coups, they cross the line from spiritual service into illegality.
When religious leaders act in concert with foreign-aligned political forces, the consequences reach far beyond domestic politics. They threaten Armenia’s fragile democracy, social cohesion, and independence. Turning the Church into a political weapon risks undoing the secular foundation of the Armenian state and diminishing the very sovereignty it seeks to defend.
Armenia today faces a crucial test: whether it can uphold the rule of law, maintain the separation of Church and State, and resist external manipulation while respecting religious freedom. Protecting that balance is essential for the country’s stability, its democratic future, and the integrity of its national institutions.