On February 11, 2026, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made a statement that has sent shockwaves through the nation, comparing the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church to extremist Islam. Pashinyan asserted that the Church is ‘trying to position itself as a foreign state within a state,’ a claim that has been met with widespread condemnation and disbelief.
The Unprecedented Comparison
Pashinyan’s remarks escalated when he drew a parallel between the Armenian Apostolic Church and extremist Islamic manifestations, stating, ‘I hope my comparison will be correct, but in the world, in many countries, there are also manifestations of extremist Islam, against which the international community is forced to fight.’ This comparison, coming from the head of government, has been described as an ‘absurdity’ that was previously unimaginable.
The Prime Minister’s justification for this controversial analogy stems from his assertion that since 2020, ‘radical political texts’ have been voiced during liturgies in almost all churches across Armenia. This claim forms the basis of his argument that the Church is overstepping its spiritual boundaries and engaging in political activism that he deems comparable to extremist ideologies.
A Deeper Look at the Implications
The core of Pashinyan’s argument suggests that the Armenian Apostolic Church, a cornerstone of Armenian identity and statehood for centuries, is now acting as an internal adversary. By equating its actions to those of extremist Islam, Pashinyan not only diminishes the Church’s historical and cultural significance but also frames it as a threat to national security and stability.
This rhetoric raises critical questions about the state of church-state relations in Armenia. Is Pashinyan using this analogy in his international dealings to portray the Church as a radical entity that needs to be reined in? The article posits a rhetorical question: ‘Perhaps Pashinyan makes the same parallel during his interactions with international partners when he tries to explain what is happening today between the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church and the authorities? As if, ‘Do you know extremist Islam? Our Church is very similar to it, and we are fighting against these manifestations.”
Reactions and Future Concerns
The immediate reaction to Pashinyan’s statements has been one of profound shock and indignation. Edmon Marukyan, leader of the ‘Bright Armenia’ party, expressed the sentiment that while many absurdities have been witnessed, this particular comparison crosses a new threshold. ‘We have already hit rock bottom a long time ago, but is it still possible to go lower?’ he questioned, highlighting the gravity of the Prime Minister’s words.
This incident is not merely a verbal gaffe; it signifies a potential deepening rift between the government and the most influential religious institution in Armenia. Such a confrontation could have far-reaching consequences for the social cohesion and political landscape of the country. The Armenian Apostolic Church has historically played a crucial role in preserving Armenian identity, especially during periods of foreign domination. To challenge its legitimacy in such a manner is to challenge a fundamental aspect of the Armenian nation itself.
The Broader Context: Church and State in Armenia
Historically, the Armenian Apostolic Church has enjoyed a unique status within Armenia, deeply intertwined with the nation’s history and culture. While the Armenian constitution ensures the separation of church and state, the Church holds a ‘privileged’ position due to its historical role as the national church. Pashinyan’s comments, therefore, can be seen as an attempt to redefine this relationship, potentially aiming to curb the Church’s influence on political matters.
The accusation of ‘radical political texts’ during liturgies suggests a narrative where the Church is actively undermining the government. This could be interpreted as a move by the current administration to consolidate power and neutralize any perceived opposition, even from within religious institutions. However, such a strategy risks alienating a significant portion of the population that holds the Church in high regard.
Conclusion: A Perilous Path?
The comparison of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church to extremist Islam by the Prime Minister of Armenia marks a perilous moment in the nation’s history. It not only questions the integrity of a revered institution but also sets a dangerous precedent for the treatment of religious bodies in political discourse. The implications for Armenia’s internal stability, its international image, and the delicate balance between secular governance and religious freedom are profound.
As Armenia navigates a complex geopolitical landscape, unity and mutual respect among its institutions are paramount. Pashinyan’s recent statements risk eroding this unity, potentially leading to further polarization within society. The coming months will reveal whether this controversial comparison is an isolated incident or a harbinger of a more confrontational approach towards religious institutions in Armenia.
Source: https://verelq.am/hy/node/169664
