YEREVAN — Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has come under increasing scrutiny from legal and constitutional experts following his recent statements calling for changes in the leadership of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Observers and legal analysts argue that such actions may contradict constitutional norms, undermine the Church’s autonomy and pose potential threats to Armenia’s national identity and security.
The controversy has intensified following Pashinyan’s involvement with the newly convened Armenian Apostolic Church Reform Council. According to a statement from the Prime Minister’s office, the council held its inaugural session to discuss the main directions of the Church’s reform process, the organizational steps required and the scope of upcoming work, based on the principles and objectives outlined in its founding declaration. The council emphasized that the process would adhere to principles of inclusivity, public trust, transparency and accountability, while also prioritizing the strengthening of cooperation between clergy and laity.
The council further welcomed the decision of Archimandrite Gusan Aljanyan, acting head of the Swiss Armenian Diocese, who joined the Church’s reform declaration and roadmap. Aljanyan is expected to participate in future sessions. During the first meeting, council members discussed concrete actions to ensure the smooth implementation of the reform roadmap and adopted decisions necessary to facilitate the process.
While Pashinyan frames these engagements as part of a reform initiative, constitutional and legal experts warn that his public involvement and calls for changes in Church leadership risk violating the Armenian Constitution and national laws protecting religious freedom. Article 17 of the Constitution explicitly guarantees that “the freedom of activities of religious organizations shall be guaranteed in the Republic of Armenia” and that “religious organizations shall be separate from the State.” Article 18 recognizes the exclusive mission of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church as a national church, highlighting its role in the spiritual life of the Armenian people, the development of national culture and the preservation of national identity.
Further protections are outlined in the Armenian law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations, which explicitly safeguard the Church’s independence. Article 6 confirms that the Armenian Apostolic Church and other religious organizations operate according to their own governance, membership and property structures. Article 17 states that the Church is separated from the state, prohibiting the government from compelling citizens to adopt any religion, interfering in the lawful activities or internal governance of religious organizations, or placing state representatives within Church structures to influence operations.
Concerns over Pashinyan’s actions intensified after a large public rally he organized on Jan. 6. Reports from Armat Media indicate that approximately 2,600 participants attended. Analysis using specialized artificial intelligence tools identified roughly 500 attendees as government-affiliated party officials, 500 police officers from Yerevan and regional departments, about 200 from the National Security Service and security personnel and approximately 70 drivers of government vehicles. Workers from companies owned by Civil Contract party member Khachatur Sukiasyan also participated. The remaining estimated 1,000 participants were ordinary citizens brought from various regions.
By comparison, the same day saw more than 200,000 worshippers participated in Christmas liturgies across Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora on the same day, conducted according to traditional protocol with the Patriarch’s name mentioned in full. Experts note that the rally represented only about 0.5 percent of the total faithful, yet the participants publicly advocated for “reforming” the Church — a move widely seen as politically motivated intervence in the Church’s internal governance.
Legal experts stress that Pashinyan’s public engagement with the Reform Council, commentary on internal Church matters and advocacy for leadership changes appear to contravene constitutional and statutory protections. By involving himself in Church’s internal affairs, Pashinyan is undermining the legal autonomy of a national religious institution and challenging a constitutionally protected pillar of Armenian national identity. Observers note that this represents not just a legal issue, but a broader threat to national cohesion and security, given the historical and cultural centrality of the Armenian Apostolic Church.
The delicate balance between the Armenian state and its national Church is enshrined in the Constitution and national laws to safeguard its spiritual, cultural and societal role. Pashinyan’s engagement with the Reform Council — regardless of stated intentions — has prompted debate about the limits of executive power, the protection of religious freedom and the preservation of the Church’s historic role in Armenian identity.
Speaking at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin on Jan. 6, Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) member and “Armenia” parliamentary alliance deputy Artur Khachatryan criticized the Prime Minister’s actions.
Khachatryan described the Church as a historically non-political institution, emphasizing that Pashinyan’s efforts represent an unprecedented attempt to politicize its internal affairs. He noted that he personally visited political prisoners Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan on Dec. 31 and Archbishop Mikayel Ajapahyan two days earlier. Responding to questions about whether imprisoned clerics have access to religious ceremonies, Khachatryan stated that Archbishop Ajapahyan was prevented from participating in one liturgy.
Regarding Pashinyan’s Jan. 6 rally, Khachatryan described the event as a political performance rather than a genuine religious observance. He alleged that the demonstration relied on coercion, with civil servants, teachers, preschool and community workers, and large numbers of uniformed and plainclothes police officers mobilized to ensure participation, effectively creating an orchestrated display rather than voluntary civic engagement.
Amid the turmoil, Archbishop Ajapahyan, detained for 195 days, issued a statement condemning the disruptions. Opening with the traditional greeting, “Christ is born and revealed,” Ajapahyan said that Christmas should be celebrated in prayer and gratitude, but recent actions by “traitors and oppressors” with armed supporters have disturbed the peace of the Holy Church under the guise of reform.
He drew a parallel with biblical times, comparing contemporary actors to Herod and Herodias, seeking innocent blood for their agendas. He warned that those claiming to promote “good governance” are instead operating in ignorance, compounding their own moral failings. Highlighting recent armed incidents in Yerevan and Talin, Ajapahyan underscored that the Church has endured similar challenges throughout history and will continue its mission according to God’s will, not the designs of morally bankrupt actors.
Representative of the ARF Shirak Regional Committee and member of the “Armenia” parliamentary Alliance Mher Melkonyan also criticized what he described as systematic attempts by the current government to undermine the independence of the Armenian Apostolic Church.
Melkonyan wrote that the government, under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, has engaged in coordinated actions aimed at restricting the Church’s autonomy and, in effect, seizing control of its institutions. He noted that some individuals involved in this process have abandoned their vows and responsibilities, becoming tools for the government’s political agenda.
“This is no longer a series of isolated incidents or statements,” Melkonyan emphasized.
“It represents a serious crisis in state governance, in which the executive branch is attempting to interfere with an institution that is constitutionally independent from the state and historically has served as a cornerstone of national identity.”
Melkonyan argued that the government’s efforts reflect a broader pattern in which failures in foreign policy, security and socio-economic management are accompanied by attempts to control the last remaining independent platforms, including public discourse, national memory and spiritual institutions. He described political pressures on both the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Catholicos of All Armenians as part of this broader strategy.
“Throughout its history, the Armenian Apostolic Church has fulfilled functions that the state often could not: preserving national unity, identity and continuity,” Melkonyan said.
“Any political intrusion into the Church’s affairs should therefore be regarded not as an ideological debate, but as a direct threat to national security.”
He further reminded that the Church has historically withstood pressures from empires, authoritarian rulers, external enemies and internal betrayal. “Governments come and go, regimes collapse, but the Church remains, as a guarantor of the nation’s continuity and identity. Today’s political pressures and anti-national attempts will share the same fate. No temporary government can seize what has been shaped by the faith, historical rights and will of the people.”
Melkonyan concluded: “Betrayal — whether political or spiritual — will never be forgiven by the people or by history.”
