Argishti Kiviryan on the Government–Church Crisis in Armenia

Kiviryan believes that Pashinyan’s confrontation with the Armenian Apostolic Church has evolved into a personal campaign by the prime minister against the Catholicos of All Armenians.

He characterizes the prime minister’s behavior as typical of leaders who seek to control all key institutions. Among the manifestations of this approach, he notes:

• Attempts to impose a new order of church services (including the use of the national anthem and state flags in churches);
• Statements that diminish the historical and theological foundations of Christianity in Armenia;
• An aspiration to “appoint a Catholicos loyal to him”;
• A desire to fully subordinate the Church to the state.

Kiviryan draws parallels with religious reformers of Europe — such as Luther and Calvin — arguing that Pashinyan imagines himself a reformer, yet lacks the necessary knowledge and competencies for such a role.

2. “Omnipotence Syndrome” and Lack of Competence

Kiviryan points to what he describes as a total lack of professionalism among the current authorities, particularly the prime minister. He emphasizes:

• A lack of fundamental education;
• Poor knowledge of history and theology;
• Systematic mistakes in public speeches;
• The prevalence of willfulness instead of competent governance.

He compares Pashinyan’s style of behavior to historical examples of eccentric dictators (Caligula, Nero), underscoring the danger of concentrating power in the hands of an unprofessional individual.

3. Resistance Within the Church: The Shirak Diocese Factor

Despite pressure, the Armenian Apostolic Church continues to resist, Kiviryan says, pointing to the following facts:

• Clergy of the Shirak Diocese refused to serve the Divine Liturgy, omitting the name of the Catholicos [at the request of the prime minister];
• The figure of Mikayel Ajapahyan remains influential even after his detention;
• There remains a group of hierarchs within the Church capable of blocking the government’s plans.

The key conclusion, according to Kiviryan, is that if Catholicos Karekin II does not resign, attempts to replace him are doomed to failure.

The Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church cannot be “overthrown,” as no such provision exists in the canons of the AAC. Consequently, the idea of electing “ten Catholicoses” in order to impose a loyal one will inevitably fail.

4. The AAC’s Struggle as Part of a Broader Picture: The Dismantling of Institutions

Kiviryan links the ongoing pressure on the Church to broader trends of recent years. Among them, he highlights:

• The undermining of the army, which began with a conflict with the General Staff in 2019–2021;
• The degradation of the system of state governance;
• The loss of essential elements of national identity;
• Armenia’s transformation into an object managed by external powers.

From this perspective, he draws the following conclusion: The Church is one of the few institutions that has not been subordinated to the authorities.

This, according to Kiviryan, explains Pashinyan’s attempts to establish control over the Armenian Apostolic Church.

5. Economic Integration with Azerbaijan as Part of a Foreign Scenario

Kiviryan draws particular attention to recent developments:

• Armenia has begun purchasing Azerbaijani oil;
• Earlier, Azerbaijani grain was imported into the country.

According to him, these steps were not initiated by Armenia itself. Rather, decisions are imposed on Yerevan, while the authorities merely carry them out.

Kiviryan believes that external “moderators” are seeking to establish an Armenian–Azerbaijani alliance that could be used in the future:

• Initially, as an economic cluster;
• Later, as an instrument to exert pressure on Russia following the Ukrainian conflict.

He draws parallels with British projects in the South Caucasus during 1917–1920, when London attempted to form regional alliances aimed at restraining Russia.

6. Russia, Europe and the International Game Around Armenia

Kiviryan states that:

• Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine and reacts only to most critical steps taken by Yerevan (for example, harsh statements by the Armenian Foreign Ministry following the signing of an Armenia–EU strategic document);
• Europe, by contrast, is interested in shifting zones of confrontation to the South Caucasus;
• Armenia risks being drawn into someone else’s scenario as an instrument of geopolitical pressure.

In this context, all regional processes are now viewed through the prism of the war in Ukraine.

7. Kiviryan’s Key Conclusion

According to Kiviryan, Armenia has found itself in an extremely vulnerable situation, characterized by:

• Unprofessional governance;,
• External powers shaping the regional order;,
• The Church as the last remaining barrier against the complete dismantling of national institutions..

In Kiviryan’s view:

• If the Armenian Apostolic Church withstands the pressure, the government’s plans to establish control over it will fail;
• If it does not, Armenia risks losing a key element of its statehood and historical identity.