One of the most discussed topics today is the compatibility of different religious traditions and democracy, opportunities for democracy’s development in non-Western civilizations.
One can remember Max Weber’s classic theory of the connection between Protestant ethics and capitalism. Protestant ethics forms capitalist relations, and capitalism, in the next step, gives birth to the middle class, which is a precondition for the stability of democratic institutions.
Representatives of this approach believe that only in the conditions of western civilization can democratic principles be formed. Samuel Huntington lists the main characteristics of Western civilization: the separation of spiritual and secular authority, the rule of law, social pluralism, individualism, the representational principle of power formation.((Huntington S. The Clash of Civilizations. M .: AST, 2005. PP. 98-100.))
The connection between religion and democracy has been noticed and explained by Charles Louis Montesquieu. He writes: “… the northern peoples embraced Protestantism, while the southern peoples adhered to the Catholic faith. The reason was that there is, and always will be, a spirit of independence and freedom among the northern peoples, which is unusual for the southern peoples … ”((Montesquieu W.L. About the spirit of laws. M.: Thought. 1999. PP. 381-382.))
Consequently, “… the Catholic religion is more in line with the monarchical form of government and the Protestant religion with the Republican.”((Same as above.)) In the spirit of Montesquieu, Samvel Karapetyan makes judgments when he points out that the one-sided version of Christianity was incompatible with the aspiration for state independence and freedom.((Samvel Karapetyan. Believing in Armenian Apostolic Church means digging your own grave / https://armdaily.am/?p=54074&l=am))
Modern democracy was first born in Protestant countries, but gradually spread to Catholic countries. An important factor in the democratization process in the Catholic world was the Second Vatican Conference, during which the Catholic Church’s social conception changed and the Church for the first time explicitly condemned non-democratic regimes that violate human rights, impede civil or religious freedom, and impede the common good. In the future the Church began to play a central role in democratization: the third wave of democratization was predominantly in Catholic countries. ((Huntington C. Third Wave. Democratization at the end of the twentieth century. M.: ROSSPEN, 2003 .. P.90.))
The Catholic Church emphasized the role of citizen participation and civil society (which included the Church along with independent organizations), and gradually began to support a model of participatory democracy in achieving social justice, peace and unity. By its logic, people’s well-being is impossible without justice, and the only way to achieve justice is through the active involvement of the population in decision-making, which is possible only through democracy.
The Armenian Apostolic Church is even farther from democracy than the Catholic Church two centuries ago. Moreover, just a few years ago, having the patronage and support of system of the time, the Armenian Church had no problem with dealing with democratic values at all. However, the change of government in 2018 did not bypass the Armenian Apostolic Church. The “New Armenia, New Patriarch” movement was formed demanding the resignation of Catholicos Garegin II. The patriarch was accused of materialistic and authoritarian ways of governing the church. Acting Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan declared neutrality of the authorities. The church demanded a state bodyguard for the Catholicos, which was rejected by the government.((Is it good for a church to have a bodyguard for a Catholicos in a country where 90 percent of the population is AAC followers? Nikol Pashinyan / https://www.tert.am/am/news/2018/11/20/Pashinyan/2849779)) It should be noted that in Russia the state has provided a state bodyguard to the Russian Patriarch.
The Prime Minister broke his neutrality in the pre-election period when he declared that “the Republican Party is talking about traditional values, but the church was not as discredited as it was during the RPA. Moreover, the church has been an attachment to power”.
The church denied the allegation, and priest Vahram Melikyan, director of the information system at the Mother See, said: “It should be noted that the Church has always served to promote the Armenian statehood and a bright and secure life for the nation. The Church has never viewed its service in the political context, but has been guided by the imperative of building the welfare of the nation and the Motherland in the formation of its relations with state and public institutions, national institutions, and parties.”((https://arminfo.info/full_news.php?id=36990&lang=1))
The ambiguity of the wording in this statement is evident when comparing the example of the Catholic Church presented above. The Catholic Church has not always had the same social doctrine, it has changed, its attitudes to social welfare have changed accordingly. It is not difficult to understand that the Armenian Church has no “imperative” as it does not have a social concept.
Later, the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Government seemed to have normalized. The Prime Minister and the Catholicos were quite tolerant of each other and participated in numerous state events together. The government did not interfere with church affairs; the church also kept itself away from political processes.
The ceasefire was broken when a working group on relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian Apostolic Church was established by the decision of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia. At the first meeting of the working group Nikol Pashinyan mentioned two issues. The first is education. “Particularly, for example, education. The issue on our agenda in this area that the Mother See has proposed is the issue of the history of the Armenian Apostolic Church. The first question that arises here is the following: Do we differentiate the history of the Armenian Apostolic Church from the history of the Armenian people, and if we differentiate, why do we differentiate, and if we differentiate, how do we differentiate, and so on? ”((https://armenpress.am/arm/news/973606.html))
The second issue raised by the Prime Minister raised great concern for the church. “The next set of issues relates to tax relations. For example, there is a problem with real estate and property taxes, and we need to understand what approach we have here. Is the property belonging to the Armenian Apostolic Church united in this sense, is it homogenous, or are there different segments, and should we have a different or a common approach to those segments? “((Same as above))
The reversal of the Church was not unexpected. “Iravunk” newspaper writes: “According to our reliable sources, although no decision has been made, it has become clear through inquiries which are the expectations of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his authorities from the church. In particular, it is about tax policy.
At the same time, the representatives of the church mentioned that they can pay taxes in full, but legally demanding, for example, the damage caused by the state to the church.
For example, hinting that the church may demand that all the manuscripts preserved in the Matenadaran that were nationalized as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution, be returned to the church, as well as the damages suffered during those years, depriving them of the income expected from the normal turnover of their property.”((https://www.lragir.am/2019/05/17/443722/))
Relations escalated when Nikol Pashinyan said at a news conference in Los Angeles on September 22 that some churchgoers are pursuing anti-government activities. “When we say that we do not enter into the inner life of the church, some clergymen say this is not like the previous government, this is a weak government, let’s demolish the government — they will get a very strong rebuff, they will kneel.”((http://www.panarmenian.net/arm/news/273216/)) This expression has received strong reactions in the media and social networks.((For example, Don’t Reprimand the Church / https://blog.times.am/?p=266939&l=am, or “Iravunk”: What does Pashinyan’s government want from the church / https://www.tert.am/en/news/2019/05/17/iravunq/3000952))
“The New Armenia, New Patriarch” movement was also activated, which began to form its parallel structures. The movement has gained international fame thanks to several BBC publications.((One of them: “Faith was stolen from us”: how the Armenian Apostolic Church was on the verge of a split / https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-49582410))
Thus, the Armenian Apostolic Church is facing a severe crisis. On the one hand, the overwhelming majority of the public understands the importance of the church in both identity and ritual, but it is also evident that the church cannot transform and adapt to new realities.
