Until 2018, when the change of power took place under the pressure of the public, the issue of religious freedom in Armenia was considered urgent, but today the issue seems to have lost its relevance.  Why is this so?

The events which took place in 2018 are regarded as “revolution” by new political establishment which came to power, but there are thoughts that it was, however, just a change of government. The holders of the first point of view say that there have been democratic changes in the country, and the holders of the second point of view argue that despite the political changes, there have been no serious systemic and legislative changes.  Let us consider these views in the context of developments in the field of religious freedom.

For nearly 15 years Armenia has failed to adopt a new law on religious organizations.  The current law was adopted in the Soviet Union in 1991, after which Armenia became a member of the European Council (in 2003), joined a number of conventions, and undertook numerous international commitments. These include the adoption of a new law on religious organizations.

The Venice Commission and the OSCE / ODIHR experts provided rather critical opinions on the four legislative drafts prepared during those years and made numerous recommendations, but to no avail.  No new law hasn’t been adopted yet.

Today, despite the “velvet revolution”, no major legislative changes have been made, and even discussions about the law have stopped.

However, the situation in Armenia has changed in this regard, given the government’s policy.  For the sake of fairness it should be noted that the Armenian Apostolic Church, unlike in the period of the previous authorities, has almost disappeared from the news media.  There are also no reports of violations of freedom of conscience.  Religious issues in Armenia seem to have ceased.

If at all significant events organized by the ruling party and the state, church officials were in the most honorable position, and the Catholicos always stood by the President of Armenia, standing apart from other state officials, giving the impression that he was Armenia’s second most important official, and senior political leaders in Armenia  were claiming that the Armenian Church is a “state” church (as if implying that the new constitution adopted in 2015 is ambiguous about the provision on the separation of church and state), now the situation has changed and current leaders publicly declare that the Church is separated from the state. The Prime Minister demonstratively maintains a space between himself and the church, moreover, sometimes, in a public way, he goes into direct confrontation with the church. Moreover, the Minister of Education is trying to remove the “History of the Armenian Church” from the list of school subjects, which is very painfully accepted by the church.  However, there are no systematic legislative changes.  Despite the government’s policy in this regard, no fundamental changes have been made.

Have all the issues been resolved, or have the cases of violations of freedom of conscience only temporarily ceased due to a change in political situation, and we can return to the old situation if the political situation changes? That is, we do not have systemic changes, which are reinforced by legislative changes.  The government also does not pursue a policy that will change the public consciousness in this area.  No substantial guarantees have yet been created to bring the church-state relationship to a constructive field.