Should clergymen interfere in political processes? If yes, then how, to what extent and on which platforms? And above all, why, what for? I fail to agree that there are specific answers to those questions. Generally, I think looking for those answers results in simplicity of contemplation, which can serve as a ground for populism to arise.
There are no legal restrictions for clergymen to be involved in political life here, the church in Armenia is detached from the state, not politics, regardless of the way you understand the former. Moral, ethical problems do exist, I reckon. If a christian priest makes a speech in front of his flock exclaiming “This one is a thief, that one is a traitor, tear them apart”, it would seem weird, to me at least. On the other hand, we often complain about the priests of the Armenian Apostolic Church and them avoiding society, leaving the field to the sectarians, who keep knocking at our doors. Now, if they do decide to respond to burning questions our society has – is it right or wrong?
In three years, dozens of thousands of Armenians will probably be killed or displaced. Suppose the Armenian government does not care, they tell people to go and negotiate with Azerbaijan themselves(well that’s a pretty “valuable” and “realistic” proposal). Suppose the 680 thousand members of the governmental electorate are not concerned as well, they say “those people from Karabakh deserve it”. But I doubt that the Armenian church with 17 centuries of history would be negligent.
What is the function of the clergy in the universal, particularly, spiritual crisis? The clergyman should not call a political force or figure good or bad, I reckon. But are probably obliged to act against the atmosphere of mass disbelief and cynicism.
Read also
Obviously, in this scenario the clergy would be harassed by the 680 thousand people who are the majority, those who represent their interests and fake propagandists. But harassment is the last thing they should be concerned with.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
