The Civil Contract party is the only political force in the world that has declared in its election program an intention to replace the head of the Church. No such party has existed on the planet, and certainly none will after Pashinyan.
In other words, the ruling force today, if reproduced in power, intends once again to take steps at the executive and legislative levels toward the removal of the Catholicos of All Armenians. These are steps that do not derive in any way from the powers of those—or any other—state bodies. This provision of the Civil Contract program stands in direct contradiction to the principle of the separation of church and state, which is accepted in the civilized world and enshrined in Armenia’s Constitution. Therefore, it contradicts the basic requirements of legality and democracy.
Enthusiastic supporters of the authorities have a seemingly “strong counterargument”: “why do they—the clergy—interfere in state affairs, why do some of them call for a change of power; shouldn’t everything be reciprocal?” If they truly think so, I have to disappoint them: the principle of reciprocity does not apply here.
A clergyman, a journalist, an artist, a locksmith—any person who does not hold public office, any private individual—has the right to do anything that is not prohibited by law. This includes, for example, calling for the prime minister’s resignation. A public official, however, has no right to take steps, say, to have me removed from my position as a newspaper editor, because that does not fall within their powers.
Read also
Article 6 of the Constitution clearly states: “State and local self-government bodies and their officials shall act only within the powers granted to them by the Constitution and laws.”
Suppose you are a militant atheist or feel deep hostility toward the Catholicos. Even in this case, it makes no difference. If the Constitution and the law matter to you, you should oppose a government that openly includes an unconstitutional provision in its electoral program.
…Emmanuel Macron, as I understand it, is a warm admirer of Pashinyan. Macron represents a country that proclaimed the separation of church and state as early as 1794 and gave it full legal form in 1905. Yet Macron supports Pashinyan, likely not for his “democracy.” The issue is geopolitical orientation—about which, frankly, I also have my doubts.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
