The standoff in Etchmiadzin and the instrumentalization of law enforcement
22.12.2025
By Tigran Grigoryan
In recent days, the confrontation between Armenia’s ruling party and the Armenian Apostolic Church has reached a new level of escalation. On December 17, a group of bishops–who had earlier publicly demanded the resignation of Catholicos Karekin II and had also met with Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan–issued a statement calling on the public to gather the following day, December 18, at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin to demand the Catholicos’s resignation.
Shortly thereafter, the Aragatsotn Diocese, which has remained loyal to Catholicos Karekin II, announced that the joint prayer service scheduled for December 18 would no longer take place at St. Hovhannes Church in Byurakan. Instead, it would be held at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin at 5:00 PM. The diocese called on the faithful to attend and pray together for “imprisoned clergy, detained and captive compatriots, and for the steadfastness of the Armenian Apostolic Church.” It soon became known that Catholicos Karekin II himself would attend the service.
At the same time, major actors in Armenia’s opposition issued their own calls, urging supporters to be present at the Mother Cathedral of Etchmiadzin on December 18 at 5:00 PM.
As a result, two distinct groups gathered near the cathedral the following day. The first–and significantly larger–consisted of supporters of the Catholicos, including members and sympathizers of various opposition forces. The second group comprised those demanding the Catholicos’s resignation, including representatives of the ruling camp and their supporters.
During the prayer service, Catholicos Karekin II was present inside the Mother Cathedral. Outside, opposing chants from the two groups were heard. Attempts by some protesters opposing the Catholicos's entry into the cathedral were blocked.
Meanwhile, the bishops calling for the Catholicos’s resignation arrived at the cathedral grounds by car, accompanied by a sizable security presence that did not wear official uniforms. As they approached the cathedral amid loud and hostile chants from the Catholicos’s supporters, they reiterated their demand for his resignation, submitted their request to the Secretariat of the Mother See, and then left the area. The confrontation ended without serious physical clashes.
It is noteworthy that the idea of holding a rally at the Mother See was first publicly articulated months earlier by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, during the initial stage of the confrontation with the Church. At the time, he had suggested participating in such a rally together with a group of believers. However, the initiative failed to materialize in the months that followed.
That the rally ultimately took place without Pashinyan’s participation likely indicates an attempt by the authorities to frame the situation as an internal church dispute and to avoid mounting accusations of direct interference in the Church’s internal affairs.
Nevertheless, both previously and in the current developments, it is difficult to view this process as genuinely internal to the Church, given the evident involvement of state institutions and government-affiliated actors.
Many members and supporters of the ruling Civil Contract party were present at the gathering in Etchmiadzin. Among them were Civil Contract mayors Garik Sargsyan of Vedi and Tavros Sapeyan of Talin, who participated in the protest against the Catholicos during working hours..
Sapeyan also drew attention for his coarse behavior, including verbal abuse and profanities directed at others during the rally. This is especially notable given that Civil Contract recently adopted a code of ethics, raising questions as to whether his conduct will receive any internal evaluation or consequences.
Another clear indication of the authorities’ influence over the events was the involvement of security forces. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty identified several individuals in civilian clothing who escorted the clergy demanding the Catholicos’s resignation to the cathedral grounds and actively interfered with journalists’ work.
Those identified included members of police special forces–commonly referred to as the “red berets”–as well as personnel of the National Security Service (NSS). The participation of these agencies lacks any obvious legal rationale and can only be explained by political instruction.
The NSS and the case of Archbishop Ezras Nersisyan
A further episode involving the NSS occurred on December 19. In response to an inquiry from the ruling party-owned outlet civic.am, the NSS released a document claiming that Archbishop Ezras Nersisyan–the Catholicos’s brother and head of the Diocese of Russia and New Nakhichevan–had collaborated with the Soviet KGB between 1986 and 1988.
The civic.am report also quoted the NSS as stating that, according to available information, Archbishop Ezras Nersisyan currently maintains contacts with representatives of foreign intelligence services, which may pose a threat to Armenia’s security and national interests.
Even setting aside questions about the authenticity of the published document–concerns that are not unfounded given past cases in which law enforcement released misleading information, including in the case of Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan–notably, the published document appears to be a later reference rather than the original document concerning the alleged cooperation, particularly since it is in Armenian. Assuming both the document and its allegations are accurate, the case still raises serious concerns about the functioning of state institutions and the politicization of law enforcement.
The first issue is the selective disclosure of such information. Just a month and a half earlier, CivilNet had submitted a similar inquiry to the NSS regarding Archbishop Ezras Nersisyan. At that time, the NSS refused to provide information, citing the protection of personal and family privacy. As the current case demonstrates, when political expediency shifts, concerns about privacy and confidentiality quickly recede.
The second issue is selectivity. Either a political decision is made to pursue a comprehensive lustration process–as seen in several post-communist states–or selective exposure becomes yet another administrative tool wielded by the ruling party against its opponents.
The most troubling aspect of this situation is that the NSS, through a government-affiliated media outlet, effectively claims to possess information about specific individuals cooperating with foreign intelligence services, yet took no action on this matter for years. The information only became relevant during the acute phase of confrontation between the government and the Church.
In other words, absent a political conflict between the authorities and the Church leadership, this situation appears to have been deemed acceptable by Armenia’s security institutions. Even now, instead of legal proceedings, the response has taken the form of rallies and coordinated media campaigns.
It is difficult to imagine a functioning democratic system in which allegations of collaboration with foreign intelligence services are addressed not through judicial mechanisms, but through political mobilization and information warfare.
All of these developments suggest that what is unfolding is not an effort to counter external threats or foreign influence, as representatives of the ruling party claim, but a domestic political struggle in which the authorities are employing all available means to force the resignation of the Catholicos.
The use of the National Security Service and other law enforcement bodies for this purpose is unconstitutional and fundamentally anti-democratic. The active involvement of security agencies in political confrontations persists, as illustrated by their role in the standoff in Etchmiadzin and the publication of information concerning Archbishop Ezras Nersisyan.
The use of security services for domestic political ends is a hallmark of authoritarian and totalitarian systems. Normalizing such practices will only accelerate Armenia’s democratic backsliding and deepen the country’s drift toward authoritarianism.
Democracy Watch is a joint initiative of CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security.
This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.