Leaders must know when to pump the brakes

2026-02-27 - 17:14

Whenever countries, organizations or other institutions fall into crisis, the term “leader” and its variants take center stage. The global Armenian nation is no exception. We all have our opinions about our leaders, whether they are political, educational or religious figures. Given our insatiable appetite for criticizing (often without offering solutions), most of our opinions are negative and, in many cases, inappropriately personal. Of course, the problem with expressing an opinion in the digital age is that it is shared, replicated and distorted very quickly. Digital platforms and social media are the main sources of our newest distraction: misinformation. There are few ramifications for opinions, regardless of their inaccuracy, in our world of instant gratification. By definition, leaders are often associated with descriptors such as inspiring, motivating, integrity and decision making. These are essentially behavioral traits that we seek or observe in our leaders. Quite often in our communities, we identify “leaders” as a result of an election (such as a parish council or board of trustees) or appointment. These are entitlements that enable power and authority, but true leadership is reflected in how the constituency responds. Leaders need followers, and it is the latter who eventually decide the quality of leadership. In my view, some of our best leaders lack the entitlement but are respected for their behavioral attributes by followers. The best leaders have followers who are driven not by obligation but by the perception that their needs will be met. A significant portion of dialogue in our Armenian global nation revolves around our perspectives on leadership. We have a prime minister who was democratically elected by the citizens of Armenia whose leadership a significant plurality questions. Is this based on personal experiences, behavioral attributes or simply policy matters? Most of our conflict is founded in disagreements over policy and evolves into distractions about personality. While some may disagree with the prime minister’s policies, it is still possible that leadership is evident. Many of his supporters point to economic growth in Armenia and breakthrough support from the European Union and particularly the United States. Much of the criticism comes from the diaspora, where perceptions are strong that exclusion is evident and that moving Armenia forward is associated with painful historical compromises. This separation of thinking suggests that the interests of Armenian citizens and members of the diaspora may not always align. This is difficult to accept but quite logical. The people of Armenia are no different from the citizens of other countries, including the United States. They vote with their wallets and their perspectives on security. Armenia’s economy has expanded consistently the last few years, and despite multiple interpretations of economic data (7.2% GDP growth in 2025), polls indicate a level of confidence. There may not be peace with Azerbaijan, but the absence of war and the presence of the United States have brought comfort to ordinary citizens. It is the role of the opposition in a democracy to counter these arguments. Given the consistent voting priorities of financial and national security, is it puzzling why the government continues conflict with the church? From a political and electoral perspective, the damaging optics of confronting the clergy distract from the focus on economic growth and national security. Leaders in a democracy focus on what motivates and inspires the citizenry. I am certain the government’s inner circle is asking: What is the end point of the church conflict? Will it be a win that citizens acknowledge? If the Catholicos continues to ignore, deny and wait, can the government’s strategy survive the optics of arresting a sitting Catholicos or is it time for leaders to apply the brakes? The strategy of the Holy See revolves around ensuring that the Catholicos and the institution of the church are seen as seamless in the eyes of the people. The plan is to create the perception that an attack on the Catholicos is an attack on the church itself. It is further strengthened by creating a perception of unity and loyalty through public statements and the bishops’ assembly. Quite frankly, prior to this conflict, Karekin II was widely viewed by critics as unpopular because of defrocking issues, management style, tolerance of corruption and the lack of a strong public image. His credibility has actually improved as many have rallied to the institution, and that coupling has resulted in the Vehapar, the traditional honorific for the Catholicos, becoming a beneficiary. This is the danger of escalation. Perceptions and lines can be crossed in the court of public opinion. The Catholicos crossed one of those lines when he supported the political campaign of a sitting Archbishop, Bagrat Galstanyan. There is a significant difference between protesting the return of four disputed villages on the Azerbaijani border in Tavush and openly calling for the ouster of the prime minister while declaring himself a candidate. This was a clear opportunity for the Catholicos, as a leader, to apply the brakes. Instead, he enabled a clear violation of the church’s role in politics. It lowered his credibility when he called on the government to respect the independence of the church. The prime minister has a clear opportunity to “brake” as the investigation into the Catholicos continues. A purely pragmatic view of the standoff would suggest that arresting the Catholicos would not only send shockwaves to ordinary citizens but would not serve the interests of the government. Given the proximity of the June 7 election, most actions are now taken in the context of the election. Why pick a fight that would disrupt electoral dynamics? One of the lines crossed by the government was the announcement of a new process for the succession of the Catholicos. Enforcing the laws of Armenia is the role of the government for all citizens, but articulating an intention to impact the succession process of an independent institution was an opportunity to brake. It does not serve the stated goals; it creates an opportunity for the opposition. It is important to review these issues without emotion or bias to find solutions. This assumes that we are searching for solutions, since continuing on this path will have devastating collateral damage. Unfortunately, there have been very few suggestions for resolution other than accepting one of the two polarizing positions. The Catholicos is metaphorically sequestered within Holy Etchmiadzin, “circling the wagons” with statements of loyalty and unity. The government continues to use the law enforcement apparatus within its responsibility. This past week, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, Archbishop Sahak Mashalian, made an interesting public proposal. He suggested at the opening session of the Bishops’ Assembly in Austria the creation of a synodal structure of 12 elected senior bishops to support the Catholicos in the governance of Holy Etchmiadzin. In his statement, the Patriarch said that the Supreme Spiritual Council, the main advisory arm of the Catholicos, had “lost authority” because of dissension and the impact of the conflict. The plan would include the creation of what is essentially a replacement advisory structure, consistent with the canons of the church, to assist in the governance of the Holy See and work to find solutions in the current standoff. The synodal body could include certain opposition bishops to participate during this transitional period. The synod would also set a specific date for convening the National Ecclesiastical Assembly, the highest decision-making body of the global church. The proposal is bold in that a high-ranking clergyman is suggesting ideas that move the conflict away from the status quo while respecting the integrity of the church. Acknowledging that the Supreme Spiritual Council, which usually reflects the Catholicos’ decisions, has lost its effectiveness is significant. It proposes changes within the existing church structure, which has been lacking thus far. It is an attempt at compromise and at bridging sizable gaps. This synod could bring administrative credibility with the inclusion of opposition clergy while preparing for the long anticipated Ecclesiastical Assembly. It moves the Catholicosate away from a waiting game focused on gathering expressions of loyalty. In a conflict such as this, the loyalty expressed by the clergy is not synonymous with unity. Another aspect of the proposal that should be considered is that its author is from outside Armenia. While the Turkish Armenian community has never been part of the traditional diaspora definition, given the historic presence of Western Armenians in the intellectual center that was Constantinople, the proposal comes from a source outside the homeland. It may be ignored for that reason, but it also attempts to bring a global perspective of this conflict into focus. It has the potential to move all parties away from the dangerous position of escalation. Each party feels its authority has been challenged. Escalating responses have proven ineffective in bringing us closer to a solution. If the church advocates for the integrity of the institution, then it must propose ideas that go beyond reconfirming loyalty. This recommendation is a hybrid in that it is sourced within the church but offers compromise. Our leaders should seriously consider this and other ideas proposed that offer hope. It is in the interest of both parties and faithful community to apply the brakes, listen to new ideas and commit ourselves to solutions.