Our failure to separate personalities and institutions

2026-03-20 - 13:01

In the 1970s, during the presidential administration of Richard Nixon, American democracy was tested by the criminal and corrupt acts that became known as Watergate. The cover-up of the scandal reached the White House, and a defiant Nixon was eventually threatened with impeachment. With evidence mounting and under bipartisan pressure, Nixon resigned from the Presidency in August 1974. It became the most significant constitutional crisis in American democracy to date. Our system of checks and balances survived the chaos. Impeachment, unlike its commonplace use in recent times, was a relatively unused mechanism in the United States. At the time of the Watergate crisis, impeachment had last been used more than a century earlier during an unsuccessful attempt to remove President Andrew Johnson in 1868. He was impeached by the House and acquitted by one vote in the Senate. No President has been constitutionally removed from office in U.S. history. Nixon remains the only President to resign the office amid pending charges. At the time, there was a public debate on how to address Nixon’s misconduct without damaging the office of the presidency, or what was referred to as the institution. The concern was that the process would create collateral damage within the institution, affecting the future. There was sincere debate among the media and the public, although many attempted to manipulate the narrative to protect the president. Our democracy survived that period and continues to be tested today by unprecedented partisan conflict that strains our time-valued balance of power among the legislative, judicial and executive branches. I have found this analogy — separating, during times of crisis, the personalities involved with the impacted institution — quite relevant in understanding how we deal with conflict in the global Armenian community. One of the most common and troubling examples is the relationship some individuals have with the church. We have all observed people who have a conflict with a parish priest or lay leader and choose to stop attending church as a result of the disagreement. This example illustrates how shallow our spiritual commitment can be when personal conflict is taken out on our Lord. Our inability to limit the damage to our interactions with other adherents spills over into the institution. Beyond gaps in conflict resolution — driven by the absence of forgiveness or the failure to subordinate ego — we consciously enable the weakening of the institution. If each of us engages in communal or national life with the mindset that our view must prevail, we contribute to dysfunction. Our communities are designed to serve as a magnet for Armenians to build and identify with shared infrastructure. It requires each of us to understand interpersonal discourse and, when conflict arises, to prevent damage to the institution we serve. Unfortunately, our track record in this regard is not strong. When we cannot get along, we start another church and institutionalize redundancy with a competitive tone. We even joke that two Armenians can produce three churches. The root cause of most of our conflict lies in our inability to contain it from impacting the institution we claim to honor. Even if we accept that some division was inevitable at the time, our inability to adapt decades later is embarrassing. Our church is the center of diaspora life, but it also serves as an example of opportunities lost. Our perspectives on the health of the church vary depending on how we view the landscape. If we are immersed in the life of the church, it is natural to adopt a more introspective view that can obscure negative trends. Most of our churches are grossly underattended and do little to address the reality of intermarriage. Advocates point to the number of non-Armenian spouses who attend, but the credit should go to those individuals — their love for their spouse or friendships they have formed. It is rarely the result of overt efforts by the church to adapt to a growing plurality, and likely majority, of Armenians marrying non-Armenians. The point is that we generally refrain from assessing damage to the institution when it reflects our policies and practices. How far are we willing to adapt to protect the institution? The church-state conflict is another example of our inability to separate personalities from the institutions we serve. On the church side, we hear a great deal about coupling the primacy of Catholicos Karekin II with the institution itself. This is damaging to the institution. We all serve the church, including the Vehapar. In fact, in the Armenian church, the election of a catholicos is a reflection of a democratic representative assembly. Many who have supported the Vehapar in this crisis have emphasized the importance of the church maintaining its self-governance and independence. These comments are directed more at preserving the status quo of the institution than at the individual who holds the title. In my view, it is hypocritical to make such declarations while the “self-governing and independent” processes have ignored persistent rumors of immorality, corruption and financial mismanagement over the past decades. The diocesan assemblies, Supreme Spiritual Councils and episcopal synods have failed to address these matters for more than 25 years, relegating the damage to whispers in hallways. This is an overt failure of the church and has damaged the credibility of the institution because we have chosen not to address leadership and management issues tied to individuals. As a result, the institution has been damaged. Only time will tell whether the damage is temporary or permanent. I have attended several diocesan assemblies where delegates informally joke about corruption and their unwillingness to donate to the Holy See, but in formal sessions act as patronizing subordinates. This has occurred countless times across the modern church, in all geographies. This convenience has weakened the church and undermined the argument in today’s debate. The leadership of Karekin II and the institution itself are separate and distinct matters. Fearing that addressing defrocked priests, financial transparency and other allegations of corruption will damage the institution is irresponsible. It is the denial of responsibility that causes harm. Declarations of loyalty to the Vehapar may be culturally acceptable but do nothing to resolve this crisis and instead deepen it. None of us who serve the church is more important than its mission and sustainability. If we truly love the church, then subordinating ourselves is natural. When we serve in positions of responsibility, do we have the conviction to protect the institution, or are we protecting our social status? A similar challenge exists on the government side. This conflict did not begin with the discovery of corruption. Allegations of corruption predate the Pashinyan, Sargsyan and Kocharyan administrations. They were known and tolerated, becoming problematic only when politicized. We can debate the triggers. Whether it was the perception of the church as pro-Russian, conflicting with the Western-leaning orientation of the current government, tax issues, or the overt entry of the church into politics — the Vehapar calling for the prime minister to resign or the Bagrat Surpazan episode of political resistance — the conflict is unfortunate and personal. If the prime minister truly believes that a strong, high-integrity church is important for the people of Armenia, then encouraging the church to address these issues is critical. External pressure may damage the institution when management failures rather than canon law, are the root cause. The role, or lack thereof, of the diaspora is another area the government should consider. The Armenian Church is a unique institution in relation to the Armenian people. The Holy See resides on the sovereign soil of the republic and is therefore subject to its laws. At the same time, the church is an international institution that serves a global diaspora, with the majority of its adherents living outside Armenia. Structural changes driven by the government and the church in Armenia could significantly affect its ability to function internationally and may affect diaspora participation. Although we are all saddened by this conflict and its impact on our two most important institutions, we should ask whether these problems would be visible without the government’s assertiveness. We may not agree with the approach but the corruption issues must now be addressed. Now is the time to separate current management issues from the institution. The government should consider the potential collateral damage to the institution. Politics in Armenia are highly personalized. Few people in the diaspora can articulate the platform of a political party, but they can readily name Kocharyan’s, Sargysyan’s, Pashinyan’s or Tsarukyan’s parties. This opens the door to stereotypes and sweeping negative perceptions. It is no secret that much of the diaspora’s feedback on the Pashinyan government is negative. This is not particularly scientific, but is driven by influential organizations, media and public perceptions of policy. There is no question that this perception has led some in the diaspora to step back from engagement with Armenia. This is unfortunate and does not serve the interests of the Armenian nation. Once again, we must separate our current views from the institution. It is your right to disagree with the policies or perceptions of the Armenian government, but this should not affect our commitment to Armenia and our pan-Armenian values. Regardless of your opinions, it is not reasonable to believe that everything the government or the church does is wrong. If we keep disagreements civil, we may find areas of common ground. The alternative is to remain mired in stereotypes and prejudice. Those who disagree with Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Catholicos Karekin II have a responsibility to remain civil and respectful while doing their utmost to prevent their views from negatively impacting the institutions of the church and the homeland.