The resurgence of binary politics in Armenia
Armenia is once again facing a familiar and volatile sociopolitical trend: the forced division of the public into binary camps. This time, the friction centers on the relationship between the state and the Armenian Apostolic Church. While this tension has simmered for years, recent judicial developments surrounding the Catholicos of All Armenians have brought the conflict to a critical juncture, demanding that citizens choose sides between the government and the religious leadership.
Moving beyond the ‘black and white’ trap
The core of this conflict is often framed as an irreconcilable choice: state versus church, or authority versus faith. However, this framing itself is increasingly viewed as the primary obstacle to national cohesion. By forcing citizens to pledge allegiance to one side, the discourse ignores the possibility of holding nuanced positions. It is entirely possible to support the Republic of Armenia without endorsing every government action, just as one can defend the Church without necessarily justifying every decision made by its leadership.
A demand for institutional accountability
The current climate risks turning the public into participants in a zero-sum game rather than critical observers. The real issue is no longer just identifying who initiated the conflict or who violated specific norms, but evaluating the impact of these actions on the country’s future. An independent judiciary must remain impartial regardless of the defendant’s status, and public discourse should reject any attempt to weaponize state institutions or religious authority for short-term political gain. The challenge for society now is to refuse to be categorized into opposing armies and instead demand that institutions focus on solving problems rather than fueling confrontations.
The persistence of this binary framing suggests that the primary threat to stability in Armenia is not the disagreement itself, but the systematic erosion of a middle ground where critical, independent thought can exist without being labeled as betrayal to one side or the other.