makes the Patriarchate seen as a personal
seat.
59 granted to the Patriarchate in a way that will provide a
perpetual legal ground for the Patriarchate’s
administration and for patriarchal elections. However, arrangement of this legal status in a way that will encompass not only the Patriarchate but also the Armenian society’s education, health and charity affairs, the administration of foundations, and their property ownership and the right of disposition might result in leaving civilian affairs directly to the
jurisdiction of a religious institution; and we should remember that most participants are against such an arrangement. Those who favour civilian participation and secularization in the Armenian society do not accept such a solution. According to them, solving the problems of the Armenian society in the civilian domain requires first making the necessary legal arrangements regarding the operations of the society’s foundations, associations and educational institutions (as we have already addressed in this report), and abandoning the restrictive legislation that is currently in force. On the other hand, a brand new civil organizational model has to be designed to increase the effectiveness of the currently existing institutions in the internal administration of the temporal affairs of the Armenian society. Those who approach secularization/civic participation from a different perspective mostly stress participating in the collective democratization movement in the Turkish society. There are also those who think these two different secularization/civic participation processes should run hand-in-hand.
The government’s refusal to allow election of a patriarch (or co-patriarch) and instead introducing the position of “the general deputy of the patriarch” with the suggestion of the Spiritual Council has caused the already problematic patriarchal election process of the last two years to turn into an all-out crisis. Despite the objections raised through the judiciary and the government by the Election Initiating Committee and the “We Want To Elect Our Own Patriarch Initiative”, the government’s decision did not change. On the contrary, it is understood that Archbishop Aram Ateşyan, who was elected as the general deputy of short, the state recognizes not the patriarchate as an
institution but the patriarch as a person. However, when representational power is needed (abroad and especially for a positive promotion of Turkey in the Armenian diaspora, or so as to “intimidate” Turkey’s Armenians during times of political tension), the person of the patriarch is addressed as the patriarchate.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is a contradiction in itself that a historical institution with a history of 550 years cannot legally exist. The administration of the patriarchate, which has no legal entity and which cannot get the support of an institutional structure, is limited to the individual skills, capabilities and initiatives of the patriarchs. If the legal entity status of the Patriarchate is recognized, the scope of such status, its potential benefits, and the organizational structure of the Patriarchate are all matters that must be first discussed and decided among the Armenian society.
The adaptation of the legal status granted to the Patriarchate in the Code of 1863 is a matter that concerns an internal organization issue, which we will discuss later in relation to the problems of community foundations, and that should be addressed together with the country’s “laicism” approach and model.
In the criticism and suggestions made in European Commission’s Progress Reports and in the reports of the Venice Commission with regard to protection of human rights and non-Muslim minorities in Turkey, it is interpreted as a fundamental violation of rights that the Jewish Chief Rabbinate and all Christian
Patriarchates, and hence the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul and the Armenian Catholic Archbishopric do not have legal entity status.61
We have already expressed that the participants stressed importance to having the legal entity status
61 European Commission for Democracy through Law (aka:
Venice Commission) 2010, “Opinion on the Legal Status of Religious Communities in Turkey”, Venice.
60
the patriarch by the Spiritual Council, was given the permission to wear religious attire (vestments) outside places of worship with the Decree of the Council of Ministers dated 18 August 2010.62 The fact that the permission to wear religious vestments in the public domain, which had only been granted to patriarchs so far, was also given to the general deputy of the patriarch 63 shows that the government holds the general deputy of the patriarch equal to the patriarch, and therefore ignores the petitions for the election of a new patriarch.
It is obvious that the initiatives, acting on the basis of the theory that patriarchal election is a vested right, were brought on the agenda by members of various different segments including professional and age groups, and by administrators of foundations, garnering a substantial support within the Apostolic Armenian society. On the other hand, it is anti-democratic of the government to decide the matter according to only the preferences of the Spiritual Council, and ignore the demands of Armenian citizens to elect their own patriarch in line with the traditional practices of the Church and in a common spirit of sensitivity. The government’s claim that the reason for Archbishop Aram Ateşyan’s appointment as the general deputy of the patriarch was –according to a statement by Egemen Bağış– because he was a “close friend” of Patriarch Mesrob II Mutafyan does not conform to the principles of democratic state
62 For the announcement of the Patriarchal Elections Initiating Committee dated 3 May 2011 and including information about the Decree and criticism about how the Decree was kept confidential, see: Agos 2011e.
63 According to Law no 2596 “Concerning the Prohibition of Wearing of Certain Garments”, only one spiritual leader is allowed to wear religious vestments outside places of worship and outside mass. As such, the Ministry of Interior recalled this law when stating that the Spiritual Council could elect a general deputy of the patriarch in its letter to the Patriarchate dated 30 June 200 and sent via the Governor’s Office of Istanbul; the letter stated that this permission could not be given to a second spiritual figure as Patriarch Mesrob II was still alive. It is also interesting how the letter of the Ministry of Interior dated June 2010 contradicts the Decree of the Council of Ministers dated August 2010. See: Agos 2011e.
government. The unwillingness to listen to the collective initiative of the Armenian society in the election of the spiritual figure who will head the Patriarchate shows that the democratic will of the society is disregarded.
The lack of a permanent by-law regulating patriarchal elections will continue to raise problems in the future.
The lack of a permanent by-law, as seen today, will cause the problems of the next patriarchal elections to once again be addressed as a unique case, leaving it to the initiative of the political will and the bureaucracy, and allowing the variables such as political positions and characters of those involved in the solution of the problem to step in. It should be viewed as a
democratic guarantee for the patriarchate to have legal status and for the Armenian society to have an election by-law with which to conduct healthy patriarchal elections.