FROM BICKERING TO DIALOGUE
Believing in a Greater Armenian Community
By Raffi Yeretsian, B.Sc., LL.B., Montreal, 1 July 2013
The unwinding of events following Bishop Bagrat Galstanyan’s ousting
as Primate of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of Canada, at the
30th Diocesan Delegates’ Assembly a little over a month ago, was
as captivating as it was distressing. The widespread concern for
community affairs we have witnessed was unprecedented. For once, a
decision mattered. The announcement of the bishop’s removal came as
a shock to many who shared an affection for the warm and charismatic
clergyman who embodied the greater ideals of inclusiveness, service
and unity. The dismay expressed by frustrated individuals revealed a
malaise that went beyond the outcome of the contested vote. Indeed,
since the beginning of the crisis, the members of the community were
not treated as stakeholders. They were left uninformed, distracted
from the real issues and too often taken for granted. Although action
should have come earlier, it is suggested that a public forum with
the purpose of facilitating a dialogue among delegates and community
members is the most expedient way of turning this crisis into an
opportunity to further political maturity.
Until about two weeks ago, the community was still awaiting the
verdict of His Holiness Karekin II with respect to the allegations
of procedural breaches during the controversial vote. The vote would
have been rendered void had these allegations been proven. For Bishop
Bagrat’s supporters, a finding of such breaches would have raised the
hopes of his rightful return. In a recent turn of events, however,
the resignation of the Primate-elect, V. Rev. Fr. Aren Jebejian,
and the announcement by Karekin II of new elections seem to indicate
a desirefor the Church’s leadership in Echmiadzin to avoid dealing
with the delicate matter of procedural breaches.
Although such a decision may be intended to bring a swift sense of
appeasement within the community, the appropriateness of warding off
the issues underlying the controversy is questionable.
The community is bound to remain split on the issue. It is doubtful
that either of the pro-Galstanyan and anti-Galstanyan delegates
will suddenly change their views. While it is uncertain whether
Bishop Bagrat will accept his nomination to be reinstated in the
upcoming elections, the polarization within the Diocesan Assembly
and the community is almost certain to endure. Despite the apparent
abatement of protests, the current situation makes the prospect
of appeasement uncertain, if not unlikely. Further, the opaqueness
surrounding the strife opposing both sides of the divide is almost
certain to perpetuate traditional governance whereby members of the
community affected by their decisions are paradoxically kept in the
dark and called upon for support. Although the ousting of Bishop Bagrat
triggered this crisis, its evolution reveals a much deeper need to
revisit the role of leadership within the Canadian-Armenian community.
Until today traditional elitist governance, prevalent in
the Canadian-Armenian community, made it irrelevant for its
leadership to justify their decisions. This opaque leadership was
not contested because, perhaps in a cynical way, these decisions were
regarded irrelevant by a significant part of the community. And thus,
unsurprisingly, the delegates in favor of replacing Bishop Bagrat never
formally took the initiative to inform the community members of the
motives behind their decision. While this attitude can be explained,
its persistence within the specific context of this crisis was morally
unjustifiable. From the moment that a large number of community
members signed the online petition, that the decision was being
hotly debated on social media and that a good number of individuals
attended a silent protest in front of the primacy in Montreal, the
anti-Galstanyan delegates must have realized that their decision
was widely unpopular. From that moment on, any objection to justify
their position on the matter was perceived as a blatant disregard
for the concern expressed by members of the community. In spite
of the distasteful means used by a few to express their objection,
the anti-Galstanyan delegates had a duty to confront Bishop Bagrat’s
supporters to provide them with the motives of their decision. As
leaders responsible for the proper governance of the Church and the
well-being of the community, they should have taken these protests
seriously. Even if they were unwilling to review their position,
they still had the duty to justify what they regarded as a favorable
outcome and to seek to understand the frustration felt by those who
saw the vote as an injustice.
>From a perspective of strategic communication, the anti-Galstanyan
delegates’ refusal to disclose their motives gave the impression that
they were hiding something, a perception that has actually been quite
aggressively instrumentalized by pro-Galstanyan group. To justify their
action, some individuals raised the potentially devastating effect that
such disclosure would have on the community. Better things are left
unsaid, they claimed. Such a stance reveals an underlying skepticism
of the capacity of members of the community to exercise their judgment
independently. In some way, by refusing to share their version of the
story with the community, they perpetuated the conditions justifying
their opacity. By refusing to inform the members, they paved the way
for speculation, something people naturally resort to as a way of
coping with a confusing situation.
Under such circumstances, distressed and bewildered members became
prone to manipulation and were labeled as such by the leaders.
Ultimately, leaders consider these same individuals as lacking the
independence of mind necessary for a reasonable assessment of the
situation and so justify their attitude. In other words, opaque
leadership perpetuates the very conditions that seemingly justify
its existence.
Direct contact and exchange between frustrated members and contested
delegates in an atmosphere of cooperation would have helped to dispel
any speculation regarding the latter’s motives or any doubt regarding
their concern for the well-being of the community.
Through enabling an informed debate, open disclosure of the motives
would have also created favorable conditions for a more thorough
and intelligent discussion among members of the community regarding
its internal affairs. Additional information would have contributed
to the elevation and political sophistication of the community. By
declining to be transparent, the anti-Galstanyan members missed an
opportunity to promote a balanced debate on what constitutes worthy
leadership–the question at the heart of the current crisis. Perhaps
they could have even persuaded a number of members that their decision
was well founded. More fundamentally, they took part in perpetuating
the very conditions of opacity and frenzied speculation that merely
contributed to aggravating the crisis.
Prior to submitting this commentary, a meeting regarding the
controversy was convened at the primacy in Montreal on July 4 at
8 p.m. Although such a meeting would have been more appropriate at
an earlier date, such an initiative represents a step in the right
direction. Hopefully, the organizers will make an effort to reach
every concerned member of the community as well as to address their
concerns as being genuine and serious.
The way in which the pro-Galstanyan faction handled the crisis is
not immune to blame either. Their strategy consisted primarily in
labeling their opponents as puppets, controlled by ill-intentioned
individuals, dishonest and unreasonable. They avoided confrontation
on substantial issues, namely the motives behind their adversaries’
position. The pro-Galstanyan actors exploited the popularity of Bishop
Bagrat to discredit their opponents. The issue, however, should not
have been the popularity of Bishop Bagrat but rather whether he had
done something morally reprehensible to the point of compelling a
majority of members of the Diocesan Assembly to replace him. If the
pro-Galstanyan side wanted to constructively criticize their opponents,
they should have emphasized the question of accountability; not simply
the lack of popularity of their decision.
By doing so, it was implied that we should choose our leaders based
solely on our emotional attachment and on what they embody, regardless
of their actual leadership abilities or moral rectitude. Indeed,
history provides us with many examples of morally wicked leader who
were very lovable individuals. That said, the emotional attachment
we feel towards our leaders is not completely irrelevant. Yet such
affection cannot in and of itself be the sole source of legitimacy
of a leader. By focusing exclusively on the affection people have
for Bishop Bagrat, the pro-Galstanyan group prevented the emergence
of a substantial debate regarding the alleged wrongdoings for which
he was presumably ousted. The long-term impact of these attitudes is
the continuation of emotion-driven community politics fuelled by a
lack of information. Seeking the truth must be pursued as a way to
make more informed and hopefully better decisions.
Some who lead the “Stay With Us” movement in support of Bishop
Bagrat may argue that their knowledge of the latter’s moral rectitude
and abilities as a leader was sufficient to justify their campaign
directed against the anti-Galstanyan delegates, and also the joining
of members to the cause. This justification, however, is based on the
premise that statements made by leaders must be taken at face value.
This discourages independent judgment and the condition of transparency
without which such judgment is effectively disabled. This stance
reveals a belief, seemingly shared by both parties to the dispute,
that members of the community who are not involved in the day-to-day
decision-making process cannot understand the substantial issues.
An anonymous letter entitled “Let’s set the record straight and then
move ahead together for the benefit of our Church and community”,
distributed on June 14, 2013 by email provides a poignant illustration
of this mindset. From a public relations’ perspective, the letter
is intended to provide a more moderate pro-Galstanyan position by
distancing itself from “occasionally excessive” writings and the
“ugly language” they contain. This letter fails, however, to promote
a more substantial debate on the core issues. The fact that the
letter is written by an anonymous group-laconically referred to
as “we” throughout the letter-makes it impossible for a diligent
reader to validate the information contained therein. Further, the
letter contains a notice mentioning that it “is based on first-hand
information from reliable sources and verified facts and is issued
by concerned members of our church on behalf of the more than 4,000
people who signed the petitions.” Referring to “reliable sources”
in an anonymous letter that fails to identify these sources prevents
anyone from verifying the validity of the facts put forth. Although
it is claimed that these facts have been “verified”, any diligent
reader would ask the following question: verified by whom? Impossible
to know. How can anyone wishing to exercise his or her own critical
thinking do so under such circumstances? The answer is that they
obviously cannot. Implicitly, the letter is drafted upon the assumption
that the readers should not use their judgment to form an opinion
and that it is perfectly acceptable to take whatever is stated in
the letter at face value. The disregard for independent judgment
underlying this letter only serves to perpetuate a tradition of
opacity within the community.
The notice also states that the letter was written by “concerned
members of our church”, implying that the anti-Galstanyan delegates
do not share this concern. What is implied is that those holding
different opinions are not concerned and perhaps even that their
interests lie elsewhere. The letter essentially expresses a judgment
on the conscience of the anti-Galstanyan delegates, a tactic that
unnecessarily diverts attention from the substantial issues at hand:
whether their motives were reasonable and what should be considered
good leadership within the Canadian-Armenian community.
Furthermore, the notice claims that the letter was written in the
name of “the more than 4,000 people who signed the petitions”. The
petition, however, was only intended to request His Holiness Karekin
II to withhold ratification of the controversial decision. The letter
goes further by making judgments regarding the motives of those who
voted to oust Bishop Galstanyan and by implying their dishonesty. The
petition was intended to support Bishop Bagrat, a highly popular and
loved leader of the Armenian community, not to question the honesty or
conscience of those who thought he should be replaced. Essentially,
the authors of the letter equated a lack of popularity with
dishonesty. This only contributed to diverting attention from the
substantial issue at hand: on what grounds should a popular leader be
ousted? Most fundamentally, they instrumentalized, in a reprehensibly
dangerous manner, the name, identity and conscience of more than 4,000
individuals whose names can be easily traced online. The purpose of
this was perhaps to give a sense of legitimacy to the claims contained
without having to substantiate them but it was done so by hijacking
the freedom of thought of the signatories. Signing the petition did
not mandate an anonymous group to write the content of that letter in
the name of those signatories. Although some may very well have agreed
with the content of the letter, a clear mandate to that end should
have been given. Contesting an unpopular decision is very different
from questioning the moral rectitude of the proponents of that
decision. By falsely declaring that they were acting in the name of
the signatories of the petition the authors of the June 14 letter took
hostage the conscience of the signatories of the petition. The authors
unrightfully took the initiative to think in the name of others.
By their behavior, antagonists on both sides marked their preference
for a short-term vision consisting of publicly discrediting each other
while failing to properly inform the members of the community, the
primary stakeholders in this dispute. The result has been acrimonious
polarization. By their actions, both sides prevented the community
from using this golden opportunity to mature politically. Under such
circumstances, the moral foundations upon which our community is
founded are at stake. How can the Canadian-Armenian community voice
demands to Turkey of an honest assessment of its history when its
own leaders are unable to respect the tenets of intellectual integrity?
How can it promote further democratization of Armenia when its
own leaders do not consider the grievances of its own members as
indicators of legitimate concern? How can it consider itself Canadian
at all if its leadership does not believe that the conscience of its
own members matters? This having been said, something can still be
done to stir this crisis in a more constructive direction.
It is argued that the best approach of ensuring an inclusive,
transparent and efficient way of managing this crisis is to set up
a public forum through which the concerned delegates would be called
to clarify their position directly to the community. A truth-seeking
public forum would bring two or three delegates of the Diocesan
Assembly from both sides of the divide and would be given a chance
to explain their side of the story. The public would be given the
chance to ask questions. The discussions would be animated by a
competent moderator.
Such a forum has the potential of being highly beneficial for the
entire Canadian-Armenian community. Setting a precedent of cooperative
dialogue as a viable dispute resolution alternative would assert
our belief that we can, as a community, work together. It would
allow both decision-makers and stakeholders to realize that our
community is composed primarily of reasonable individuals who share
a genuine concern for the well-being of the community in spite of
their diverging views regarding what that well-being means. Direct
communication would pave the way for the ending of speculation while
elevating the discourse on community affairs. Encouraging involvement
in and discussing community affairs would make the community relevant
again. By engaging in a dialogue on what it truly means to be a leader
in the community and under which circumstances one should be evicted
would allow for the community to assert the values it expects its
own leadership to uphold. Finally, by organizing a public forum where
decision-makers would be asked to explain and justify their positions
would set a precedent of accountability for all current and future
decision-makers to bear in mind. It would be a healthy reminder that
community decisions are relevant to individuals who are distant from
the decision-making centers and that their interest should be taken
into consideration.
This crisis compels Canadian-Armenians to reflect on the outcome
they seek as a community. It represents an opportunity to make things
better; to enhance community governance; to make the very concept of
community more relevant for its stakeholders. The community can choose
to uphold the values it perceived in Bishop Bagrat: inclusiveness,
service and unity. Canadian-Armenians can choose to embrace these
higher values that are not and should not stem from the work of one
man only, for these ideals are everyone’s responsibility. It is a
choice. It is a choice to believe in a greater community. Meeting and
discussing by acknowledging each other’s concerns as worthy of serious
consideration may very well be a first step in asserting this choice.
http://www.keghart.com/Yeretsian-Dialogue