We often use the term "nation" without delving into its meaning. Whereas, we need to have a deeper understanding of what it is in order to get out of the existing predicament.

"Nation" is a political term different from the concepts of "ethnicity" and "race." In our passports, next to “nationality” is written the Republic of Armenia. A passport is an internationally accepted identity document, accordingly, every line and information in it corresponds to international conventions and treaties. The citizens of Armenia, regardless of their religion and ethnicity, are as such by their nationality, just as Charles Aznavour was French by nationality or Kim Kardashian is American.

Thus, according to international standards, nationality is an indicator of citizenship. And hence questions arise: what value system do those citizens have; what educational system were they brought up in; what books have they read; how are their behavior, moral and ethical norms defined; how do they resist internal and external challenges, as well as internal and external manipulations, demagoguery and populism, etc. Let's call all those features culture, which is the characteristic of the people of "Armenian" nationality, regardless of an individual’s ethnic belonging.

Since independence, the political life of Armenia can be characterized by two slogans. The slogan of the opposition has been regime change, without offering people an alternative path: economic, educational, security, etc. The slogan of the governing forces has been Artsakh, likewise without explaining to people how they were going to modernize the country, the structure of the economy, the educational reforms, and the defense system in order to achieve the goal, so that we are ready to face and overcome the external threats facing our homeland.

In both cases, we faced primitive thinking and, in fact, the lack of real steps, road maps, and visions for the country's development. And that practice did not change even when the opposition and the government changed places. This primitive political landscape presupposed an equally primitive electorate with a poor intellectual stock, instilled through low-quality television soap operas, tasteless music, deteriorating educational programs, and unprofessional appointments in all fields.

This was most likely done on purpose. In this matter, the interests of the authorities and the opposition seemed to intersect at the same point.

We are moving according to the model of a primitive state and we got the corresponding result in the form of a 44-day war. That result was legitimate, and we must have the courage and honesty to accept it. Without looking at reality with open eyes, we cannot draw impartial conclusions and find adequate solutions.

Let's wrap up what we started with the need to redefine the concept of "nation." Our primary task is to embark on the reform of the NATION by strengthening all its cornerstones and pillars. After all, a nation is strong if its political, civilizational, and cultural foundations are strong.