Tomorrow's elections are expected to be held in an atmosphere of hatred and mutual intolerance. Some people even predict the prospect of a civil war. Why are the expectations so pessimistic, what is the reason? After all, there are many countries where elections are sometimes held in a heated atmosphere, but no predictions of civil war are made, and the societies are not so polarized. Let us try to understand this.

There may be several reasons for polarization in our country, including the stubbornness of a government that lost the war but is reluctant to leave. Other reasons may be pointed out as well, but we will focus on only one, which, in our opinion, is the key one.

In the last thirty years, there have been political upheavals in Armenia, each of which could have caused deep shocks for any country, even if it happened once in a hundred years. We imply a fundamental change of elites.

What impact do the abrupt changes of the elites have on the society and, in general, on what principles do the elites act? t is considered what electorate the society has, so is its present, and, accordingly, the future or the lack of perspective of the future.

First of all, let us clarify that the electorate does not have to consist of the cream of the society. It can be a group of people united by common interests, who have the appropriate management skills and a certain worldview. There can also be an intellectual elite based on the idea and culture that unites the society, which does not directly participate in the governance process, but has a great influence.

The elite can be "open" - democratic, as well as "closed" - authoritarian. There may be several elites at the same time who interact within the rules of the game or are in conflict and being in a strong confrontation with each other can be destructive for the given society.

In 1988-1991, the ruling elite of Soviet Armenia was, in fact, completely replaced by a new one, and based on the idea of ​​fighting for Artsakh, they began to form a new elite, which replaced the communists, changing both its composition and worldview. It was, of course, a great shock and ordeal for the society. The new ones were nationalist, but with the liberal rhetoric typical of post-Soviet countries, that is, they were liberal-nationalists who fought for Artsakh's independence. In the next stage, the ruling elite broke up and the parts turned into hostile camps.

The second such case took place in 2018, when the entire ruling elite was replaced by a new one. The ideological basis of the new ones was the declared struggle against lawlessness and the promise of economic change. In other words, not a liberal-nationalist, but a problem of social justice was raised. The rhetoric of the "newcomers" was also liberal in appearance, but in reality it was based on social-Bolshevik populism.

In the 2018 parliament, a huge part of the political and financial elite was left out of the governing process and formed a new romantic agenda, which caused defeat in all directions, including the war. The society was, in fact, fed with left-wing promises: to punish the oligarchs, to bring back the plunder, to completely eliminate corruption, to establish direct democracy, but it ended with a disgraceful defeat in the war and the danger of the collapse of the statehood.

As we see, June 20 will decide not the fate of the parliament or the new government, but the existence of a new ruling elite formed in 2018, and in case of reproduction will provoke the revolt of a huge part of the society and political beau monde, which, according to some, may lead to a civil war.

This is the main reason why tomorrow's elections are not an ordinary event, but a life-and-death issue for the broken electorate.