What does “revolution” mean? “Revolution” is, first of all, a change of culture, and culture begins with the art of the ability to speak with each other. National elections are also a culture of communication with each other and, in the end, a decision-making culture — this time on a national scale.

Since 1995, we have not been able to create such a culture, that is, to start a nationwide debate at the pre-election stage and, ultimately, to make a nationwide decision by voting. It seems that the introduction of this culture should have been the main task that the “revolution” should have set for itself. No one doubts the legitimacy of the recent parliamentary elections, but were there any public debates before the elections? Of course not.

Discussion comes from the Latin word “discussio”, which literally means “study”, that is, not just a contradiction, but rather a study of each other, to which you can come by listening and respecting each other’s opinions. Aristotle, the founder of world science, formulated four types of discussion:

• discussion, the purpose of which is to reach the truth, observing some logical rules;
• discussion, the purpose of which is to bring another person into agreement with your point of view;
• a sophistic discussion, the purpose of which is to use logical pitfalls and methodologies of manipulation in order to impose one’s point of view on an opponent;
• dialectical discussion, which is rather a farce to create an impression of discussion.

Of all four types of discussions mentioned by Aristotle, Armenia is most accustomed to the sophistic discussion, which we have witnessed many times, but its masterpiece is a discussion around the theme of "member" - "judge" of the Constitutional Court, and the legitimacy of the President of the Constitutional Court.

It seemed that a serious legal discussion could arise in Armenia, from which the legal and political thought of the country would benefit, and the result could be a serious stimulus for the development of a culture of finding legal solutions on important political issues. However, we see the opposite picture: points of view are voiced not for finding the right legal solution, but based on one's own political interests.

In the media, in the National Assembly, in talk shows, on social networks, each one, proceeding from political motivations or his/her own stereotypes, tries to impose his/her point of view, and as a result we are not looking for the truth, but are busy with simple manipulations.