There are many scientific explanations of the word "discourse" and they change over time. Let's try to understand the simplest version of it, which is merely expressed through the Armenian translation of that term. In other words, discourse implies what and how people in a given society or group talk about, what arguments they bring during the discussions, what terminology they use or, simply put, what the discussion is about, what the topic and goals are.
Until 2018, the main topic of Armenia's political discourse was regime change and corruption, that is, in order to fight corruption, it is necessary to carry out regime change, replacing bad people with good ones. After 2018, the "desired" dream came true. There was a regime change and it seems that the society should have felt satisfied and started building a happy future.
However, lacking a future-oriented program, the novice "revolutionaries" had to postpone "building a happy future" for a while. In other words, they had to set aside for a while the declared direct democracy, the establishment of the people's power, the economic revolution, the transitional justice, the incomprehensible vetting, in short, the creation of the New Armenia, and had to work for possible revenge against the "former authorities." Naturally, as long as the "counterrevolutionary" forces were not finally "laid" on the asphalt, no progress could be achieved. Therefore, the process of "lying down" began to gain momentum.
Thus, the political discourse was filled with the content of dramatic struggle, including examples of binary opposition, like "revolution-counterrevolution", "blacks-whites", "mobs-elites" dichotomy before the second Artsakh war broke out with its harsh ending, , which enriched the political discourse with a new content, such as "capitulator", "traitor" "capitulator of our homelands", "army robbed by the former authorities", "Homeland salvation movement", "defeat thrown into Nikol's pocket", etc. The "former authorities" set the task of a new regime change, but the elections held in June turned that whole "political discourse" into nothing. The "revolutionaries" were deprived of the opportunity to put the blame for their inaction on the "former authorities", and the "counterrevolutionaries" were deprived of their important trump card that the regime change is a public demand.
Hence, the political discourse of Armenia was exhausted after the elections. Now a new situation has been created, where a new political discourse, new "blacks and whites", new goals and new grievances must be formed. The incumbent government and the incumbent opposition found themselves in intellectual void. The society has also appeared in intellectual emptiness. Ideological bankruptcy is the worst thing that can happen to political actors, in those conditions the political meaning of their existence disappears, but "officially" they have to say something in the parliament, debate something or at least create the illusion of a political struggle.
Due to the lack of political discourse, a political system cannot exist, and the formation of a new discourse presupposes the construction of a new political field and new actors. Will it happen or not, time will show.