It is important to properly acknowledge the ongoing efforts of Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, primate of the Diocese of Tavush and leader of the "Tavush for Homeland" movement, over the past six months in working toward a better future for Armenia. Opinions about his contribution to Armenia's political landscape vary widely, ranging from high praise to harsh criticism, with some even resorting to bitter insults. Yet, despite these polarized views, one fact remains: he injected a breath of fresh air into Armenia's stagnant political scene, bringing with him self-confidence, spiritual energy, and an unyielding determination to struggle.

A separate question is how effectively this energy has translated into concrete actions, and whether it has met the expectations of most Armenians during these turbulent times—to expel a deceitful, incompetent, traitorous, and anti-national ruling club driving the country toward collapse, and to reestablish a centripetal, national government that truly serves Armenia's interests. This is the critical challenge today. The potential re-election of Pashinyan and his circle, God forbid, would spell the end of Armenian statehood, the Armenian people, and eventually everything Armenian.

It has certainly not been easy for the Archbishop, who has sacrificed his peace, personal happiness, career, and even his life in the fight against the Antichrist—so that "the light may shine in the darkness, and the darkness may not extinguish it; to overcome evil, so that truth may triumph over falsehood, and righteousness over permissiveness." However, the struggle, especially the victory in that struggle, cannot rest on the shoulders of one or two individuals alone. It requires the gathering of forces and resources, broad public consolidation, a clear plan and coordination of actions, and the development of a road map, among other things. Rallies and protest actions are necessary but insufficient on their own to fuel a successful rebellion.

Unfortunately, key elements of the struggle, briefly mentioned above, are being delayed and procrastinated without clear reason. In other words, the Archbishop goes slowly in a hurry. This raises the question: what should Archbishop Bagrat have done that he hasn’t? Our review "Hayatsk" weekly sincerely wishes success and victory to the Archbishop, his supporters, and the Armenian people as a whole. Our friendly advice, considerations, and even critiques stem from this wish, and we hope the readers of "Hayatsk" will understand them in this light.

So, what should be done? First, although it is quite late, the full leadership team behind the "sacred struggle" should be introduced at the next rally: who the decision-makers are, who is responsible for different organizational tasks, and so on. If the movement’s main resource is the people, there must be total sincerity, openness, and transparency with them to build a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Second, any change of government implies new elections and a new leadership. The people need to be presented with the composition of the shadow government, a potential pre-election list, and, most importantly, the candidate for prime minister.

These are the essential first steps. Once these two points are accomplished, the rest can be addressed. In general, these steps should be seen as part of the methodology and a new political culture for anyone aspiring to enter high-level politics. Incidentally, the only successful Artsakh-Armenian project in the post-independence period was the Karabakh Committee, where the scope of decision-makers, the names of those responsible for various sectors, the directions of activities, and the structure of local leadership were publicly laid out.

Other issues will naturally become clearer: the action plan, the concept of the transition process, the road map, and so forth. This is a tried-and-tested strategy that works; there’s no need to "reinvent the wheel."