Basically, no domestic policy is pursued in Armenia. Urgent issues on economic development, military industry and demography fail to be discussed, which is becoming increasingly dangerous. Social agenda seems to have been forgotten, especially the plight of refugees, families of fallen servicemen, seriously wounded servicemen in war, the unresolved issue of the return of the prisoners of war and other people who were detained over a year in Baku, despite the fact that the state and the society are under obligation to them. The foreign debt is growing like a snowball rolling from the top of a mountain, the indifference about  the moral atmosphere, as well as emigration are increasing, and this list may be continued. So, in that case what do the political parties discuss in the parliament and beyond it, how do they substantiate all those issues? In general, do they have sufficient knowledge to be engaged in public policy and do they have sufficient moral and professional potentials? It casts doubts.

The ruling political force, the Civil Contract, and its affiliated circles have two topics for discussion –seeking culprits inside, and sponsors outside, and strengthening the foundations of its own power. External saviors in the form of countries are divided into good and bad rulers. As a result, they account to different geopolitical poles for their defeats and failures, and the conclusions are different respectively. The opposition, by and large, is busy in time-wasting and still does not find ways out of “skids”.

This is the whole domestic policy of Armenia, which is the evidence of our impotence and  the failure of political thought. We feel so impotent that, in fact, we are unable to solve any problem on our own, even to form a more tolerable government, which would be able to look abroad for partners and allies, and not rulers. The number of political poles in Armenia can be calculated according to the number of possible or supposed foreign rulers, and they may overlap.

The whole political life of the country is divided into camps according to their external orientation, but without any reasonable political, geopolitical, economic and cultural justification for such orientations. Foreign policy orientation and pursuing foreign policy in general is not an end in itself. For that, one must at least have the geopolitical situation, its economic, worldview components, the meaning of the messages of the official representatives of this or that country, the logic and content of the competition between them, the ability to understand the background of their policies. As for our political parties, they also lack those characteristics, and the meaning of the existence of these political forces and the content of the discussions become incomprehensible.

Along with the lack of real and rational political life, their "accessories" - the press and social networks - backslide. The endless nightmare of "condemnations", "exposes", "criticisms" keeps public life and people's consciousness in uncertainty, and the end of all these is invisible.

The heavy defeat in Artsakh, seems, should have sobered up all of us, made us keep silent and think for a while. But alas.