In countries with a parliamentary system like Armenia, the political landscape centers around the competition of ideas, perspectives, and even worldviews concerning the nation's development and future. According to the Constitution, these perspectives are documented and presented to the public for voting. Based on the number of votes, a government is established, leading to the emergence of opposition in the National Assembly, whose viewpoints hold significance for a considerable portion of the population. Within the parliamentary setting, discussions, debates, voting procedures, and various activities unfold, with the debates on the nation's development at the core of the entire process.

Let's set aside the issue of who shapes these perspectives and programs, how they are formulated, and the professional competence of those undertaking such significant actions. Additionally, let's disregard the challenge of whether the general public can comprehend these substantial documents and make informed choices between them or if only a few reliable, capable individuals are available to interpret and guide the public in decision-making. This represents the most vulnerable aspect of the phenomenon known as "democracy." While there are societies where numerous sections with limited education can unite and articulate a collective stance, this is not the case in the Armenian society. Therefore, political contention is not a practical consideration.

Presently, within our political landscape, the singular political force with a vision or project for the future is the governing Civil Contract party. At any rate, the perspectives on the future of this political force are evident: to permanently relinquish Artsakh; avoid discussing the Genocide to maintain amicable relations with our two well-known neighbors; alter national-state symbols; yield territory to Azerbaijan; shift geopolitical alignment towards the West; intensify integration with the EU "to the extent the EU is willing for it," and forsake the traditional value system, among other points. These assertions are not products of imagination; the person in the position of Prime Minister of Armenia and official representatives of the ruling power explicitly discuss them. Whether these developments are advantageous or detrimental is another topic of discussion, but there is no denying that the aforementioned represents the official stance of the Civil Contract party.

Naturally, there are certain layers in the society that agree with the mentioned standpoints, there is also a large segment of people against that "vision". And one must presume that the opposition forces are tasked with crafting the "counter-vision" for this specific segment, one that is comprehensive like that of the Civil Contract Party, documented on paper, and also pledges a peaceful future akin to what the executive leader openly articulates as his objective, although he does not know about the extent of his success in achieving it.

Following the 2021 elections, an unfortunate development unfolded: a significant portion of the population chose not to participate, feeling they lacked a compelling reason to vote. Despite disagreement with the reproduction of the ruling power, there is a perceived absence of a viable alternative. Consequently, only supporters of the Civil Contract Party and those vehemently opposed to this faction tend to cast their votes. Beyond these polarized masses, it seems that a considerable segment of the public fails to identify a third force presenting a more appealing and inspiring vision of the future.

This, perhaps, contributes to the deterioration of political discourse in Armenia, leaving the majority of the public without a clear sense of hope for the future.