Political philosophy, or worldview, solves a few vital issues.  The main one is consolidating the public around a general value system. Without common understandings and value systems there cannot be a political nation, in whose absence a void arises between governing elites and the people.

Political worldview integrates the personal viewpoints of citizens into shared objectives and aspirations.  It is upon those common tenets that political systems are built.  That is a very important process for any state that wants to create a stable administrative system.

Until 2018 a divide had deepened between the governing class and the public, as a consequence of which quite easily, by "velvet" means there took place a regime change.  The ruling elite did not even try to put up a serious resistance.  That was the result of the government's conceptual bankruptcy.  Time will tell if this served as a lesson for future governments, but so far it does not seem to be the case.

In 2018 the public came together in the name of systemic changes. Such transformation was desired by virtually all, even by members of the ruling party of the time and high-level officials.  It was clear, however, that the previous governing class had lost its political immunity, and the Republican Party representatives their motivation for struggle. Indeed, the most convenient moment for political change had long been missed.

This is the characterization of our not-so-distant past.  Today it seems we stand again before the same problem.  Nearly two years have passed since the change in regime, but many people think that it is still early to expect results from the new authorities.  Time continues to roll forward, whereas the current administration has yet to present to the public any concrete conceptual or ideological proposal that would serve as a foundation for nation-building.

The fight against corruption is the obligation of every government. How effective that policy is being conducted is another matter, and that fight cannot be presented as the content of the government's ideology.  The "struggle" against the constitutional court, the term "proud citizens," the motto "Armenia is my hearth," "velvet, non-violent revolution" and other similar emotional phrases and "struggles" cannot constitute bases of a state's worldview.  These are at best promotional creations which as such have a period of freshness, after which–and especially if subjected to constant repetition–they lose their appeal and influence.

The absence of worldview and state ideology might be perceived as an indicator of democracy, but in that case the meaning of politics boils down merely to the role of serving the interests or inclinations of this or that person or group, while the foundation of state must be the ideas and goals that connect society.  The lack of ideas or, as Mr. Pashinyan says, "isms" only at first glance appears to be an _expression_ of democracy.  In reality it opens the door to anarchy.

The government is unable to formulate and present ideas to the public, but it is inclined to separate and then mobilize its supporters against the "enemies of the people" and thus to build the basis of its power.  That is the reason one can always find people who begin to relate to the authorities as usurpers of state and pursuers of personal gain.  And so the public is split into groupings that hate each other, and hate speech becomes the call of the day.  That is natural, since very little unites the people and division continues to grow.

And it is no surprise that the political struggle unfolds, not about programs of the nation's development, but against this or that group.