This essay is an attempt to understand what an Armenian democratic movement can do to come to power and dispose of the regime of criminal clans. There are questions that need to be asked. For example, why such change is necessary? What is the major issue with the current regime? What are the plausible ways for the regime change to take place? How long may such a change be start taking place and can it take place at all? Here I lead the conversation from the position of the political philosophy and about the political morality.

The recent elections in Armenia are a mile-post of the victory of criminalized, asocial, and anti-citizenry idea over the idea civic state with common law equal for each and every citizen. Like any layer or a group of society these winners of the parliamentary elections come with set of values of their own. The “morality” of winners is based on the idea that the personalized power and immediate and personal interest in reaching affluence justifies every possible means to employ in order to reach the power. The talk here is not about the program based and otherwise publicized party strategies of the winner triumvirate. The “morality” here is meant to be public activities, means, justifications (often non-official if at all) expressed by these groups in question. To summarize the motto of the winners it can be said “Do whatever you can as long as you can do and nothing is unjustified if you do it for yourself”. There are several kinds of the problems with this “morality”. It is antisocial, it justifies any personalized use of power against any one and for the same reason it is against the idea of justice, it is finally sinks the idea of the national statehood for citizens. It finally exists longer than the independent Armenia of the third republic does but it can outlive its new period independent existence in the political world. The most importantly it does have its face in society and support.

It is not possible in an essay like this to explore the roots and the causes of the illness that eats away the fabric of Armenian society in the modern era. It is possible to say nonetheless that victory of the mentioned above “morality” would not be possible if it had not been also rooted in societal, socio-cultural circumstances of the people development going back into some history. It is impossible to see it other ways since much of the public was aware of the leading powers beneath the party names. The public nonetheless was either receptive of the victory or it was mostly silent at best. The very fact connives at the idea of the tacit approval. The immorality of the victorious was approved both nationally and international even though the victors were at the root of those who stifled the very idea of the democracy seeds back 2003 and then back in 1998.

It is true that behind the international backing there could be an international game play of powers. The infamous backing was also an outreach of support by at least one major power not interested in any development but holding its tight grip on the last footing in Caucasus under its immediate control. The problem is that none of the support would be sufficient and easy for the current victors if they were in minority nationally and even if they would still enjoy the support of a major power. In other words society has a problem. The society has the cause of its own for which it lost the battle for progress and justice. The most important outcome of the causes is the fact that the society once again cemented its stagnation, its loss of unity, its distrust to both the power holders and state in the long run. These are the answers to the question about why such change is necessary, and what is the major issue with the current regime. The next question is the question how to change the victory of the immoral.

The answer hides itself in the philosophy of the word ‘moral’. Once again the talk here is not about party programs no matter how primitive they are. The talk is about political and social culture which enables the current trends of criminalized groups to win. There is no possibility in going back into longer analyses of the circumstances that produce the qualitative change in the conscience of the public. There are some surmises to be made and to be verified by a more extensive research if anyone cares. Firstly, it certainly takes time for the society to understand the drawbacks of the functioning of the current public morality. In other words the society must come to self-introspection at some point in time. It secondly activates the healthy layers, groups and may be most importantly individual from intellectual circles to write and work on a new philosophy, new societal attitudes to the painful problems of current life. Thirdly, the change in the morality of minds depends on numerous inner (within state) and outer influences in various fields of human development such as economy, private and family life, religion and ideologies and so on and so forth. Such as a process finally takes time much longer than it needs a period between elections. One would look for the timing between the Great French Revolution and developments that made it possible. It took discussions of several generations of the best minds of the people in France. The discussions made in the form of publications, public appearances and certainly all of the efforts were made with the will to fight for justice.

The next question if such a change of public morality will take place at all. The change can take place as long as there is a perceived need. The needs shall permeate the vertical and horizontal divisions of the society or at least significant parts of it. It shall be understood as the most wanted and unavoidable as no other way is left. To summarize the said above, considering the outcome of the victory of the current political forces one needs to look up the problems in the society itself. Above all, the problems lie in the public morality or the absence of the morality of civic culture where it could not be. Armenians did not have a state of its own for too long and the Armenians were not able to cultivate a political culture of statehood. The current «morality» of the society is perhaps based on the earlier concepts of individual survival at any time, at any place, at any price and with no regard to a fellow national’s interest. The common or universal ideas of civic ideas justice and non-coercion, human rights and freedoms as enforced by state can come to life in Armenia too. Such a process needs, however, public self-assessment from the pint of view of the public ethics.