In all civilized countries, legality has been established as a result of a long and conscious struggle by society. Public solidarity in those countries was formed by establishing the rule of law, which in turn made it possible to achieve general development and progress. People gradually realized and attached importance to the recognition of their rights and their full protection, being convinced that only in this way can the privileges of the government be limited and the responsibilities of citizens be expanded.

The parallel development has always started from the moment when the public realized the common interest and tried to enshrine it legislatively. This is a continuous process and can never stop, as long as new realities and phenomena constantly appear in the course of human activity, which, as a result of broad public discourses, create the need for new regulations, laws or change some values, creating new models and their perceptions. In healthy public discourse, clashes of views, disagreements and approaches, the movement that continuously gives charges to the vitality of the society matures. In our time, the processes for reaching an agreement on public solidarity and general coexistence have accelerated and acquired a global character, in the context of much wider opportunities given by information technologies and new political tools.

However, the developments in Armenia move forward with a slightly different logic. The society, which found a certain strength in itself to correct the political upheavals, could not fully realize the significance of what it did, understand its role in the following steps, the importance of its degree of participation in the unfolding skirmish. A vivid proof of this is the repeated dramatic question “is this what we were fighting for?” People who “blocked the street” several times and chanted a few words with everyone in the square announce with a serious face that the revolution did not live up to their expectations. And what were those expectations and did anyone undertake the implementation of those expectations? In many cases, some people cannot even formulate what their expectations were in reality, moreover, they cannot outline any realistic way to fulfill those expectations. This is perhaps a consequence of the fact that a serious political discourse has never taken place in our country. The society has always shown evasiveness regarding the formulation of the most important problems for it and their possible solutions, as a result of which the most serious points voiced and clearly outlined from the platform, which were supposed to be implemented as a result of the revolution and actually become the cornerstone of the creation of a legal state, were pushed to the sidelines in post-revolutionary Armenia and remained suspended.

It is obvious that the society once again throws its share of responsibility in the establishment of the state over itself and delegates everything to the authorities, expecting that the latter will put everything aside with good intentions and undertake the establishment of the state.

Such behavior is characteristic of an infantile and indifferent society that is constantly waiting for “saviors”. It turns out that they made a revolution not to build a state with their own forces and ideas, but to find a “savior” and delegate the management of their destiny to him.

It is not difficult to predict how this will end.

Marina Muradyan