The phrase “everyone is the same” is only about one thing: “let Nikol Pashinyan stay”. Dear holders of the position of “everyone is the same”, it is naturally your right, but exercise that right more honestly and declare that you prefer the continuation of Nikol Pashinyan’s rule, and just honestly go and assume your share of responsibility for that rule with your vote.

I repeat, it is a standard situation in Armenia, it is not a matter of choosing between effective and ineffective forces, between good and bad promises. In Armenia, it is a matter of interrupting the policy of demoralizing and devaluing the national and state profile, turning Armenia into a subservient entity to Azerbaijan.

Do you think that whatever force will win? Prove it with action. In other words, vote for the force with the greatest chance of winning, let that force form the government, and if it continues the same policy, if nothing changes, then you will tell everyone: “Did you see what we said?” And then your argument “everyone is the same” will become stronger, more convincing, simply objective.

After all, in the opposite case, if Pashinyan’s government remains, what is still continues. And if, according to your approach, the replacement will continue the same, therefore, by changing, you not only lose nothing, but also gain a weighty opportunity to objectively argue your position.

Therefore, act rationally from the point of view of the logic of your own position and to prove that “everyone is the same”, go and vote for the force or any of the forces with a high chance of winning. Vote and then “prove” that “everyone is the same”.

I repeat, I think, I am convinced that you have minimal rationality to imagine that there is no other option in the current situation: either the same government remains, or that government is changed through the forces with the leading opportunities of the opposition. Any other third option is just “theoretical romance”.

I think in the case of following politics more or less, it is obvious that the competition is between systems, institutions, networks. Like it or not, that’s how it is everywhere. Therefore, it is a “fight against windmills” to think that it is enough to speak intelligently, it is enough to tell people wise things, and that is a guarantee of victory in political competition.

Ultimately, it is also disrespectful to the voter. A voter is rational in all respects. He evaluates the systemic, network, institutional potential. He can like someone too much, listen to him and consider him the smartest, but in order to entrust that person with the steering wheel of management, he will consider the systemic-institutional potential and trajectory behind that person.

The opposite happens exclusively in revolutionary situations. Meanwhile, systems, networks, and institutions are needed to mature a revolutionary situation.

Any group, any force, that aspires to really win the public’s vote of confidence as a government, must either be able to mature a revolutionary situation in any way, or must appear for election with a system, with some systemic, institutional trajectory.

Accordingly, the formation of a political alternative requires the formation of a step-by-step system. If this is not the case, then either there is complete political naivety and, therefore, a problem of political equivalence, or there is an obvious ingenuity in the political process to solve small problems under big and lofty goals.

Analyst Hakob Badalyan

—