Current Armenian political thinking and public discourse are focused on the various interpretations of two prevailing ideas - national accord and national ideology - that are usually presented as remedies for the realization of all the hopes of the Armenian people. Great and profound as they are, these ideas however seem to be important only at first glance.

Upon closer scrutiny of these issues, it becomes apparent that in reality the idea of national accord is merely a false political category, since the existence of the nation is itself the reality of a national accord.

Consciously or intuitively, in theory or in practice, as long as it exists, the nation in the main is in a permanent accord, which means that it shares common problems, national customs and traditions, language, religion, and culture as well as hopes and ideas for the future which distinguish it from other nations.

Disagreement may be a fact and does exist within a part of the nation's political circles, but it is an extremely small part. This minority is inclined to present its disagreement as national discord. Obviously this inclination cannot serve a positive purpose. At the same time, it creates an atmosphere of unhealthy skepticism among the people.

"National ideology" is another false political category, since it is impossible to unite an entire nation around a single uniform ideology in a democracy. There will always be people, or groups, who will never accept that kind of ideology, and that is within their full rights.

The historical experience of the Armenian people, as well as that of all mankind, shows that a monopoly on ideology is possible only under totalitarianism or authoritarianism. Historical experience also shows that any ideology by itself is not necessarily dangerous but that it becomes dangerous only when elements of totalitarianism or authoritarianism are embodied in its implementation.

The advocates of a national ideology impulsively try to fill it with symbolism, with almost mystical content, which is the breeding ground for demagoguery and political adventurism. This cover of mystery, however, makes national problems abstract, and cuts them off from real solutions.

If some find it necessary to appeal to the idea of a "national ideology" for the sake of political ethics, I believe that it should not be covered with a veil of mysticism. On the contrary, in my understanding, this idea should be a clear, definitive and applicable program. That is to say: To see Armenia as a strong, safe, sovereign, democratic and law-abiding state with a civil society, a flourishing culture and prospering economy. This is currently the urgent and real national cause of the Armenian people, if you like, and the national program which, as you see, contains no secrets, mysteries, or myths.

Of course, it can immediately be argued that this so-called national program does not bear any national particularity, and this assertion may seem fully justified, but only at first glance. In fact, the only thing national in its wording is the name Armenia. The rest is typical of all nations. When a certain idea becomes a universal concept, that concept is transferred from the field of politics to the social sciences, from a category into a universal truth. However, being essentially universal, the program remains truly national since it is capable of promoting the development and prosperity of every nation. There could hardly be a political force to debate or oppose this program, despite its simplicity and universal nature.

Disagreement, however, can only emerge when it comes to the various ways to implement this program. Each political organization has a different approach. Such disagreement is natural and inevitable. In other words, it is perpetual.

To try to concentrate on this reality and so exert efforts to reach an accord means to waste the potential of the nation and engage in an obviously vain activity. In a democracy, no matter how hard a socialist tries to convince a nationalist, or a nationalist tries to prove the rightness of his doctrine to a democrat. they all are doomed to fail.

By rejecting the unattainable aspiration for a national accord in the ideological sphere and in the choice of ways to implement national policies, the wrong impression may emerge that I reject the idea of accord for society. This is not the case at all. Accord is quite possible. Moreover, it is vitally necessary, but only within the framework of social coexistence and the cooperation of political forces. The Constitution embodies such an accord. It is an agreement endorsed by the consolidated will of the entire nation, a national alliance on social coexistence and cooperation, everything to which all the members of society and all institutions must adhere.

It is natural that the more people participate in the signing of this agreement, the more sound this Constitution will become. In this context, a referendum is the best way for the adoption of the Constitution, especially under the conditions of the polarization of political forces given the current turmoil in Armenia. It is also worth mentioning that the Constitution adopted through a referendum, in addition to averting the dangerous tendency for the redistribution of powers in the future, will lay a firm foundation for the stability of the state and the creation of civil accord.

I do not accept, indeed I strongly oppose, the argument that the people are unable to decide on this matter. I reject it since, first, the Armenian people are not inferior to other peoples who have adopted their constitutions through referenda. Second, if the people have managed to determine their views regarding the thousands of complicated and multi-layered platforms of the parliamentary candidates, it will easily succeed in expressing its position on one or two versions of the Constitution.

Taking into consideration the most serious attention that Parliament, various political organizations and the mass media attaches to the constitutional process, I have no doubts that the Armenian people will adopt the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia in the nearest future and thus will considerably ease the social tension and bring the first and most decisive phase of the revival of independent statehood to its logical end.

The resolution is near, but not at all simple. The most urgent issue today for us state officials is to refrain from wavering and remain within the boundaries of legality on our way through the upcoming transition period between the adoption of the Constitution and the election of new officials. Apart from mutual tolerance, we will have to work out temporary norms for our activities in order to complete this task. I would not like to use pompous wording such as "a moratorium on political struggle" or "civil accord."

Before talking about the rules of engagement, I would like to refer to Armenia's internal political situation, the latest distinctive feature of which has found its reflection in the idea of a national coalition government.

What is the basis of that idea? From the point of view of the opposition, Armenia's current government has turned into a criminal gang, brought the economy to the verge of collapse, integrated with the mafia, betrayed the national cause, sold out Karabagh, lost our traditional allies, etc., and therefore, it is necessary to throw them out of the political arena even by means of street riots and public gallows, and save the nation from inevitable destruction with the help of a coalition government.

When the opposition is reminded that the current authorities have been legally elected, it responds that the elections were held on the wave of the Karabagh movement and were a result of the people's emotional attitude rather than political judgment.

When told that under existing legislation it is possible to get rid of the current government through Parliament by presenting a vote of no confidence, the opposition argues that the present Parliament does not reflect the real proportion of political forces in society. Therefore the mechanism of a vote of no confidence is inapplicable in this case.

When told about the provision for solving the issue through new elections, the opposition again claims that it is clear from the very beginning that the authorities will falsify the results of the elections.

Even if supposing for one instant that all the accusations launched against the government are true, it is a big question whether the way chosen by the opposition to come to power is justified. Is it not apparent that the dangerous precedent of illegally replacing the authorities would be ruinous for the future of Armenian statehood, rather than striking a blow to the present situation.

We, the first officials of the Armenian state, apart from performing our duties, exercising our powers of administration and control, and adopting the Constitution and laws, must lay the firm foundation of state traditions and cultivate the culture and psychology of elections as being the most essential among them.

So far three free elections have been held in Armenia: the parliamentary elections, the presidential election and the referendum on independence. Today there exist grounds to reaffirm that the referendum on the Constitution, the new election of a National Assembly and the new President of the Republic will ensure the final establishment of these basic traditions.

Thus, the adoption of the Constitution and new elections are the only legal, and, at the same time, the shortest and the best way to implement the so-called national accord and to get rid of the present authorities.

The authorities in Armenia should not and cannot be changed but through elections. All efforts to turn Armenia into another Azerbaijan, Georgia or Tajikistan are doomed to fail.

Taking into consideration all of the above, I would like to present you with a set of temporary rules to regulate the behavior of the authorities and political organizations for the upcoming period:

1. Trusting the work done by the Parliamentary Commission on the Adoption of the Constitution and the six political parties, the Parliament submits one of the drafts to a referendum;
2. In case such a decision is not adopted, as an alternative, the Parliament will submit both drafts worked out by the Parliamentary Commission on the Adoption of the Constitution and the six political parties to a referendum, holding a second referendum, if needed;
3. I immediately resign if the Constitution prepared by the six political parties is adopted;
4. New presidential elections and elections for Parliament are held, if the constitution worked out by the Parliamentary Commission is adopted;
5. At its current session the Parliament adopts the law on citizenship in the Republic of Armenia and the law on the elections.

I am convinced that in a friendly atmosphere it will be easy to come to an agreement for the norms of our activities.