Georgia at 25

Opinion: In this op-ed for commonspace.eu on the occasion of Georgia's independence day, Dennis Sammut warns against understanding Georgia through simple cliches, and argues that after twenty five years of statehood it is now time to modernise Georgian politics

Many countries lend themselves to clichés, but perhaps none more so than the Republic of Georgia, the South Caucasus state today celebrating the 25th anniversary of its statehood. Georgia was an independent state briefly between 1918-20, and today's celebration is in fact the anniversary of the declaration of Georgian independence that took place on 26 May 1918. However, that independence was too short-lived and too fragile to draw too many conclusions from. It has been in the last quarter century, since emerging from the ashes of the USSR in 1991, that Georgia took its place among the community of nations. In the process, many have become acquainted with this country and its people, and most emerge from the experience holding very fixed perceptions.

Those who know Georgia tend to either love or hate it, and two sets of clichés have developed around the country. Those who like it think of it as a land of milk and honey, with beautiful scenery, plentiful and delicious food, and friendly and hospitable people. Others, though by far a minority, think of Georgia as a dysfunctional failed state where corruption is rampant, where politicians squabble for power and wealth but have contributed little to good governance, and where intolerance - often expressed through violence - is prevalent,

As somebody who has been to Georgia quite a lot in the last twenty-five years, experiencing both its pleasant and unpleasant sides, I can understand where these simplistic clichés come from. But ultimately, the Georgian people have struggled over the last twenty-five years to establish and develop their state, with a degree of success, in extremely difficult circumstances. History provides the Georgians with a beacon of past glories that many hope will be repeated, but also acts as baggage that sometimes seems to drag the country down. Georgia's complicated relationship with its huge neighbour Russia has clouded its history for centuries, and continues to play a determining role. Georgia is rich in agriculture, hydropower and tourist potential, but its economy remains underdeveloped.

It is often in the field of governance that Georgia is subjected to most criticism, even though it compares favourably with its immediate neighbours. Since 1991 Georgia has had four governments, each with its own particular style, and all with weaknesses and shortcomings, but none have been totalitarian. The first president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, was a romantic nationalist who had no idea of government and led the country to chaos. Edward Shevardnadze, a reconstructed communist who presided over a laissez-faire government as an antidote to Georgia's recent past, succeeded him. Shevardnadze was unceremoniously pushed out by Mikheil Saakashvili, an impulsive and somewhat angry man in a hurry, who shook Georgia out of its lethargy but in the process rode roughshod on his own people. He was pushed out, in an equally unceremonious fashion, this time through the ballot box. Georgia's 2012 parliamentary election may have been Saakashvili's worst defeat, but it was also his biggest success. The country had learnt how to change governments democratically.

Since then, Georgia has had a somewhat lacklustre government that has put state consolidation and economic development as a priority. It is less ideological than its predecessor, more in control than Shevardnadze's government, and not into the disastrous romantic politics of Gamsakhurdia. The man behind the current Government is Bidhzina Ivanishvili, mastermind of Saakashvili's 2012 electoral defeat. He swept into power at the head of a ramshackle coalition of disparate political groups and personalities, but who for the last three years has held no official position in the Georgian state.

Georgians have much to thank Gamsakhurdia, Shevardnadze, Saakashvili and Ivanishvili for, despite their various shortcomings, in their own way they all took crucial steps that were decisive to ensure Georgian statehood. In due course future generations of Georgians will probably come to love them all. Gamsakhurdia and Shevardnadze are now dead. Saakashvili is very much alive, having re-invented himself as a Ukrainian, currently governing the region of Odessa. Some think Saakashvili may make a comeback into Georgian politics. Frankly I think the Georgian people do not want him, and do not need him. In 2003 Saakashvili was the man of the moment. That moment has now passed.

Much has been done to modernise the Georgian state in the last two decades. Now it is time to modernise Georgian politics, tangibly rather than cosmetically. The person who  many expected to do this was Ivanishvili. Often he says he wants to do so, but frankly he does not seem to have a clue how. It is a pity, because time is running out. Ivanishvili may not have held an official position since resigning as prime minister in 2013, yet had moral authority conferred on him by the 2012 election victory which he spearheaded. This moral authority will soon expire when Georgians go back to the polls next October. Even if his party wins that election, Ivanishvili's own authority will be much less.

Georgian politics now needs to consolidate around ideas rather than personalities, offering the electorate clear choices on economic, social and foreign policy issues. State institutions need to be strengthened so every government is held accountable and in check, through legal and legitimate means.

A lot of the onus lies with politicians, yet every Georgian citizen also bears his or her share of responsibility. Tolerance remains a somewhat abstract concept in the thinking of most Georgians, the product of a conservative Church and a communist legacy. Old people may have excuses, but young people do not. They need to be the driving force for the deep-rooted changes that are now necessary to secure not just Georgian statehood, but also its success as a modern, prosperous and democratic state. October's elections need to be  even better than those in 2012. Anything less will be very disappointing indeed.

In facing its current and future challenges Georgia, is now not alone. The process of formalising its association agreement with the European Union has taken an irritatingly long time to be completed, but should be in place in five weeks' time. The EU must step up its work in Georgia and deliver, on the visa liberalisation issue, on economic support and on political mentoring.

Georgia is not a land of milk and honey, but neither is it a dysfunctional failed state. It is a normal country that has passed difficult tests over the last twenty-five years, and is now on its way to a better future despite the challenges ahead. To all Georgians, Happy Independence Day!

The author: Dennis Sammut has been a regular visitor to Georgia, and observer of Georgian life and politics, for many years. He is Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research) and contributed this op-ed to commonspace.eu on the occasion of Georgian independence day. He may be contacted at dennis@links-dar.org.

photo: The statue of Mother of Georgia looks down over the Georgian capital Tbilisi. "History provides the Georgians with a beacon of past glories that many hope will be repeated, but also acts as baggage that sometimes seems to drag the country down".

 

 

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

srael’s parliament approved a bill on Monday that would allow the execution of Palestinians convicted on terror charges for deadly attacks, a move that has been criticized as discriminatory and immediately drew a court challenge. Sixty-two lawmakers, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, voted in favor and 48 against the bill, championed by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. There was one abstention and the rest of the lawmakers were not present. Ben Gvir in the run-up to the vote had worn a lapel pin in the shape of a noose, symbolising his support for the legislation. “We made history!!! We promised. We delivered,” he posted on X after the vote. The bill would make the death penalty the default punishment for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank found guilty of intentionally carrying out deadly attacks deemed “acts of terrorism” by an Israeli military court. The bill says that the sentence may be reduced to life imprisonment under “special circumstances.” Palestinians in the West Bank are automatically tried in Israeli military courts. Meanwhile, under the bill, in Israeli criminal courts anyone “who intentionally causes the death of a person with the aim of harming an Israeli citizen or resident out of an intention to put an end to the existence of the State of Israel shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.” Criminal courts try Israeli nationals, including Palestinian citizens and residents of east Jerusalem. The bill sets the execution method as hanging, adding that it should be carried out within 90 days of the sentencing, with a possible postponement of up to 180 days. - ‘Parallel tracks’ - The bill appears to conflict with Israel’s Basic Laws, which prohibit arbitrary discrimination, and shortly after it was passed, a leading human rights group announced that it had filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding the legislation’s annulment. “The law creates two parallel tracks, both designed to apply to Palestinians,” the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said in a statement. “In military courts — which have jurisdiction over West Bank Palestinians — it establishes a near-mandatory death sentence,” the rights group said. In civilian courts, the law’s stipulation that defendants must have acted “with the aim of negating the existence” of Israel “structurally excludes Jewish perpetrators,” the group added. The association argued the law should be annulled on both jurisdictional and constitutional grounds. During the debate in parliament, opposition lawmaker and former deputy Mossad director, Ram Ben Barak, expressed outrage at the legislation. “Do you understand what it means that there is one law for Arabs in Judea and Samaria, and a different law for the general public for which the State of Israel is responsible?” he asked fellow parliamentarians, using the Israeli name for the West Bank. “It says that Hamas has defeated us. It has defeated us because we have lost all our values.” - ‘Discriminatory application’ - Lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech from Ben Gvir’s party, who years ago survived an attack by Palestinian militants in which her husband was killed, urged fellow parliamentarians to approve the bill. “For years, we endured a cruel cycle of terror, imprisonment, release in reckless deals, and the return of these human monsters to murder Jews again ... And today, my friends, this cycle has come full circle.” The Palestinian Authority condemned the law’s adoption, saying that “Israel has no sovereignty over Palestinian land.” “This law once again reveals the nature of the Israeli colonial system, which seeks to legitimize extrajudicial killing under legislative cover,” it added. In February, Amnesty International had urged Israeli lawmakers to reject the legislation, citing its “discriminatory application against Palestinians.” On Sunday, Britain, France, Germany and Italy expressed “deep concern” over the bill, which they said risked “undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.” While the death penalty exists for a small number of crimes in Israel, it has become a de facto abolitionist country — the Nazi Holocaust perpetrator Adolf Eichmann was the last person to be executed in 1962. Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967 and violence there has soared since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel triggered the Gaza war. (read more by clicking the image above).

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)