Is this Georgia's eurosceptic moment?

As Georgia prepares to enter in a new Association relationship with the EU, euroscepticism makes an appearance in an unlikely form ahead of poll.

Joseph Alexander Smıth reports from Tbilisi for commonspace.eu.

Weeks away from signing an historic association agreement with the EU, on the eve of local elections, Georgian voters may well mimic the EU's recent eurosceptic turn at the polls.

Nana shifts uncomfortably in the sweltering heat. "Why do we need Europe?" she asks. "Morality is more important than money. We have nothing to learn from Europe." Behind her, a large banner reads "homosexuality is a sin and a pathology". An amplified speech delivered from the steps of the old parliament building on Tbilisi's central Rustaveli Avenue decries the "perversion" and "propagandism" of gay-friendly European states. 

It's May 17 in central Tbilisi, a day many observe as the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia (or "IDAHO"), but which the Georgian Orthodox Church has re-branded as a Day of Family Strength and Respect for Parents in response to what it calls the "propaganda of homosexuality". Last year's IDAHO rally was violently dispersed after thousands of Orthodox counter-demonstrators, led by clergy, broke through police cordons and attacked the buses in which anti-homophobia activists were being evacuated.

This year, there was no IDAHO rally, but thousands of Orthodox faithful heeded the Church's call to take to the streets on May 17 to defend "traditional family values" against the recent adoption of an anti-discrimination law by Georgia's fervently pro-European government. The law is a pre-condition for a highly-desired visa liberalization deal with the EU, and among other things, outlaws discrimination based on sexual and gender identity.

Georgia's Church leadership was furious at the adoption of this bill, which it claims "legalizes sin", with clergy storming out of a meeting with parliamentarians once it was clear the legislation would be accepted by parliament. One cleric told beleaguered deputies he would stop praying for them. One MP said she felt she could never go to church again.

The confrontation between the government and church conservatives, just weeks before local authority and mayoral elections, has brought into focus a simmering scepticism about Georgia's European orientation. The Georgian government is due to sign an historic Association Agreement with the EU at the end of June, and will also join the EU's Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area.

Opinion polls consistently show a conservative attitude to gay rights among Georgian society. According to an NDI-commissioned poll in July last year, 79% of respondents disapproved of the May 17 anti-homophobia demonstration, while only 49% disapproved of the violence carried out by orthodox counter-protesters. 52% said that protecting the rights of sexual minorities was not important for Georgia. There is a widespread perception in Georgia's conservative society that the EU is excessively supportive of sexual minorities and is actively promoting 'non-traditional' sexual relationships.

In addition to this, events in Ukraine have had a paradoxical effect on the Georgian political climate. On the one hand, Russia's annexation of Crimea brought back traumatic memories of Georgia's territorial conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, galvanizing public support for closer relations with the EU in order to counter the threat of Russia.

For others, however, the perceived inaction of the EU in response to the Crimea crisis has led some to believe that Georgia might be better off avoiding confrontation and dropping its EU and NATO integration plans in favor of developing more friendly relations with their powerful neighbor.

"The US was perceived as a much more unequivocal ally for Georgia", says Nino Dolidze, Professor of Public Administration at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs (GIPA). "By contrast, the EU seems a much more reluctant partner".

Europe's failure to act decisively in Ukraine during the Crimea crisis has led many Georgians to believe that the EU isn't serious about their security concerns. This impression has only been reinforced by German Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent comments that a long-coveted NATO membership action plan for Georgia will likely not be on the agenda at the organization's upcoming summit in Wales.

Many Georgians are also anxious about closer economic integration with the EU. The Georgia's EU trade turnover was 2.87 billion USD in 2013, representing 27% of the country's total, with Georgian exports accounting for 608 million USD. However, according to Dolidze many Georgians perceive Russia as a more viable export market, and have concerns about the potential costs of meeting EU trading standards.

Some politicians have sought to capitalize on this surge of anti-gay and anti-EU sentiment ahead of the elections. Nino Burjanadze, a former-comrade-turned-bitter-opponent of ex-President Mikheil Saakashvili, has allied her Democratic Movement party to the conservative Christian Democrats to contest the local elections.

Burjanadze, who came third in last year's presidential election, is widely perceived to be in favor of restoring better relations with Russia, advocating a more 'open' foreign policy. Reacting to the adoption of the anti-discrimination law, Burjanadze suggested it would encourage children to accept a "non-traditional orientation", and added that "if the choice is as follows - to accept incest or stay where we are - I want to stay in my country."

Her party's candidate for mayor of Tbilisi, Dimitri Lortkipanidze caused an outcry in 2009 when, as a candidate for the role of Public Defender, he called for the re-criminalization of homosexuality in Georgia. The latest political ratings put him in third place. The party's majoritarian candidate for central Tbilisi's Mtatsminda district, Guram Palavandishvili, also leads the conservative Union of Families of Georgia, which led protests against the anti-discrimination law on May 17th.

Dolidze believes that Burjanadze represents a "real threat, because she knows how to play the right political games." Saakashvili's UNM-led government, which was ousted in 2012, was widely perceived as trying to undermine the position of the Church, says Dolidze. With the adoption of the anti-discrimination law and electronic ID cards - which some conservative clergy believe to carry the seal of the devil - many are now "pointing fingers at the ruling party" and looking for an alternative. According to Dolidze, Burjanadze's party could take up to 20% of the vote in the capital, representing a serious blow for the ruling party and the opposition alike.

Back on Rustaveli Avenue, the crowd's rejection of the anti-discrimination law is resolute. "This is not my opinion, is everyone's opinion" says Nana. "People are not going to let this happen." The local elections for many will be a confidence vote in Georgia's lurch towards Europe. It remains to be seen just how much deep-seated anxieties about European integration will shape the poll results.

Joseph Alexander Smith is a freelance journalist based in Tbilisi. He writes regularly for the national newspaper Georgia Today. He contrıbuted this report for commonspace.eu.

Photo: Conservative Orthodox priests have emerged as the unlikely leaders of Gerogia's eurosceptic movement. (pıctutre courtesy of civil.ge).

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)