How politically mature are the Georgians?

This is a commentary prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

The political maturity of a nation is difficult to define, but on 8 October Georgians will contribute to the world's perception of their political maturity through the way they will engage with the electoral process.

Parliamentary elections in Georgia on 8 October are a good opportunity to assess the current mood in the country on a number of important issues, but furthermore the elections also provide a good indicator of the current level of political maturity among the Georgian electorate.

Georgia has a good legal framework for elections. There have been major reforms and important tweaks over the years, and the laws governing elections are as good as can be. Proper implementation of the laws and the rules that govern the process are also much improved.

There are no signs, so far, that any of the political parties are trying to defraud the process, nor that they will not accept the results of the elections, whatever that maybe.

Given Georgia's troubled electoral history these "certainties" are not to be taken lightly. They are the foundations on which Georgian statehood is being built, and without them any talk of Georgia's European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations will be useless prattle.

But there is something subtler related to this process - something that is not dependant on legislators or government officials, or even on party leaders. Political maturity is somewhat difficult to define, and even the most mature electorate often indulges in exercises of political recklessness. Political maturity cannot be packaged or spun. It is not something that depends solely on political elites, although they certainly contribute a lot to its formation. And it is not something that can be hidden, in fact it is often a characteristic (or lack of) that nations wear as a badge of honour or dishonour as the case may be.

Ahead of the vote on 8 October, the editorial team of comonspace.eu has identified five criteria on which it will evaluate the level of political maturity in Georgia as expressed in this election:

a) Turnout

Turnout in Georgian elections tends to be respectable - hovering between 60-65%. The situation is much less polarised today than in 2012, or during elections previous to that. Some are wondering if Georgians will bother going to vote at all in this election. A respectable turnout, even in the current calm conditions would be a good indicator that people see voting as an important civic act, not simply an exercise in glorifying or penalising politicians - or as has been the case on a number of occasions in the past, an existential act of defiance.

b) Peaceful campaigning, peaceful voting

Campaigning through the hot summer months has been remarkably peaceful and uneventful. The one incident that took place in Kortskheli even the before the campaign started, remains the exception that proves the rule. All political forces understand that violence will be counterproductive and may work against them so the chances of organised violence seem very low. Earlier this week the Georgian Interior Ministry said it had some information of planned incidents of violence being planned by the opposition UNM. The UNM promptly denied this, and so far, no hard evidence has emerged proving the accusation. One can only hope this was a case of a misunderstanding since much of the kudos that Georgia has gained over the last years can easily be wiped out if there is a recurrence of violence.

Georgians tend to be temperamental, and scuffles occur often, in any social situation where people gather, and drink is consumed. It would be a pity if such things also mar the electoral process. Of course it is up to the police to secure law and order, but society in general should through its action and response, isolate violence incidents when they occur, and frown on those who participate in them. This more so on election day itself.

c) Smooth election day process

Paranoia based on past history that someone will "steal" the election has resulted in tens of thousands of observers being mobilised to monitor the election process. There are now so many of them that have become a feature of the polling station. Of course transparency is not only welcomed but also necessary. But one also expects that as trust in the electoral process increases the need for so many observer decreases.

The Georgian Central Elections Commission is well organised and properly resourced. On can expect that in most cases the electoral process on election day will be smooth. But given the numbers of those involved in one way or other in the polling stations, and with dozens of parties on the ballot sheets, a certain amount of confusion, even chaos is likely to be inevitable. Here again it is the population at large that through its actions can ensure that the process is conducted with dignity

d) Free, open and responsible media

Georgia's media is free. The opposition has access to - and in some cases control of - major media outlets. Past problems of access to different TV stations in different parts of the country are, by and large, something of the past as new technology allows digitalised access to all. However political maturity means that the onus is not only on the authorities - their duty is to ensure a free and open media. Media outlets on the other hand need to show maturity by being responsible - not sensationalising issues unnecessarily; approaching issues with a degree of respect and swiftly and unambiguously condemning violence. They also need to be as careful as they possibly can not to spread incorrect information, especially if it can trigger violence. A responsible media is not created by laws, but by the values that the society that it communicates with holds high. How the Georgian media covers this election will also tell us a lot on the nation's political maturity.

e) Population constructively engaged with the political process

Georgians tend to enjoy politics. They are often very opinionated, but there is nothing wrong in that. They also tend to have a cynical approach to both their politics and their politicians. In most cases this is a sign of healthy politics. Unlike political parties that spring to life as elections approach, and hibernate for most of the time in between, Georgian civil society is ever-green and today constitutes an important block in the state-building process. The elections are a good time to get a sense of how much people engage with the political process - not only through the turnout, but also through the way they engage with political activity, how they respond to polls, opinion polls, door to door canvassing etc. Unlike the voting turnout which is precisely recorded, gauging citizen engagement with the political process in this way can be based mainly on anecdotal evidence. But even such an imperfect evaluation is useful

Commonspace.eu will not be official monitors in the Georgian elections, although we will be reporting on them comprehensively for our readers. However, our editorial team and contributors will be keeping an eye on the five criteria and reporting against them as the process unfolds, and after.

This commentary was prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

photo: A Georgian women casts her vote in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

 

 

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)