Analysis: The re-configuration of Georgian politics

This analysis was prepared by the editorial team of Caucasus Concise

As predicted, the process of re-configuration of Georgian politics, following last October's  parliamentary elections, has now started in earnest. The political landscape is changing to reflect the new realities in the country and in the international environment, and this should be assesed positively.

The major change is happening within the main opposition party, the United National Movement. Following weeks of internal squabbles that spilled over into the media, the majority of the UNM members of parliament have now left to form their own political movement. The process was hastened once the former mayor of Tbilisi, Gigi Ugulava was released from prison in the first days of January. He endorsed the decision of other party leaders such as Gika Boleria, David Bakradze and others.  

Bakradze, who is the leader of the opposition (formally called the minority) in the Parliament outlined the vision for the future "our political team, are looking ahead and beginning to build the future," Davit Bakradze was quoted by the website civil.ge as saying, whilst wishing success to those members, who decided to stay in the United National Movement. "We will definitely remain allies in the struggle against Ivanishvili's regime, but from today this political force and this political team begins a new stage of struggle aimed at changing the situation in Georgia for better, at finishing the Georgian Dream [party] and Ivanishvili's regime peacefully and returning development and progress to the country," he noted. Bakradze said that, for years, UNM's "face, backbone and pillar" was the team, which will continue its political activities separately using its "knowledge and competence"... "which sees Georgia's future in EU and NATO and "the key task of which will be to end confrontation in the country." Bakradze added that the team "has come to terms with the past" and that "nobody will be afraid" of its return to power. "Such a political force is being created today and I am sure that this political force will be successful on the Georgian political arena," Bakradze stated and added that "it is not correct to say that a team is leaving the party, because in reality the United National Movement is splitting today.

Bakradze's robust but conciliatory tone was in contrast to the language that former president Mikheil Saakashvili has used both before and after the October elections. Many in Georgia attribute the Georgian Dream victory to a rejection by the majority of Georgians of Saaksahvili and his tactics. Saakashvili however retains support amongst some grass root groups within the UNM, especially in western Georgia. It now seems the UNM will also have enough MPs still in the Parliament to be able to form a faction - an important issue if the UNM is to benefit from continued parliamentary resources.

Changes have also been taking place in other opposition parties that are not represented in the parliament. Most of the key personalities in the Free democrats, including its leader Irakli Alasania have resigned, and some have been given posts in the Georgian Dream government. The other significant development was the earlier resignation of former Parliamentary speaker, David Usupashvili, from the Republican Party. Usupashvili is still considered a heavyweight in Georgian politics, and this week he announced that he was in the process of setting up a new political formation, together with a number of like-minded people. There is increasing speculation as to whether the president of Georgia Giorgi Marghvelashvili will join this formation. Marghvelashvili was elected president in 2013 as a candidate of Georgia Dream, but broke with the party after differences emerged between him and the GD founder, Bidhzina Ivanishvili. Usupashvili ruled himself out from the next presidential election and said that the party will focus on the 2020 parliamentary elections.

The changes in the opposition may offer temporary satisfaction and succour to the Georgian Dream party in government, even though it currently enjoys a very large majority in parliament and is very secure in its position. However this is situation may change during the course of the life of the parliament. Many observers consider that the new political force that will emerge from among those that split off from the UNM will offer a strong opposition to the government. It is made up of seasoned and able politicians, and freed from the baggage of Saakashvili, is likely to be able to build bridges to the Georgian public very quickly. The new party led by Usupashvili is also likely to become very soon an important player, attracting liberals and the intellectual centre of the political spectrum. But the most important challenge for the Georgian Dream will come from within. Keeping together cohesion and unity in a party that has in the past prided itself to being a broad church will not be easy as the burden of government in difficult political and economic times starts to take its toll.

On the whole however the current changes in Georgian politics should be looked at positively. The political landscape is changing to reflect the new realities in the country and in the international environment. Most Georgian political parties and politicians remain firmly committed to Georgia's European and Euro-atlantic aspirations, and the ongoing changes are likely to strengthen this rather than weaken it. A strong and articulate opposition is also essential for a healthy democracy.

This analysis was prepared by the editorial team of Caucasus Concise, a weekly electronic newsletter published in co-operation with Commonspace.eu

photo: Members of the United National Movement announcing they were splitting away from the party to establush a new political formation, making their announcement on 12 January 2017.

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).

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)