PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN ABKHAZIA

People in Abkhazia go to the polls today to elect a new President. This will be the second election in the territory since the momentous events of August 2008 when Georgia and Russia fought a short five day war, subsequent to which Russia recognised the separatist entities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.

Todays' election comes after the unexpected death of Sergei Bagapsh in May. Three insiders are contesting the election: Vice President Alexandr Ankvab, Prime Minister Sergei Shamba and former Presidential candidate Rauf Khadjimba. The American broadcaster Radio Liberty described Ankvab as "dour, humourless and sarcastic", Shamba as "articulate and politically sophisticated" and Khadjimba as "more polished and measured, and less strident than before". These descriptions are however somewhat artificial. All three candidates are well known to Moscow, Abkhazia's most important - maybe even sole, ally. Russian diplomats have been making it clear that they would not like to interfere with the process and will be happy with whichever one of the three candidates emerges victorious.

Abkhazia is a small society. Politics is polorised around clan loyalties and sources of patronage. The ethnic Abkhaz part of the population is small but determined to be the main political force in the country, A second circle of other ethnic groups, including Russians and Armenians, have generally been in favour of secession from Georgia, but are ambivalent about the future. And finally there are the Georgians. Most of them have been displaced and now live as IDPs in Tbilisi and other parts of Georgia, or in Russia. They will not be voting in this election. In the south of Abkhazia in the Gali region, where the population has always been mainly Georgian farmers, several tens of thousand have returned and co-exist uneasily within the new Abkhaz entity.

Since Abkhazia's  break away from Georgia in 1993 its leadership has not been able to articulate properly its policies towards refugees and IDPs. Allowing them back would mean accepting that Abkhaz will always be a minority in their homeland; not allowing them back would open them to the criticism of the international community that insists on the refugees right to return.

The three Presidential candidates in this election have failed to address the issue properly. One or two of the solutions proposed by candidates during the campaign sounded very close to the policy of "bantustan" adopted by South Africa during the time of apartheid. It is therefore no wonder that whilst many are welcoming todays elections as an important exercise in democracy, others dismiss it as a cynical consequence of the ethnic cleansing that happened after the 1993 war.,

Whoever wins the election is going to have to do better in explaining what the Abkhaz really propose to do in the future on the issue of return of refugees. Otherwise Abkhazia will always remain an abstract concept dependant on Russian soldiers for its exitsance.

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

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)