Georgia has new leaders, but many old problems remain.

Georgia's Prime Minister, Bidhzina Ivanishvili yesterday named Irakli Garibashvili as his successor after meeting with the political council of the ruling Georgian Dream coalition in Tbilisi. The nomination of Garibashvili to the post of Prime Minister, which under constitutional amendments adopted in 2010 will have increased powers, follows the election on 27 October of Giorgi Margvelashvili as President. This ends a political process that has been ongoing since the start of the campaign for parliamentary elections in May of last year and gives Georgia a new political leadership. There is no doubt that the mastermind behind what by any account has to be seen as an extraordinary transition is Ivanishvili himself, who could easily have stayed in his post or got elected as president. Instead Ivanishvili will in a few days time bow out of Georgian politics. He has promised not to interfere in Government after that.

The Margvelashvili-Garibashvili team is as yet an unknown quantity. Their short time in office as part of the Ivanishvili's Ministry has been adequate and they did not make any mistakes. Yet the challenges that they now face as leaders of Georgia are enourmous.

The first set of challenges are political. They have to find a way of working together in the new Constitutional framework. We will see none of the problems that have existed in the last year between outgoing President Saakashvili and the Ivanishvili government, but issues will arise. The Coalition will also now need to settle down to a new reality and will also have to change the way it works.

Georgia faces many problems, including in defining its own statehood. The question of the secessionist territories, and relations with Russia which acts as their protector, will continue to overshadow Georgian politics. The new leaders are not likely to push for an early resolution of this problem, knowing full well that none is available. They will however have to manage their relations with Russia very carefully, and to keep the issue on the international agenda. Georgia has to be an opportunist with regards to its lost territories, and an opportunity may arise at any time. If one does the new leaders will have to act wisely and not make mistakes of the past.

However Georgia's biggest problems for the coming five years are going to be economic. The monetary cushion that was put in place by the international community after the 2008 war with Russia has now been exhausted. Georgia has to look at its own resources to develop, and to deal with social issues. The Saakashvili government had put some emphasis on this, but too much time was spent on grandiose projects, often half cooked ideas. Garibashvili will have to put together a strong economic team and to prioritise time and resources for this work. Georgia's new generation over the last two years has shown that it does not accept any more excuses of the past, and that it is much more demanding of its leaders than previous generations. This is quite right, but it brings added responsabilities on the new political leadership in Tbilisi.

For the moment the new leaders are basking in the glory of their new positions. Very soon reality will set in. Georgia will then be able to see the mettle that they are made of, and draw its conclusions.

source: commonspace.eu

photo: Bidhzina Ivanishvili (centre) flanked by the President-elect of Georgia Giorgi Margvelashvili and the Prime Minister-designate, Irakli Garibashvili at the Georgian Dream Headquarters in Tbilisi on 2 November 2013. (picture courtesy of the facebook page of Bidhzina Ivansihvili)

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

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)