After the elections Georgia needs to walk carefully on the regional tightrope

Growing anti-Georgian sentiments in Armenia may create problems for Georgia, especially as there are many external actors, and not only Azerbaijan and Turkey, which are ready to exploit these feelings, writes Benyamin Poghosyan in this opinion. 

On October 31, 2020, Parliamentary elections took place in Georgia. Since 2012 Georgian politics is often perceived as a two-man show - billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili and former President Mikheil Saakashvili. In 2012 Mr. Ivanishvili made a surprisingly successful bid to win Parliamentary elections and ousted President Saakashvili's United National Movement (UNM) party from power. Saakashvili left Georgia in 2013 after the end of his second Presidential term and entered Ukrainian politics becoming the governor of the Odesa region. Soon he became one of the toughest critics of his former friend President Poroshenko, was forced to leave Ukraine, and came back after President Zelenski's election in 2019. Meanwhile, several criminal investigations were opened against him in Georgia and the court sentenced him in absentia to several years of imprisonment.  Mr. Ivanishvili left the Prime Minister's position in late 2013 but continued to de facto govern Georgia through his control of the ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party.

GD won a landslide victory in the 2016 Parliamentary elections, and was hoping for another victory in 2020. Since 2019 the political life of Georgia has been focused on discussions on the changes to the electoral code. After the failure of the Parliament to approve constitutional amendments and enforce the fully proportional system of the government in November 2019 the US government was actively got involved in Georgian domestic politics. The new US ambassador Ms. Degnan played an instrumental role in forging a compromise in March 2020, as did her EU counterpart. As a result, it was decided to elect 120 MPs by proportional list and another 30 MPs by majoritarian constituencies, while the threshold to enter the Parliament was reduced from 5 to 1 percent. Before the elections, several new political forces sought to portray themselves as an alternative to both Mr. Ivanishvili and former President Saakashvili - amongst them "Lelo for Georgia" established by businessman Khazaradze and "European Georgia", whose members left UNM in late 2016 due to disagreements with Saakashvili. However, the growing polarization of the Georgian society again made October 31 elections a clear choice between Ivanishvili and Saakashvili.

According to the official data, GD won 48 percent of votes and UNM got 27 percent.  Another 7 parties entered Parliament all of them getting less than 4%, but enough to pass the 1% threshold.   GD candidates won 14 majoritarian constituencies, and a runoff is scheduled for the other 16, which include all the constituencies in the capital Tbilisi. International observers including an OSCE/ODIHR mission, and the US embassy, provided mainly positive assessments of the elections. They pointed out many shortcomings but emphasized that they were not sufficient to invalidate the results. However, all eight opposition parties which entered the Parliament stated that there had been large-scale falsifications during the elections, and decided to boycott the next parliament and not to participate in run-off elections for the remaining 16 majoritarian constituencies. They have called on the government to cancel the results and organize a new election under a new electoral administration, and have declared their intention to calling their supporters to organize large scale demonstrations.  

From the legal point of view, the presence of a simple majority is sufficient for the Georgian parliament to convene. According to preliminary data GD now has 61 seats through the proportional list and 14 seats through majoritarian constituencies. With the opposition refusing to participate in runoffs, the governing party is highly likely to win all the majoritarian races, allowing it to enter the parliament with at least 90 lawmakers, while 76 MPs are sufficient to form a simple majority, to elect the Prime Minister, and to adopt laws. However, one-party parliament will create problems for GD and will be a source of permanent instability in Georgia. Given the bleak economic outlook due to the COVID 19 pandemic, Georgia faces tough domestic challenges in the short and mid-term perspective. Most probably, the opposition will not be able to organize another "rose revolution" and force Mr. Ivanishvili to give up power as a result of street demonstrations. However, they can put permanent pressure on the government and force international actors, and first of all the US, to intervene and to seek to find a compromise. Thus, we may witness a complicated and lingering political stalemate with unclear outcomes.

Meanwhile, Georgia faces external challenges too. The new war in Karabakh and the possible direct clash of Russia and Turkey in the South Caucasus may create additional difficulties for Tbilisi. Georgia is home of up to 170000 Armenians and 235000 Azerbaijanis and has to be concerned not to allow inter-ethnic clashes on its soil. The Georgian government declared its neutrality in the new Karabakh war and decided to ban military transit through its territories to both Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, according to many Armenian sources, almost on daily basis planes loaded with weapons and mercenaries are using Georgian airspace to land in Azerbaijan from Turkey, Israel, and other countries. There are signs of growing anti-Georgian sentiments in Armenia, with social media campaigns to boycott Georgian goods, and not to use the Georgian Black Sea resorts as a summer holiday destination. Many in Armenia compare Christian Georgia's attitude with Muslim Iran's approach and argue that Iran pursues a much friendlier policy towards Armenia than Georgia, which policy can be described as a "neutral pro Azerbaijani" stance. If the war in Karabakh lingers anti-Georgian sentiments in Armenian society will only be strengthened.

Meanwhile, among the expert community of Armenia there is an understanding that Georgia has no other choice but to de facto support Azerbaijan. Georgia receives more than 90 percent of its natural gas from Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani companies, in particular, SOCAR are big investors in Georgia, and Georgia receives transit fees from the Baku - Tbilisi - Ceyhan oil pipeline and Baku - Tbilisi - Kars railway. Georgia has even more dependency on Turkey. Ankara is the number one Georgian trade partner, has invested a significant amount of money in Georgia and in particular in Adjara, and Ankara is perceived in Georgia as a gate to NATO. Given Turkey's full support to Azerbaijan during the new Karabakh war, Georgia is not able to decline Turkey's requests and pursue real neutrality.

Many Georgians think that the new war in Karabakh is not their war, and the only thing which matters is the uninterrupted flow of oil, gas, and goods from Azerbaijan. Most probably in the short-term perspective, Georgia will continue to pursue a policy of pro-Azerbaijani neutrality in the region. However, in the medium-term perspective, the growing anti-Georgian sentiments in Armenia may create problems for Georgia, especially as there are many external actors, and not only Azerbaijan and Turkey, which are ready to exploit these feelings. Thus, both domestically and externally, Georgia should be very careful to successfully walk this tightrope.     


Source: Benyamin Poghosyan is the Founder and Chairman of the Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan

Photo: Election Proceedings in Georgia. 

 

 

 

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

 

 

 

 

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)