Opinion: Elections in Georgia Highlight Ethnic Minority Exclusion and Frustration

After the controversial victory of the ruling party in Georgia’s parliamentary elections on October 26, it initially appeared as though the opposition was in disarray. Many observers expected widespread protests and a dramatic confrontation between the two sides, but that did not materialise straight away. Instead, two days later, a solitary protest took place, drawing no more than 19,000 participants that appeared downtrodden and forlorn.


That was to change by the end of November, however, when Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced that the country would suspend talks with the European Union over membership until 2028. The bombshell statement was all the more unexpected given that the EU had anyway suspended talks with Tbilisi over concern with two pieces of legislation – one concerning the foreign financing of NGOs and another concerning LGBT rights – adopted earlier last year.

Until then, however, some opposition supporters had already started scapegoating ethnic minorities for voting for the government party despite this being par for the course. Minorities are careful not to irk whoever is in power.

Already there had been attempts to manipulate ethnic groups for political purposes. The first came from pro-government media in early October when Mamuka Khazaradze, co-founder of the opposition Lelo party, was effectively accused of being of ethnic Armenian origin. Khazaradze denied the claims but added that if he was then he would acknowledge it proudly. “Long live a strong Georgia with its diversity,” he proclaimed.

Following the vote, however, it didn’t help when Armenia’s Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev were among the first to quickly congratulate Kobakhidze. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan are highly dependent on stability in Georgia for trade and the two largest minorities are ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Then Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili also didn’t help when she used the term “Armenian carousel” to describe alleged government falsification.

It is perhaps no wonder that ethnic minorities subsequently remain mainly invisible at the current protests. Some Georgians already view them as “guests" rather than as equal citizens born and raised in the same country. The opposition anyway didn’t campaign among ethnic minority voters. The protests are also almost entirely in Tbilisi with only small gatherings in the regions.

Pro-opposition social media accounts had also highlighted how far-right nationalist groups such as the Ultras were manning the frontlines of the protests to engage in battles with police using fireworks. In mid-October, the Ultras had already triggered controversy when they unfurled a banner declaring “death to separatists” in central Tbilisi directed as much against ethnic Ossetians and Abkhazians in Georgia’s two breakaway regions as it was against Russians.

It should be noted that many of those battling police at the protests have since been arrested. Without them, the protests are peaceful without exception.

Even so, the issue of minorities re-emerged during the protests on 22 December when a joint march by ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijanis was announced, accompanied by a graphic of the Armenian and Azerbaijani flags together. Many Georgians reacted harshly, demanding that the only flag to be depicted should be Georgian. While minorities do consider themselves Georgian citizens, most also maintain a dual identity embracing both identities.

Some Georgians considered the announced march a “provocation,” and not least when it became known that it would start from two points in the city. For ethnic Armenians that was in the Avlabari district where many live. For ethnic Azerbaijanis, it was to start at the Heydar Aliyev Park in Abanotubani.

Pro-EU members of the two communities were also against the marches, especially two increasingly visible activists – ethnic Armenian Giorgi Tumasyan and Samira Bayramova, an ethnic Azerbaijani. In response to the controversial joint march, they instead organised their own to be held a day beforehand. Theirs, a march of unity, would be for all ethnic groups and not just the two largest.

Anyone participating, however, was instructed not to bring flags other than those of Georgia or the EU. This was clearly a reference to the Armenian or Azerbaijani flags no matter how it was worded. Ironically, an hour before, a march of Georgian Alumni of British Universities was held with the Union Jack prominently displayed, a country that in 2016 voted to leave the EU.

Nonetheless, a few did flout the restrictions on national symbols. One held a tiny Azerbaijani flag while another held a placard with the Armenian and Georgian flags drawn together at the top above a reference to Sergei Parajanov, the notable ethnic Armenian filmmaker born in Tbilisi whose work heavily incorporated Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, and Ukrainian symbolism.

Tumasyan and Bayramova’s concerns were understandable. The use of the flags of neighbouring countries with sizeable ethnic populations in Georgia could be misconstrued as separatism, it was explained. Some ethnic Armenian participants also said most of their friends and relatives did not participate because they felt isolated and excluded from local politics. This is ironic given that one fringe ultra-nationalist party recently accused Armenians of being behind the protests.

To Tumasyan and Bayramova’s credit, they are at least attempting to better integrate minorities as citizens. There is certainly the need.

As for the more controversial joint march, it failed to materialise the next day despite eventually being included in the official list of marches planned as part of the protests. Even then it had also been announced that any Armenian and Azerbaijani national symbols were prohibited. Hours later, that instruction was changed to the flags of “foreign countries,” but the message was clear. This was further demonstrated just a few days later.

On 30 December, Georgian special forces were deployed to the ethnic Azerbaijani village of Nakhiduri after two local teens were killed by a drunk driver. When the ambulance arrived, medical personnel treated the ethnic Georgian driver before the two ethnic Azerbaijanis. Residents attacked the crew. Though one of the ethnic Azerbaijanis had died instantly, the other died later in hospital. Whatever the outcome of the current protests, that situation must change.

source: Onnik James Krikorian is a journalist, photojournalist, and consultant from the U.K. who has covered the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict since 1994.

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners.
Photo: A Georgian citizen of ethnic Armenian descent participates in last month's Unity March bringing together participants from minority communities as part of the current protests in Tbilisi © Onnik James Krikorian

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
King calls slave trade a 'shameful chapter' during Commonwealth address

King calls slave trade a 'shameful chapter' during Commonwealth address

King Charles has described the transatlantic slave trade as a "shameful chapter of history" that filled him with "profound sorrow" as he opened a summit of Commonwealth leaders in the Caribbean. He said the trade in enslaved persons "still casts a shadow" over the association of nations. There have been calls from some for the UK to make a formal apology for its historic role in the slave trade ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Chogm) in Antigua and Barbuda, but there was not one in the King's address. Prime Minister Andy Burnham, also at the summit, has said that he is open to Britain issuing a formal apology but has ruled out financial reparations. While there was no direct apology, the King did offer some contrition - and there was also an acknowledgement that he had personally learnt more about the legacy of the slave trade. He said: "The transatlantic trade in enslaved persons still casts a shadow over these islands and other members of our Commonwealth. "As I have said before, that shameful chapter of history is one that fills my heart with horror and my soul with the most profound personal sorrow." (click image to read more).

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)