Opinion: Five takes from Georgia’s presidential election

After a divisive and bruising presidential election campaign Georgians now need to assess where that leaves their democracy and their country's political fabric, argues Dennis Sammut in this op-ed for commonspace.eu

Georgia has a new president. Salome Zurabishvili is the first women to be elected to the post by popular vote. And the last. From now on the person holding the largely ceremonial post will be chosen by parliament. The office of head od state in parliamentary republics, as Georgia is, often plays a unifying role for the nation and society. This is what will be expected from Zurabishvili. This will not be easy, for the election campaign has been bruising and divisive - a good reason perhaps why having an indirectly elected head of state is often justified.

Reflecting back on these elections one can draw some conclusions on the current state of Georgian politics.

(1)   Not for the first time the Georgian electorate has emerged as more politically mature than the political elite that represents it. In essence, by not electing Zurabishvili in the first round,  the Georgian electorate sent a clear message to the government and the ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party that it was not satisfied with its performance. The electorate was not however ready to send a signal to the opposition led by the United National Movement (UNM) that it was now their turn. Given a clear choice between a GD and a UNM candidate, many who had stayed away in the first round came out to vote in the second round, giving Zurabishvili a convincing win. Georgian voters have been largely unimpressed by the vitriolic language used in the campaign that has just ended

(2)   This election, may have started as an exercise to elect a largely ceremonial head of state. But for those casting their vote in the second round, on 28 November, it was more than anything else a vote of confidence in Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder and leader of the Georgian Dream party. An enigmatic figure who in 2012 emerged to front line politics to help push Mikheil Saakashvili and his increasingly authoritarian government out of power, Ivanishvili in 2013 tried to return back to the shadow, handing power to an inexperienced team, and trying to maintain influence from behind the scenes. Such subtleties do not work very well in Georgia's larger than life politics. Ivanishvili in May was forced back to front line politics in an effort to save the party that he founded from itself. In the last month he campaigned as if his name was on the ballot paper, not least because the opposition also wanted to turn the election into a vote of confidence in him. Wednesday's victory was therefore a victory for Bidzina Ivanishvili as much as it was for Salome Zurabishvili, if not more. Ivanishvili made some serious promises to the Georgian people in the last few weeks. The people trusted him again, as they did in 2012. He now cannot return back to the shadows, but needs to lead from the front to deliver. It seems that this is what he intends to do.

(3)   For the opposition this election has been a defining moment. The United National Movement - the hybrid party constituted shortly after the changes in 2003 that saw Mikheil Saakashvili replace Eduard Shevardnadze as president could easily have disappeared after it lost power in 2012. In and out of government, the party often appeared to outsiders more as a sect rather than a modern political movement. In 2016 it split with the more moderate wing re-inventing itself as "European Georgia". But the party's grass root support, especially outside Tbilisi has endured. The second round of the presidential election saw the two factions coming back together in a "United Opposition", a platform joined by some other smaller groups. This election has confirmed that the UNM is back in the game. It is the alternative government in waiting that is necessary in any democracy. But for the UNM the journey back to power remains a long one. It still has credibility problems; the baggage of the past still looms large over its present, and its tactics still raise questions. The Georgian electorate has given a clear message to the UNM - it is ready to give them a chance, but not quite yet. Patience and perseverance are virtues the UNM needs to learn to embrace. Difficult for as long as the party is under the shadow of its former leader Mikheil Saakashvili, who yesterday within minutes of the election result being announced called for the opposition to move to the streets. Saakashvili has as yet to understand that if he wants to see a change of government in Georgia he needs to let go of the UNM and let a new team develop new tactics. What worked in 2003 is not going to work in 2018, and will certainly not work in 2020.

(4)   Perhaps the most important take from this election is that the Georgian state institutions are now robust enough to survive political turmoil. This has been a bruising and unpleasant election campaign, full of personal attacks, mutual recriminations, fake news and other unpleasantness. Yet the Georgian election administration, and the thousands that participate in delivering a smooth and well organised election, acted largely with dignity and professionalism throughout. Yes there were weaknesses here and there, and the odd incident. But the big picture was overall positive, and that is good news for Georgia.

(5)   Election watchdogs, such as ISFED and GYLA helped this process. The role of these and other NGOs is changing. They, and the rest of society must recognise that too. When they were set up in the 1990s the problem with Georgian elections were crude: ballot stuffing, carousel voting and other similar shenanigans. The challenges are now different and they need to rise to them. In doing so they are likely to open themselves to more criticism than they have been used to before and they need to get used to that too. But Georgian politicians should never underestimate the great contribution that civil society makes to the political fabric of a democratic country. Government and civil society in Georgia need now to turn the page and embark on a new dialogue.

Georgia's journey to democratic statehood has been long and often arduous. The 2018 presidential election has been a good opportunity to understand where the country is with that process and the state of health of the country's political fabric. Lessons need to be learned. But overall there should also be a measure of satisfaction that all the sacrifices of the past have not been in vain.

source: Dennis Sammut is Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research) and is based in Oxford. He has been an observer of the Georgian political scene since 1992 (dennis@links-dar.org)

photo: Georgian voters have been largely unimpressed by the vitriolic language used in the campaign

 

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
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

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)