|
GEORGIA: GOVERNMENT, OPPOSITION AND EXTERNAL PLAYERS
ZAAL ANJAPARIDZE,
Political analyst, Tbilisi
The internal political tension in Georgia is rapidly growing and the political crisis becomes deeper. The tough stance of the authorities, who have laid down clear conditions on which they agree to carry on a dialogue with the extra-parliamentary opposition (negotiating only socioeconomic issues and the electoral code), naturally predetermined a tough agenda of the opposition’s actions. The opposition demands that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili resign immediately.
It seems that neither the authorities nor the extra-parliamentary opposition want to carry on the dialogue hoping that they will be winners in the political battle.
Probably, the government believes that the administrative resource, well-organized military, security and law enforcement agencies, the government-controlled mass media and experienced political spin-doctors will allow it to remain in power, given that the opposition is deprived of these tools.
The opposition, while preparing for mass protest marches on 9 April, hopes for the society's protest attitude and devotion to the opposition’s ideas, Mikheil Saakashvili’s fading support in the West and potential row within the government. However, the public opinion polls show very interesting dynamic development of the Georgian public attitudes. The anger and protest caused by Russia-Georgia war in August 2008 are combined with heavy disappointment and apathy provoked by the coming financial and economic crisis, of which the authorities take advantage trying to calm down the protest. With such correlation of forces and society’s attitudes it’s difficult to predict what attitudes will prevail on 9 April and what might happen later.
The external players, which have their own plans and interests in Georgia and the Caucasus, have become increasingly involved in monitoring of the internal developments in the country along with raising Georgia’s political temperature. Most probably excessive radicalization of Georgia’s situation was one of the reasons behind the prompt visit to Georgia of Matthew Bryza, Assistant to U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, known by his close relations with the current Georgian authorities and who was “in charge of” Georgia in the former U.S. Administration.
Mr Bryza’s visit, against a background of the political tension, reminded many analysts the visit of James Baker, former U.S. Secretary of State, to Georgia in July 2003, when he brought a plan of overcoming the political crisis for his friend, former Georgian President, Eduard Shevardnadze. However the crisis was overcome only through the “Rose Revolution”.
Although the official purpose of Bryza’s visit was to discuss implementation of the Charter on Strategic Cooperation between the U.S. and Georgia, the greater part of Mr Bryza’s visit covered his meetings with different Georgian politicians. Matthew Bryza left Tbilisi making the Georgian establishment be lost in guesses about the U.S. Administration’s attitude. In his first statement Bryza made it clear that though the U.S. welcomes “energetic talks” among political players, nevertheless it would like the next presidential election to be held at the time fixed by the Constitution (the year 2013). The statement displeased the opposition that believed that it was supportive of Saakashvili’s rule. In his other statement, however, Mr Bryza “corrected himself” by saying that the Georgian people rather than the U.S. government should fix the date of the next election. Mr Bryza’s last phrase “I hope that the protest will end in a dialogue between the authorities and the opposition” more or less clarified the U.S. position.
Against the backdrop of the existing problems the U.S. Administration most likely wants to avoid one more trouble – destabilization in Georgia that is highly conducive to unpredictable consequences or even will infringe upon the U.S. interests in the region. The U.S. is likely to hesitate about Mikheil Saakashvili’s possible alternative and want to give such pro-western opposition leaders as Irakli Alasania and Nino Burjanadze a chance to prove that they enjoy the wide popular support and initiate changes.
Bryza said that the U.S. would back the idea of creating a peace zone in the South Caucasus. The idea was aired by Georgia’s chief priest Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia II during his meeting with Bryza. The idea implies cooperation among the U.S., Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia in the region. If the idea is translated into reality, Georgia will have to stop acting as a “country-irritator”, which it has been doing in the former Soviet Union over the past four years when it was a “leader” in terms of organizing and exporting “color revolutions.”
Many opposition parties believe that Georgia should not assume such a function which, incidentally, was one of the main reasons for the worsening of Russia-Georgia relations and generally brought the country more problems than benefits.
March 23, 2009
|
