|
GEORGIA ON THE EVE OF THE SOUTH OSSETIA WAR ANNIVERSARY
GIA ZHORZHOLIANI,
Professor of Tbilisi State University, director of the Center for Social Studies, Tbilisi
The government - opposition confrontation
The political actions, which started in Georgia on April 9, 2009 and lasted for about one hundred days, are often called by the Russian and Georgian mass media “the confrontation between the government and the opposition”. I believe that this is the public protest.
The situation, which emerged after the “five-day war”, stepped up the protest. The Georgian society had lived with the shock produced by that war. The Georgian authorities’ actions were regarded as illegitimate.
Firstly, the war with Russia was lost. Secondly, the situation in the conflict zones worsened dramatically. Thirdly, the external legitimacy of the Georgian government, which played a great role for establishing internal legitimacy, was strongly undermined.
The Georgian authorities deteriorated the relations with Russia and tried to strengthen their external legitimacy representing Georgia as a victim attacked by a big and strong neighbor. The Russian side, on the other hand, tried to convince the international community that the Georgian authorities had an aggressive intention towards South Ossetia.
The Georgian authorities failed to achieve their goals. More than that, the situation became still worse. Georgia damaged its image on the international stage, and the Georgian authorities could not be independent any more.
At first, the EU played a significant role (especially when France held the EU presidency) as a result of the actions by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, under whom the Geneva settlement process started and it is still taking place. Probably the process is the only mechanism that can influence the situation around the conflict areas and give political guarantees that the population will be out of danger.
The Georgian authorities’ legitimacy was undermined during the 2008 elections that were held before the August 2008 armed conflict. Many observers, for example, the “Freedom House” international organization have criticized the 2008 elections in Georgia. “Freedom House” does not consider Georgia to be an electoral democracy any longer.
This made the public protest more intense. In the spring 2009 the Georgian opposition tried to use the public protest.
However this time the authorities were more rational and reserved than they had been in November 2007. Contrary to expectations, the authorities did not act like in November 2007 when the peaceful march had been broken up and the TV channels had been closed down. There were excesses but they were not large-scale.
This year the first large-scale rally was held on April 9. But the society and the opposition came to realize that they had neither resources, nor prospects and nor wish to solve their problems by a revolutionary way. The opposition has a difficult time now. It will have to take a creative approach to the situation and seriously reconsider it. The past twenty years showed that the globalist neoliberal democratization trend was coming to an end and there was a need to seek new ways to follow the policy. This would require the transition to specific, socially important and understandable ideas.
The protest yielded no concrete results, but played its role. So, new mechanisms of interaction between the government and the opposition may be looked for. The authorities can continue to pursue a moderate course, although authoritarian methods may be used. But the current situation prevents the authorities from taking strict measures.
The authoritarian methods can be resorted to if Russia continues to support fringe political groups in Georgia. The Russian leaders’ words that it is necessary to replace the Georgian authorities strengthen Mikheil Saakashvili’s positions.
However I believe that drastic measures will not be taken. Both the authorities and the opposition are willing to act moderately.
The U.S. policy towards Georgia
The U.S. will pursue weighed policy towards Georgia. I think that the U.S. choice of “the Georgian democrats” as the democratization vanguard proved its inefficiency. The U.S. will lay stress on institutional changes rather than on personalities.
The society, not specially chosen people, should build the democracy. So the U.S. will continue to support Georgia, but the policy will be changed. The “reset” stated by the U.S. Administration concerns not only the relations with Russia but also the relations with other countries. The U.S. government has come to realize that Mikheil Saakashvili and his team are not “the only true democrats” in Georgia.
Russia’s policy
Now the Georgian society is calm about Russia. The Georgians believe that the 2008 armed conflict cannot take place again. They have a negative attitude towards Russia because of the 2008 conflict, not because a new conflict is possible.
After the meeting between Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev the Georgian authorities said that a new war would not break out. I think that the U.S. had given Georgia the guarantees on that issue much earlier. I consider that the election of Barack Obama as the U.S. President is the best guarantee. In my opinion, if Russia and Georgia had avoided the conflict and waited for the presidential election in the U.S., the war would not have burst out.
In the recent years Russia has used force towards some countries, including Georgia, which indicates that Moscow’s soft power opportunities are limited. The reason is that the Russian authorities are not accountable to the society. The foreign policy is also based on the authorities’ arbitrariness. That’s why Russia’s policy is built on propaganda and manipulations rather than on finding and implementation of real interests.
Russia’s decisions to use force do not allow the country to develop the regional leader’s potential and to influence the situation with mutual benefits, which, in the case of Georgia, led to the tragic events.
August 4, 2009
|
