#32 - JRL 2006-141 - JRL Home
From: Adam Wolf <adam.wolf44@hotmail.com>
Subject: Georgia at the Crossroads…Again.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006
[DJ: "Adam Wolf" is a pen name for a Westerner working in Georgia.]

Great Expectations

In November of 2004 Georgia experienced a major political upheaval, which witnessed the ousting of a tired, corrupt and discredited regime run by Edward Shevardnadze and the accession to power of a new team of young dynamic politicians and NGO activists who descended from the oppositional barricades into the State Chancery. At the time of this regime change the Georgians were so worn out by hardship, poverty and alienation that their hopes and expectations for change and improvement soared to unreasonable heights. The level of support enjoyed by Mikheil Saakashvili at his peak was unprecedented, by some accounts over 90%! The rerun of the presidential elections and the parliamentary elections, which followed soon thereafter, gave Saakashvili the kind of support, which makes for a one party state. The expectations of a tired population being what they were, the pressure on this young and inexperienced team to deliver on their populist promises was enormous. This new government had to tackle a wide range of problems simultaneously - and they had to demonstrate a fair measure of success quickly. The challenges, to name but a few included: the fight against corruption, which pervaded literally every level of society; kick starting an economy, which had been stagnant for years; strengthening of the rule of law and the building up of hitherto non-existent institutions; the rebuilding of a minimal social safety net; winning back the support of a disheartened international donor community; the provision of stable sources of energy to a tired and frozen population; the restoration of Georgia’s territorial integrity; the integration of Georgia’s national minorities and the improvement of the country’s relations with Russia.

Well, over two years have gone by since what is now more and more often referred to as the “so called” Rose Revolution. Once again, Georgia finds itself at the crossroads. The levels of discontent within society are reaching alarming proportions; poverty and inflation are on the rise; the precipice between civil society and the authorities is growing; the state of human rights is deteriorating and the international community, at least the member states of the European Union are beginning to realize and to admit that the overall picture is not as “Rosy” as all had hoped.

Erroneous Assumptions and Unfortunate Distortions

At the time of the Rose Revolution most observers made what seemed to be a logical assumption. A government rooted in civil society would inevitably try to put into practice the values and standards that NGO activists and human rights defenders typically fight for. These include: respect for human rights, inclusiveness, empowerment, democracy, rule of law... This was a logical assumption to make but one, which quickly proved to be erroneous. As early on as one month after the parliamentary elections, which gave President Saakashvili’s National Movement overwhelming control of the legislature the government devised and implemented a series of constitutional amendments, which dramatically curtailed the powers and prerogatives of Parliament for the benefit of the Presidency. To give one example: Parliament’s control over government expenditure has been reduced to a dangerous minimum. If the legislature consistently refuses to approve the government’s budget the president has the right to dissolve it.

This and other far-reaching amendments were introduced and approved by the legislature quickly and behind closed doors in February of 2004. There were no public consultations, no discussions, and no room for alternative thinking or dissent. This was the first signal that the process might not be going in the right direction. Civil society’s reaction was muted at the time, for there was a shared feeling that the new government had to be given a chance. These constitutional amendments were nevertheless the first palpable example of the new “revolutionary logic”, which was quickly setting in. Things had to move quickly, and in order to be able to act the government was willing to cut corners - and to sacrifice certain basic democratic principles one of them being holding public consultations on such fundamental issues as the amending of the country’s constitution. The authorities felt they did not need to consult civil society for they had nothing to learn from it. They were civil society only in power. Moreover so much needed to be done, time was of the essence and a strong hand was required.

It quickly became obvious that the new regime was in such a hurry to perform or rather to project the image of successful performance that it lost its way. In this current situation of growing tensions both inside Georgia and between Georgia and Russia such a lack of focused direction might have far reaching consequences.

From the very beginning the fight against corruption was seen by the government as central to its mandate. In an effort to round up crooked oligarchs and corrupt officials, the authorities quickly sacrificed some of the values that are central to democratic societies such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. After the “revolution” high profile suspects known to everyone and resented by large segments of Georgian society were rounded up in spectacular raids that were often televised. Typically the suspects were arrested and put into pre-trial detention. After having been beaten up and/or tortured they would be given the opportunity to bargain their way out of jail by “returning” to the State what they had acquired through illegal means.

It is a well known fact that the incidence of torture in Georgia has not decreased since the Rose Revolution. To the contrary, impunity among law enforcement officials is on the rise and numerous reports of international organisations and NGOs attest to this. This heavy handed approach was and continues to be popular with broad sections of the population. Life in Georgia is hard, and as a result there are many who are more than pleased to see the “bloodsuckers” get their just deserts. Such an approach of course does little to strengthen the rule of law in a country, which for over two hundred years has only known the dictatorship of tsar and proletariat.

The strengthening of the rule of law will only succeed if Georgian society makes a concerted effort to both depersonalize power and build effective state institutions. This is an enormous challenge for in Georgian tradition respect is owed not to institutions but to the strong leader who can put order into Georgia’s endemic chaos. This is a country where the memory of Stalin continues to be revered by many.

In Georgia there is much talk of democracy and institution building and the government is no doubt well intentioned. Nevertheless the fact remains that ministers, secretaries of state and senior officials are hired, fired or shuffled around at an alarming rate. All appointees are consistently under 35 years of age, and there seems to be a near conspiratorial effort to make sure that no one with any measure of institutional memory is kept in decision making positions. This ongoing revolutionary instability makes it impossible to coordinate the reform effort meaningfully or to give it a sense of shared direction. This also makes it hard for the international donor community to provide effective technical assistance to Georgia’s reform and institution building efforts. The apparent inability or unwillingness of the authorities to respect the separation of powers and competencies at all levels prevents this process of institution building from taking on any meaningful momentum.

Institutions Under Pressure

It is a well known fact that in Georgia today one of the central pillars of democracy i.e. the independent judiciary is being subjected to intolerable pressure by the authorities. So many judges have been done away with through threats and forced retirement that it is no longer realistic to speak of the citizen’s right to justice. The backlog of cases waiting to be heard is astronomical. All the indications are that the objective of this unfortunate process is to make way for young inexperienced and malleable judges who will be appointed to do the government’s bidding quickly.

The growing backlog of cases impacts directly on the nation’s penitentiaries, which are experiencing tremendous strain. As a rule all indicted persons are sent into pre-trial detention. This tendency prevalent throughout the CIS has recently been compounded by President Saakashvili’s latest declarations about there being zero tolerance for petty crime and his declared wish to see all criminals, irrespective of their crime, locked up in jail. Georgia’s penitentiary infrastructure is incapable of absorbing so many detainees. The result is that innumerable people who await their day in court are being held in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions of detention. These conditions coupled with the impunity of senior penitentiary officials are what lead to the prison revolts of March 27th which brought death and injury to so many. The unwillingness of the authorities to launch a public and independent enquiry into these events in spite of domestic and international pressure illustrates the limits of this government’s transparency and the fragility of its democratic credentials.

The government’s pressure on the judiciary will undoubtedly discourage any meaningful foreign and domestic investment, which Georgia so desperately needs to get the economy on its feet. The issue of secure title to property will continue to be problematic until the Georgian authorities demonstrate convincingly that they take the independence of the judiciary seriously. Very little wealth is being generated in Georgia at this time as the export of scrap metal continues, after so many years, to be one of Georgia’s primary sources of income. Without a vibrant economy there will be no decrease in unemployment and poverty will continue to grow breeding instability and human insecurity.

Georgia continues to be a place where both personality and the influence of individuals take precedence over rules, regulations and institutions. It is of course no simple matter to undo centuries of corrupt authoritarianism imbedded in Georgia’s national psyche. There is no doubt that the task of striking the right balance between all these competing pressures in a period of transition is enormous. This having been said it is up to the political elite in power to show leadership in this regard. If the government does not give the example how can Georgians expect anything to change?

Territorial Integrity: An Obstacle to Progress

All of Georgia’s current problems are compounded by the festering wound of separatism. It is understandable that any government in power would seek to reintegrate the two separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia into the Georgian State. No State willingly gives up territory. No State can accept that well over 200,000 of its citizens expelled from the conflict zones continue to live as internally displaced people in their own country.

While making allowance for what is a normal reflex i.e. the reclaiming of lost Georgian lands one can’t help but look on with astonishment at the amount of energy that is being channeled into destructive and acrimonious exchanges, posturing, threats and provocations in the relationship with the separatist regions. One would think that the building up of an attractive statehood with a thriving economy and effective democratic institutions would do much more to convince the breakaway regions of the value of reintegrating into Georgia. One would imagine that the restoration of Ajara’s autonomy after Abashidze’s flight to Russia rather than its emasculation could have been a convincing signal to the Abkhaz and South Ossetians that meaningful autonomy is possible in Georgia. One would assume that making a concerted and sustained effort to reach out to Georgia’s national minority regions of Samtskhe-Javakethi and Kvemo-Kartli would do more for Georgia’s long term unity and stability than stone walling, and saber rattling. But it seems that saber-rattling is the easier and more familiar approach. It also has the added attraction of periodically creating a context of crisis and insecurity which precludes any criticism of government policy because it is unpatriotic to criticize the government in a situation of crisis.

The Russia Factor

Georgia’s geo-political position is more than unenviable. The weakened, accommodating Russia of Boris Yeltsin is a thing of the distant past. Under the aegis of its KGB dominated government Russia is quickly reverting to its age old totalitarian and expansionist reflexes. It is also making a significant come back on the international scene armed with its powerful arsenal of natural resources. In a world running short on oil and gas Russia has what the industrialized economies want and need most: oil and gas. In such a position of strength Russia flexes its muscle as it seeks to reestablish its influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus two regions, which it never gave up willingly. Georgia with its overtly pro-western policies finds itself in a delicate position. While no one should have any illusions as to Russia’s imperial intentions the Georgian authorities should be fully conscious of the fact that America’s support and presence will only last while it is in its strategic interest to do so. A change of administration in Washington or a major realignment of alliances around natural resources could leave the Georgian authorities isolated and vulnerable to pressure from the north. This big northern neighbour is not going anywhere soon and in order to navigate these treacherous waters, Georgia needs statesmanship, discernment and finesse in its foreign policy. All three seem to be absent at this time. The Georgian government should at least be perceived as taking Russia’s interests into consideration. The current confrontational rhetoric emanating from the political leadership does not serve Georgia’s interests. Moreover Georgia’s foreign policy needs to factor in the reality that anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000 Georgians live and work in Russia. Their remittances are what keep large segments of the Georgian population fed and off the streets. The day when Russia retaliates by sending these guest workers back home will be a dark one. For now there is no indication that there will be any jobs and economic growth to come back to. The last thing Georgia needs in its precarious situation is large numbers of frustrated men coming back to unemployment and desperation with a deep resentment of the regime whose policy led to their expulsion.

The International Community: Why Do We Care?

Georgia’s successful transition to both democracy and a market economy is in the interest of the western democracies. Access to alternative sources of oil and gas is a real concern for the West particularly since the energy crisis provoked by Gazprom last winter. Europe and America would do well to ensure that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and South Caucasus pipelines remain beyond the control of any one single power. The best way of achieving this would be to ensure that Georgia become a stable democratic state. If Georgia succeeds in this process; if it reaches the point of no return in its democratic transformation only then will it become a beacon of democracy that will serve as an example to others in the region, not before. There is still a long road ahead and there is no guarantee of success. If Georgia fails in this process the consequences will be far reaching for both it and the region as a whole.

This having been said, of all the states in the Caucasus and Central Asia Georgia appears to be the only one, which holds out any hope for meaningful democratic evolution. In spite of all the numerous obstacles outlined above there is in Georgia one key element of potential success and that is a vibrant NGO sector. Civil society is rallying to protect the values of democracy, which it considers are currently at risk by actively monitoring the government’s policies and actions and by providing unequivocal criticism where criticism is due. The ability of the NGO leadership to create such a coalition and to take on this role without being jailed for it is what makes Georgia different from all the other states of the region. Hopefully this situation will last although there are growing signs that the authorities may be resorting to tactics of intimidation and threats vis-à-vis the most outspoken NGOs.

The coalition has appealed to the international community for support. It has made clear that in a bid to assist the Georgian government in its difficult task ahead embassies and international organizations should speak out publicly when the Georgian authorities fail to meet their UN/OSCE/Council of Europe commitments. Such public criticism would prevent the government from legitimizing its actions by stating publicly that it enjoys the unequivocal support of the international community.

At the time of the bloody prison riots of March 27th 2006 the OSCE called upon the Georgian authorities to launch a public and independent enquiry into the causes of these disturbances. Although the government chose to ignore this call, the OSCE’s statement had enormous impact on the domestic scene. The OSCE’s call for an investigation legitimized the NGO community’s demands that the apparent abuse of force be investigated and that the guilty be charged and brought to justice.

The process of Georgia’s accession to “Euro-Atlantic” institutions should not be overly facilitated by the international community. Democratic States which are already involved in Georgia through the provision of political support or technical assistance should not hesitate to speak out critically when necessary. The donor community should also acquire a measure of distance from State institutions by paying greater attention to civil society and strengthening its capacity to act as monitor and watch-dog.

It is in the interests of all member States of the G-8 that Georgia’s transition to democracy be successful. It is in no one’s interest to see Georgia degenerate into a failed State or become a totalitarian post-Soviet banana republic. Such a turn of events would not only threaten the West’s access to alternative sources of oil and gas flowing out of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea but would also confirm that democracy has no future in the CIS. Georgia’s failure would illustrate that the Caucasus is incapable of breaking out of the vicious circle of authoritarianism, corruption, poverty, conflict and militarism. This failure would serve to encourage the Islamic fundamentalists of the Northern Caucasus in their expansionist agenda and would contribute to a serious destabilization of Russia’s southern regions. It could also contribute to the process of Azerbaijan’s islamisation a scenario everyone would no doubt want to avoid.

A stable, democratic, successful and prosperous Georgia is in everyone’s interest but Georgia finds itself at the crossroads again. Hopefully it will make the right choices.