Understanding Georgia’s protests


Pro-European demonstrators have once again taken to the streets to protest against the Georgian Dream regime after Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced on 28th November that his government would suspend EU accession talks until at least the end of its current term in 2028. Tens of thousands of people have been demonstrating since Kobakhidze’s announcement in the capital, Tbilisi, as well as other towns across the country, as the opposition calls for negotiations with Brussels to continue and new elections. The demonstrations have given rise to clashes with the police, who have arrested several dozen people during occasionally violent confrontations.

Is this “another Maidan”? 

People do not want a Maidan. They want the authorities to respect the constitution and their rights. The crisis will end when the Georgian Dream moves back to operate within a constitutional framework. It is not a legitimate political strategy to threaten one’s people with annihilation if they do not submit. 

Is Georgia “polarised”?

Polarisation is a term that the Georgian Dream likes to use in its justification. Though taken up by some diplomats and commentators, it is a misleading term, since it implies a kind of horizontal clash, like a brawl. Rather, it is a top-down assault on the constitutional order. In substance, Georgia does not have the kind of deep cleavage that one has in some Western countries on core-contentious issues such as abortion, immigration or gun control. 

Receive the best of European journalism straight to your inbox every Thursday

What are the views in the Georgian Dream?

While one often refers to the Georgian Dream as a political entity, in reality, it is the political vehicle created and owned by a single man. This is not a political party as it is classically understood, with a process of articulating views and positions. Unlike in the communist party, there is no politburo or secretariat. Also, the security forces are de facto subordinated directly to Bidzina Ivanishvili and do not answer to the Prime Minister. They are run by people that used to be part of his protection detail. 

Is there real support of the Georgian Dream?

There is real support for the Georgian Dream party in Georgia. Outside Tbilisi, the core supporters are typically networks of people (and often families) who hold state positions or work in companies benefiting from municipal funding. The main offer of the Georgian Dream in recent years has been stability. Right now, however, the party engages in a radical departure from Georgia’s established trajectory, contributing greatly to demoralisation across its ranks. 

Are there other ways in which the Georgian Dream has taken over the country?

The Georgian Dream fully controls the civil service, monitors the Facebook activity of public sector employees, and systematically subdues any dissent. It has assigned SUSI (State Security) officers to most public institutions, including universities. It freely accesses state resources, including government databases, to monitor citizens. Moreover, it first widened the social support net, and now uses it to cajole citizens into submission. 

What about the opposition?

There is not a single opposition. “The opposition” is a term that has often contributed to making sweeping statements and hampered nuanced analysis. One should sensibly talk about “opposition parties”, representing a range of views. These parties have tried to coordinate some of their positions. The coordination, in turn, has taken its time, especially in adapting to radically changed circumstances. 

Might Russia intervene militarily to support the Georgian Dream?

As the Kremlin openly supports the Georgian Dream course, some wonder whether the Russian military might directly support the Georgian Dream government. Many experienced analysts do not consider this a plausible scenario at this point. Russia had to recruit North Korean soldiers to try to respond to Ukraine’s limited Kursk incursion. While significant parts in the repressive apparatus such as Zviad Kharazishvili (Khareba) appear to be pro-Russian, a direct intervention in Georgia would lead to mass defections across security forces and likely a country-wide insurrection. Such an intervention would threaten a strategic resupply route that Russia relies on. The Kremlin would greatly weaken its strategic position by opening a second front in mountainous terrain. 

Interesting article?

It was made possible by Voxeurop’s community. High-quality reporting and translation comes at a cost. To continue producing independent journalism, we need your support.

Subscribe or Donate

The scenario of a Russian intervention typically results from a reductive Russia versus the West prism. The regional situation is geopolitically more advantageous for Georgia: the country is a strategic transit corridor for Turkey, Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries. These countries have a strong interest in maintaining a Georgia that is not totally subservient to the Kremlin’s demands. None of this should be taken to suggest that Georgia’s geopolitics is simple, or that the Kremlin does not have leverage. However, the suggestion that there is no sensible option but surrender is the Kremlin’s framing, not a realistic assessment. 

Do Georgians not know that the West and the EU have many shortcomings?

Most Georgians understand perfectly well that the EU has many limitations – and have experienced them in the often-feeble handling of developments in the region by Brussels. At the same time, Georgians have a better understanding than many of the EU’s own citizens of what is currently at stake, and that freedom cannot be taken for granted. (An essay by Nino Haratischwili, so far only in German, summarizes this view, here.) The dislocations of authoritarian rule are engraved in most families’ experience. For many, the EU flag for them is a symbol of reclaiming their own future. 

What may be Bidzina Ivanishvili’s motivation for this high-risk course?

Currently, there are two plausible explanations in circulation. In one, Bidzina Ivanishvili is implementing the theft to fulfill a list of Kremlin demands that have been accompanied by threats against him and his family. These demands include a more formal recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as entities and the removal of Article 78 (obligation to promote integration in Euro-Atlantic structures) from Georgia’s constitution, and may also cover more points. To create the political space for these demands, he is working to remove all potential sources of opposition. The Kremlin may seek to hasten Georgia’s effective subjugation in the run-up to any potential settlement in Ukraine, putting the full Caucasus under its own Yalta-style sphere of influence. 

In an alternative explanation, also widely discussed, Bidzina Ivanishvili (“the loneliest man of the Caucasus”) may be subject to escalating paranoia, with few interlocutors that can dissuade him from extreme points of view. In this context, internal and external forces assist in stealing from the country as they profit financially and politically. These explanations are not mutually exclusive. 

Is the taking of the future not more plausibly characterised as a robbery? 

Given that the assault on the Georgian people is now driven forward with vicious use of force, robbery might be the more apt characterisation. In other parts, such as the capture of institutions, much of it initially happened gradually and with stealth and was not widely noticed. 

Are there plausible proposals for a solution?

One of the most comprehensive plans has been put forward by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. This statement, supported by the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group (SOC), the European People’s Party (EPP/CD), and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), says that 

„[i]n order to now be able to follow a path of a free and democratic Georgia and not one of violence and repression, clear framework conditions are needed in the country and by the international community. This includes:

  • new elections that will take place without pressure and under free and fair conditions,
  • an immediate end to violence and the indiscriminate detention of protesters.
  • the consistent introduction of sanctions by European states against representatives of the “Georgian Dream,” including entry bans and asset freezes
  • an immediate release of the detained demonstrators
  • respecting the mandate of the incumbent president until fair and free new elections have taken place.”
👉 Original article on Civil.ge

Leave a Reply