The effort of the international community and the local civil society in Georgia has been aimed at the creation of the “islands of democracy.” November 2 elections showed that the islands remain isolated and their inhabitants at risk. The chances are that either the islanders will grow depressive under isolation and commit suicide or the deep waters of economic and social dismay will devour them.
Democracy is Uneven Geographically
It has been silently accepted that Georgian citizens’ ability to participate in democratic governance and his or her ability to exercise the rights, say, to freedom of expression and assembly, are somehow dependent on the place of residence.
The state fails to apply the most basic rules of the game uniformly across the country, not because of the lack of administrative capacity, but out of political expediency and/or out of lack of confidence in its own authority.
As a result, today, the pending election results from Adjara and Kvemo Kartli hold Georgia’s election process and country’s future hostage.
It was almost for certain from the very beginning these results will be fraudulent and that the residents of these provinces are practically disenfranchised. No politician expected though that each vote would count. But it has come to that.
The international observation mission’s preliminary findings report says: “serious violations took place mostly in Kvemo Kartli and Adjara, where ballot stuffing marred the process, and implausible turnout data raises concerns about respect for voters’ and candidates’ rights.”
And while the call for canceling the votes from these provinces due to irregularities seems sensible, it carries enormous political risk. Aslan Abashidze has long ruled Adjara as his personal fief and the political preferences of his lieges were only his to determine – and such was the political arrangement. Surely, Mr. Abashidze will be reluctant to concede his dominion. Both the local and the central leadership have carefully avoided the discussion on the clear delimitation of the rights of the Autonomy, preferring to govern by ad hoc agreements, to own political benefit. This appeasement puts the Georgian State in a tight corner now, and whoever wins the elections will have to deal with the issue head-on.
Kvemo Kartli, governed by Shevardnadze’s loyal lieutenant and one of his party bosses, Levan Mamaladze was no less notorious for bringing the harvest of guaranteed votes from Azeri minority. The forceful tactics of the government impeded fair campaigning by the opposition in the region. But the interest on part of the Georgian state to enhance minority participation through providing the information in locally understandable language, through allowing free media, and through increasing the education levels have also been clearly lacking.
Thus comes the lesson of these elections: the standards of transparency and political fair play should be applied equally across the country. The absence of this condition creates not only a developmental but also a security threat by expanding the gap between the capital and the regions.
Institutional Islands of Pluralism
The elections were unprecedented in civil activism. People went to vote. Watchdogs have monitored the elections. The media solicited exit polls and did round-the-clock reporting. Yet, transparency failed to generate public confidence and pluralism did not translate into a democratic outcome.
The islands have failed to create a common information space. While the professionalism of the private companies may have faltered at times, two state channels – 1st Channel of the National Television and Adjara TV provided consistently biased picture before, during, and after the elections.
The most recent appalling example of the 1st Channel news broadcast included stories of the young people who have died in 1990s civil unrest pitching an apparent scare of the opposition protests after the November 2 elections.
The media has also failed to provide balanced and accurate reporting of the parallel vote tabulation by the watchdog NGO as well as the exit polls by the private polling agencies. Most of these efforts were portrayed as politically motivated and biased. Hence, sociological and research tools created to provide information are used as tools of the political battle. Pro-status quo commentaries promoted nihilism and mistrust into all institutions: both official and independent.
Gaping shortfalls in election administration and use of the executive powers to advance pro-governmental party interests has directed the wraith of the opposition, and their supporters, at the institutions of state which may carry potentially dangerous results for the weak Georgian state.
November 2 elections have added to the frustration on part of active citizenry, who are the crucial assets for forging democracy. Many of them were turned away from the polling stations failing to find themselves on the voting lists. NGO activists, both national and international, have felt that their work to improve election administration has gone to vain.
A crisis of confidence in the institutions of the state will be hard to mend. And the “islanders’” frustration may reduce their activism, push them abroad or foster cynicism.
A Sea of Dismay
In a warning signal to both the political elite and civil society, the elections showed once again the growing power of the protest vote. People have voted for populist slogans and this base of support is growing. Economic troubles, lack of social protection, and weakness of state institutions push Georgian citizens into despair. Last year’s census results have vividly demonstrated the extent of frustration through falling birth rates and increased emigration.
Growing frustration with the status quo may bear positive fruits and encourage sweeping reforms. But along with growing cynicism and the lack of confidence, it may also disrupt democratization and breed intolerance.
The centrist parties, which drew their base of support from the emerging middle class, have faltered during these elections. The social texture of the country is changing, and relatively well-off citizens seem to have generated more hatred than respect, while intelligentsia has squandered public confidence in the political battles.
As it is customary in Georgia’s post-independence elections the economic considerations did not play a significant role in the political campaign. The New Rights, who built their campaign around an ambitious economic reform project, are at risk of not clearing the 7% threshold. The economic development components of the campaigning were overshadowed by the promises of social welfare that are likely to evaporate once the parliament convenes.
A Glint of Hope
A cynic’s view perhaps, but the elections showed that some things in this country do work. People are willing to vote en-masse. The media functions and under pluralistic conditions one may attempt to re-create an accurate picture of events. NGOs are able of performing increasingly complex tasks and – importantly – do it nationwide. If given sufficient time and without the political pressure professionals are capable of creating the voter registry and improving the voting procedures.
But the time is short.