An Abridged Version of this Article Appeared on EurasiaNet
Georgians come back from the extended honeymoon with Mikheil Saakashvili’s administration and start to ask some uncomfortable questions for the new government. It seems that the Georgian democracy, hushed after unprecedented mandate of confidence was handed to the new authorities, is making a comeback, albeit with a changed face. The brunt of the responsibility for challenging those in power is carried by the civil leaders, collective associations, and the parliament committees, rather than the media and opposition parties.
Georgian government came under the barrage of criticism last week, mostly from its most devout former allies in the days of November 2003 “Rose Revolution” that unseated President Eduard Shevardnadze. Fourteen civil leaders of Georgia from NGOs and expert community openly addressed Saakashvili on October 18 blowing the whistle against perceived limitation of the freedom of expression and political opposition.
They warned Saakashvili that his administration is failing to deliver on its key political promises. The authors spoke of the “intolerance” in President’s speeches and those of his political allies, slammed dismissive attitude towards the opposition who are often labeled as “traitors”.
Similar message was expressed a bit earlier by Tinatin Khidasheli, former leader of the influential Georgian Young Lawyers Association, now doing studies in the United States, in her interview to 24 Hours daily – “the main, and perhaps the only, expectation [from the new leadership] was [for it] to change the public perception of the state and its institutions. [To build] more trust and the willingness [of the people and the government] to cooperate in building the new Georgia.” Khidasheli says the government failed to generate such trust.
These criticisms draw on brewing frustration in Georgia’s new political middle-class – part the NGO community, part the white-collar workers and part new businessmen. Essentially, Saakashvili’s government stands accused of applying the law selectively, with an intention to punish and reap political benefits, rather then regulate and built public confidence in the institutions of state.
The rule of law related concerns were put openly, and participants say rather pointedly, to Mikheil Saakashvili during a closed-door meeting with human rights activists and civil leaders on November 16. Participants said the cases of prisoner abuse, such as beatings and torture, fabrication of evidence and use of false witnesses by the criminal police have increased after the new government came to power.
In response, at the joint press-conference on October 18 of the Minister of Interior and Prosecutor-General announced creation of the 47 independent teams under the Ombudsman’s Office, authorized to check all police detention premises and all times to record and prevent the cases of police brutality. The Prosecutor-General also announced that two high-ranking policemen were dismissed for malpractice and the criminal charges brought against them. These included the head of the Drug-Crime Department, and head of the district police chief who were accused of planting the evidence.
While the Human Rights groups seem to maintain the clout for addressing the top levels of authority and demanding policy adjustments, the economic policy of the government came under fire from a very different angle – the Parliamentary committees dominated by the ruling National Movement-Democrats.
While approving the progress visible in the draft Tax Code under parliamentary review, the influential committee chiefs, including the leading economic expert Roman Gotsiridze, head of the economic and budgetary committee, have criticized the draft for failing to promote even-handed approach to the taxpayers. The critics say the draft assumes all taxpayers are felons, and does not create cooperative relations between the tax authorities and the businessmen.
On yet another front, Mr. Gotsiridze, and Givi Targamadze, another influential head of the Defense Committee have slammed the budget draft for 2005. In these endeavors, the parliamentarians were seconded by the interest groups – such as the Association of Taxpayers, the Association of Fuel Importers and the Association of Car Importers who decided to bargain collectively and publicly for what they see as unfair treatment in the draft budget and the tax code.
Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania has accused the critics of politicking and empty intrigues, however the Finance Ministry officials are reportedly engaged in consultations to adjust and modify both the tax code and the budget draft. President Saakashvili demonstratively abstained for involvement, telling the journalists this was a “healthy process”, but adding that he would bet the parliament and the governments would come to a compromise.
All of these are welcome signs that the political pluralism is re-emerging. The partisan opposition in the country is extremely weak, frequently unable to deliver policy argumentation and concentrating on cheap tricks to capture public opinion. The private TV stations, the potent opposition voice in times of Shevardnadze also lost the sting. This was expressly manifested in a decision of the leading media tycoon, owner of Rustavi 2 TV to step down from company management and hand the reigns to the former colleague, Nika Tabatadze who was until recently serving as First Deputy Foreign Minister. Some observers say this indicates an attempt by the ruling party to capture the TV spectrum, much alike to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
However, Radio Liberty commentator Ia Antadze disagrees. She says Rustavi 2 made a risky bargain when it positioned itself as the opposition channel, rather than impartial commentator throughout its history. Most obviously, it openly sided with the opposition – now in government – during November 2003 events. Antadze says, the moment the opposition came to power Rustavi 2, lost public credibility and tough changes are necessary to revamp its image. Also, Mr. Kitsmarishvili seems to have tried to punch above his political weight confronting Prime Minister Zhvania in a bid to shape the economic policy.
Despite the encouraging signs, political landscape in Georgia is still in flux. The rage of the ruling politicians against specific criticisms has frequently been aggressive and dismissive. President Saakashvili himself several times referred to the critics as “squealing opposition.” Analyst Ghia Nodia, one of the signatories of the open letter, says one of the primary tasks of the new government is to “tame the revolutionary spirit” that tends to plant the flawed, self-righteous “good vs. evil” posturing in the ruling party. Nodia says the government has to shift to the “normal management mode” where the criticism is welcome and the political bargaining based on pluralism of opinions and interests widespread.
This shift would also mean change in public perception, as Georgians, as well as the media tend to portray each disagreement within the ruling party or the ruling politicians as a doomsday omen. True, such personal disagreements have plunged Georgia in a chaos of civil war in 1990s. Shevardnadze also proved unable to manage discord in a productive way, within the venue of public politics, which led to his impeachment. But the new government claims it learned from the past mistakes.
Partly, the progress would depend on Mr. Saakashvili’s ability to change his role. Up until now, he acted as a true revolutionary, a visionary and motivational leader, sometimes arbitrary in his actions. This served him well in achieving the Rose Revolution, in overthrowing Aslan Abashidze’s stifling rule in Adjara, in making tough decisions such as firing all of the traffic police to recruit completely rejuvenated Patrol Police from the scratch.
However, Saakashvili was unable to solve the crisis in South Ossetia in August 2003 by the revolutionary charge. This heralded the time for more weighted, long term approach. In foreign policy, and in dealing with its secessionist provinces, Saakashvili announced the “economy first” policy foreseeing gradual development of the Georgia proper as a basis for attracting the rebel leaderships of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
In internal policy, such change has yet to take place. Saakashvili’s visionary appeal and the ability to deliver an understandable punch line is essential in spearheading the painful economic reforms, and even more daunting changes in criminal police and courts.
For the democratic middle class the legitimacy of the government is based on trust. The trust, above all, in the rule of law, in the laws of the state being fair, based on consensus and, importantly, applied uniformly and fairly. Watchdogs say the prosecution became the club in the hands of the government, while the Judges are politically intimidated and Defense Lawyers ridiculed.
Corruption in Georgia is still endemic in a sense that it has been the dominant way of civil relations and especially the relations of the population with the state. People tend to think in a corrupt way and assume that there is corruption, even when there is none. So when the governorship appointments and dismissals are happening without an apparent logic or coherent explanation, when the Chief of General Staff is dismissed without the accusations made public, people tend to suspect foul play. And that is where the trust is lost.
Thus to uphold his and Georgia’s pro-democratic image Saakashvili is nudged to become more of a visionary consensus-builder, cajoling the parties of differing interests to oppose social and political malpractice, install confidence in the rule of law.
This would require adjustment. So far, the government, and especially Mr. Saakashvili himself were setting the media and public debate agenda personally, day after day. Since this November, other sectors of the Georgian society recovered the ability to do the same, and the administration would continue to face tough questions.
Mr. Saakashvili’s administration faces daunting problems, the lack of educated and professional cadre in all walks of governance perhaps being the worst. It has taken some drastic steps to shake up some of the most stagnant and corrupt institutions – such as the ministry of defense and the traffic police. It has made a breakthrough in rebuilding confidence towards Georgia in international organizations. All of these small victories can be dashed by a perceived backtracking on democratic freedoms and especially by losing trust of Georgia’s progressive, self-sufficient and open-minded elite which considered Saakashvili one of its own.
Hence, some previously neglected areas must gain priority. This includes smooth operation of the governments and president’s public relations and information services. President’s statements should be prepared, fact-based, rather than fully improvised as now. The media and ordinary Georgians start to notice inconsistencies and mistakes, and as the glow of universal popularity fades, these would rightfully be held against the politicians. The announced policies should also be better thought through, with interest-group support ensured before they are aired.
The area of free debate and partisan pluralism has been limited. Maybe, as Nodia argues, Georgia yet has yet to develop the number of the political and professional cadre to afford two strong parties in opposition with each other. Seeing the strength of the government, the many if not most of the media may would try to bandwagon by applying self-censorship, by singing praise to the leaders, by revenging zealously onto the opposition on behalf of those in charge. And this hits the political process hard, affecting the prospects for reforms that Mr. Saakashvili genuinely wants to implement.
The only conclusion society draws from the disregard to the courts, coupled with strongly-worded statements from the government is that the state is governed by law of the victor, not the rule of law. The lack of transparency may lead people to believe that instead of cleansing the residue of corruption, the government is re-distributing the loot. This would be a tragedy for the government that came with strong mandate to root out corruption and the best attainable cadre to achieve the aim.