An influential parliamentarian from the ruling National Movement party Giga Bokeria spoke in an interview with Civil Georgia about the authorities’ short-term plans and initiatives, which are scheduled to be considered by the Parliament in the near future. He said despite breakthroughs in number of problematic issues, two years after the Rose Revolution the country is in urgent need to reform judiciary system and creation of a flexible bureaucracy.
MP Bokeria also spoke about the conflict resolution strategy and said that the authorities are “deliberately” adhering to the policy of military rhetoric mixed with peaceful initiatives. “Our supreme goal is to use all the possible political instruments to solve [Abkhaz and South Ossetian conflicts], if there is any such opportunity left. But, unfortunately, we have no serious ground for optimism,” MP Bokeria said.
Q.: Officials speak much about achievements made after the Rose Revolution. Can you outline what are major failures of the authorities and challenges ahead?
A.: Shortly speaking about achievements, I want to stress that Georgia has been established as a State. This is already our key achievement. Today, the entire country is on the path of democracy and strengthening. I can also list other facts, but there are some most important achievements, like implementation of two major reforms: the law enforcement agencies and education system reform, which is still underway.
The judiciary is one of the most problematic sectors, which has become our priority for past six months. However, obviously it is impossible to achieve immediate positive results in the sphere. We should gather momentum, which has been lost within a year after the Rose Revolution in respect of judiciary reform.
Against the background of corruption being an established rule of game and then [after the revolution] being replaced by aggressive fight against corruption, a serious part of bureaucracy has got frightened, that is quite natural. However, this triggered some side-effects: bureaucracy, which certainly lacks qualified human resources, finds difficult to make decisions that definitely complicates the implementation of key functions of bureaucracy – to serve a citizen. However, there are several fields, where an important breakthrough has been observed. For example, within past year more identification cards and passports were issued than within past 7-8 years.
Another problem is accessibility of bureaucracy. Just this issue was discussed by the President during the recent meeting with the government members [when Saakashvili slammed them for lack of having direct contact with the people].
Q.: What are those new initiatives the authorities plan to propose in the near future?
A.: Our short-term plans are to adopt a package of bills, which was pushed by the President during the meeting with Georgian businessmen [on November 14]. Within the next month the Parliament will work over further simplification of bureaucratic barriers, such as export-import rules, customs procedures, banking system, judiciary, tax code and other related regulations.
Another package of laws, that is very important for me and for the Parliament, is a new criminal procedural code, which will be submitted to the Parliament by the end of 2005. The new criminal procedural code includes one important novelty – the jury institute that will not bring an immediate effect, but is a very important issue in respect of a long term perspective.
Furthermore, the Parliament will consider a package of bills on self-governance, which means that by the 2006 local elections we will already have real self-governance. [the draft law is harshly criticized by the opponents].
However, generally speaking, the country’s primary task, certainly, is to reintegrate the country and restore effective governance on the entire territory of the country. Just these issues are the basis for settlement of other problems, including final formation of the state and successful implementation of those reforms, which will finally result in establishment of liberal democracy in the country.
Q.: Education reform was one that has faced major obstacles and opposition. Are there any ‘painful’ reforms on the agenda?
A.: I find it difficult to predict exactly which reform would be so painful and which one would be opposed by our political opponents or retrograde groups of the society, as it happened in case of the educational reform.
But, I think, the reform of health care, social insurance and pension spheres will be of vital importance. It should be clear for everyone that radical changes are needed to carry out in this sector. I suppose, that implementation of social reforms will also trigger serious conflict of opinions.
Q.: Last year, when a new government was formed under the leadership of late PM Zurab Zhvania, authorities pledged to pass law on lustration. Is it still on the agenda?
A.: The adoption of this law is not on the today’s agenda. However, I always supported the adoption of the law on lustration. Very often people think that the law on lustration envisages publication of a list of [KGB] agents, but this is not correct. The key aspect of the law on lustration should prevent the Soviet nomenclature from obtaining political and high bureaucratic positions.
This is a difficult political issue, but I hope that this topic will soon become a subject of political discussion in this Parliament. I support adoption of a legal document that will assess the Soviet past and set certain restrictions or procedures of repentance for those officials, who created the repressive machinery.
Q.: Restoration of the country’s territorial integrity has always been in a top of political agenda, especially after the Rose Revolution. Authorities on the one hand propose number of peace initiatives to solve the conflicts and on the other hand step up military rhetoric. How consistent the government is in this respect?
A.: This is being done deliberately. We should transform the country, which was absolutely incapable to defend its territory, interests and citizens, into the country, which can defend its interests, including through force. This does not mean that we aim at using force to settle the existing problems. But we have the right to use force, this is our territory.
Our supreme goal is to use all the possible political instruments to solve [Abkhaz and South Ossetian conflicts], if there is any such opportunity left. But, unfortunately, we have no serious ground for optimism.
However, we will do our utmost to use all the possibilities for political settlement and we have numerous such examples. Along with the peace plan [on settlement of conflict], there is the so-called Road Map [plan of action to solve South Ossetian conflict]. We do not expect the de facto authorities [of Abkhazia and South Ossetia] or their real patrons in Moscow that an immediate agreement will be reached over reintegration of these regions into Georgia. We want to gradually move towards settlement and to see that there is a chance and political will for it. I do not think that the conflict resolution will take many years.
We want everybody to understand that all persons regardless their ethnicity are equal and the future of these compatriots will be protected and guaranteed within the limits of the united state.
But if all these yield no results, we will not tolerate such situation any more. Of course, we should have a possibility to defend our legitimate interests by all means. So, the two facts that we build a strong army and simultaneously want to settle the conflicts peacefully do not come into collision.
Q.: However, Tbilisi’s military rhetoric is perceived both in Sokhumi and Tskhinvali as a threat, which often fuels tensions?
A.: Everybody knows that Georgia is ready to settle conflicts through political means, as well as to grant wider autonomy to the breakaway regions. But we have no chance to deliver this message and to explain to our [Abkhaz and South Ossetian] compatriots that building of our army is not aimed against them.
Q.: There is an increasing criticism voiced by the opponents about the authorities’ attempts to control media sources, especially televisions’ editorial policy. According to annual report issued by the Paris-based watchdog group Reporters Without Borders, Georgia’s ranking fell in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index, to 99th place from 94th last year. How can you explain it?
A.: I am not familiar with the results of their research, as well as with the criteria used by them. Hence, I find it difficult to speak about the reasons of this change.
But I had a chance to get acquainted with the results of the research carried out by more respected and influential organization Freedom House, which marks serious progress in terms of Georgia’s civil freedoms, although we are not anyway satisfied with the existing situation in this field.
As for freedom of speech, the authorities have implemented all necessary measures, which aimed at self-restriction of the authorities from both legislative and practical points of view. But, this does not mean that the problems in the field can be considered settled, especially in regions.
The campaign carried out by our political opponents is largely groundless and based on false facts. I want to stress that Georgia adopted most liberal media legislation following the revolution. Today our journalists and speakers are defended as much as possible, since the current legislation recognizes freedom of speech as the superior value over other values.
If we turn on our TV sets, we will see the acuteness of political debates in Georgia. Despite opponents’ accusations, it is obvious that a great part of electronic media, to say nothing about print media, is unbalanced and aggressive towards the authorities. Our political opponents have a greater [media] rostrum, than the representatives of the authorities.
The trump card of the post-revolutionary period was reduction of political debates in Georgia. Such intensiveness of political debates, as we have today, does not cause any public interest in other countries. Following the revolution, our TV companies decided either to change the format and intensiveness of political programs, or close them at all. This was their right and the state did not interfere in it.
However, the political debates were restored and today we witness a tendency of their growth. The fact is that political pluralism is quite obvious in media today. I cannot understand where you see any pressure on political opponents by the authorities. Have you ever learnt that the President’s Administration or the parliamentary majority interferes in the management of any television?
We have nothing against to have critics, but when a journalist goes beyond the limits through having an ambition of a political opponent, naturally we will enjoy our right to answer. A part of Georgian journalists suppose that they are untouchable and nobody will ever challenge them.