It has been two weeks since a part of the Georgian opposition has started hunger strike in front of the Georgian Parliament. The opposition has a long list of demands it wants to see satisfied — anything from repeat presidential elections to resignation of interior minister. The authorities on the other hand claim that they are ready for a dialogue, but not for ultimatums.
In fact, the opposition presented its list of demands at the end of January. Satisfaction of these demands was seen as a precondition to hold free and fair parliamentary elections in May.
Except for a few partial agreements, the authorities have largely snubbed this text, saying that it was a list of ultimatums. Instead, a response memorandum was issued by the authorities, which presented their side of the story and promised to compromise on some issues “in case the agreement was reached with the opposition”.
One such proposal was the election code: initially, the authorities included in their response memorandum willingness to adopt a regional proportional election system backed by the opposition. Later constitutional amendments were adopted by ruling party, which not only breached the earlier proposal, but even further diminished the oppositions’ chances to enter the parliament with a significant proportion. For background on elections code changes read here.
Since there was no agreement, the authorities reserved the right to withdraw their own proposals. After this, the opposition went on hunger strike.
On the 12th day of the hunger strike, the Georgian Patriarch intervened to mediate the conflict. He called on the opposition to end the hunger strike and urged the authorities to take steps towards defusing the crisis. The opposition suspended all demands except for one: the rule of electing 75 majoritarian MPs would of multi-mandate constituencies, instead of single-mandate consistencies.
The oppositions’ compromise was rejected as yet another ultimatum. Moreover, the opposition was accused of putting ultimatums to the patriarch himself.
One way or another, the hunger strike continues with several people already in critical condition. Many have been hospitalized. In the meantime the authorities point to their readiness to continue talks, even on the background of unilateral steps taken to aggravate the situation.
Amidst the crisis, one interesting proposal emerged from radical Labor Party — to boycott the May elections as the authorities lack the will to hold elections in free and fair environment. This proposal might in fact gain popularity if the Georgian authorities continue to hold their principled position. And that would be a lose-lose situation for everyone.
Post presidential election protests in Armenia have resulted in 8 peoples’ death. This is a tragedy for Armenian people.
It’s amazing how closely the Armenian case resembles the crisis in Georgia just a few weeks ago. Elections contested, thousands in the streets, threats from all sides, fear in the air.
Luckily for Georgians these processes ended (or got postponed) peacefully. But things could easily turn out differently. It is sincerely hoped that similar developments are avoided in the future at all costs. Politicians should think very hard before taking risks of such magnitude.
That in Georgia similar developments did not take place, is a credit to both authorities and the opposition. One blink or a provocation, and chaos would be unavoidable. And Georgians have bitter memories of civil war just 15 years ago…
Two excellent articles by Lincoln Mitchell and Vladimir Papava in Harvard International Review ask fundamental questions about what has been happening in Georgia.
So, the Human Rights Watch gave a critical evaluation to the breakup of the Tbilisi demonstration on November 7. It was more than critical in fact — the report concludes that even if Saakashvili is reelected, his administration would have much more to prove to show that the country is “back on track”.
His allies were furious: for a month now they have been trying to play down the seriousness of November 7. “Such things happen in the West all the time” they said. And now the Human Rights Watch report claims that such things happen in less democratic states. Or even the authoritarian ones.
Saakashvili’s allies went on attack:
“The timing of this report only serves to damage the reputation of Human Rights Watch and I am sorry that it [HRW] took this step and did not think of its reputation.” said Eka Tkeshelashvili, the Minister of Justice.
“I am not analyzing Human Rights Watch’s international credibility,” she said. “Although, its treatment of the United States and in particular the Bush administration has been quite biased.” [Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 2007-12-21]
So, HRW would be considered unbiased if it released its report after the elections, and if it claimed that break up of demonstrations happen in the West all the time. Also, it’s disappointing to hear that Bush’s administration is considered an epitome of democracy within the Georgian administration.
Vladimir Socor, an analyst often writing on the Georgian affairs dedicated a piece to presidential hopeful Badri Patarkatsishvili (Badri Patarkatsishvili: From Russian businessman to Georgian presidential claimant.Eurasia Daily Monitor, December 21) Demonstrating a vast knowledge of Patarkatsishvili’s background, Socor says “The government’s anti-corruption policies and the new business environment in the country had severely curtailed Patarkatsishvili’s scope for doing business in his accustomed, post-Soviet 1990s-style ways.”
Therefore, Patarkatsishvili moved to clear way for his “murky” business deals by setting up an opposition party run by former allies of Aslan Abashidze. Moreover, “Patarkatsishvili has also called for dividing Georgia into ten “federal” units, which would practically dissolve the state.”
Socor moves to prove that although Patarkatsishvili is wanted in Russia, there is a reason to believe that he actually turned into Kremlin’s friend now.
It is interesting that amidst the pile of issues concerning the elections in Georgia, Socor chose to defame Patarkatsishvili. A year ago, he probably would have lauded Patarkatsishvili for his positive role in rebuilding Georgia’s robust and corruption free economy.
A few comments: first, if Patarkatsishvili wanted to make a few more billions, I am sure there are better places outside Georgia. Mostly the businesses he runs, don’t actually pump money out of Georgia, one the contrary. As for Aslan Abashidze’s former allies, the ruling party has a couple of those as well — not a successful benchmark if the point is to highlight the rogue group of people behind Patarkatsishvili.
Resistance Georgia blog says Levan Mikeladze, Georgia’s ambassador to Swiss Confederation and Head of the Mission of Georgia in the International Organizations in Geneva, resigned from his post.
He no longer sees his place among the Georgian authorities who used force against the population.
Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, says:
Even in a time of crisis, Georgians have a right to protest peacefully without being beaten by the police… Firing rubber bullets at peaceful demonstrators is a complete abuse of the use of force. The government does not have a carte blanche to restrict fundamental freedoms just because it is in crisis.
Beating journalists or shutting down television stations for reporting on the events can’t be justified by subsequently declaring a state of emergency.
Vladimir Socor, a well-known analyst for the Jamestown Foundation published an article on the ongoing political standoff in Georgia.
“GEORGIAN RADICAL OPPOSITION FANCYING REGIME CHANGE”
– reads the title. Notice a rather surprising label “radical” — you may come across a headline of this kind in some pro-Georgian government newspapers, but from an established publication — this is something new.
I have a few reservations:
The opposition consists of a dozen small and splinter parties, most of them not represented in the parliament. Most of these are grouped under a “United Opposition” umbrella, but their leaders hold divergent views and compete with each other for primacy.
Socor does not mention why these opposition parties came together under the umbrella of “United Opposition”. The scandal surrounding the former Defense Minister’s accusations against the government and his subsequent arrest prompted the opposition to unite — so that they could stand a chance of opposing the almighty authorities. This is what the opposition is for, and if it manages to bring out dozens of thousands of supporters into the street, then they must have a good reason and a good point too. Read the Economist’s evaluation of the crisis in Georgia.
Patarkatsishvili has resigned as head of the Georgian Businessmen’s Federation (one of several business associations in the country) in order to run for elective office.
A curious piece on Georgia is published in the Economist:
The article “Georgia’s murky politics” rightfully asks the most uncomfortable questions regarding the “unappealing spectacle” involving the return of the former Defense Minister Irakli Okruashvili:
Why was the former Defense Minister brought to justice only after he joined the opposition?
If indeed there was a misuse of funds in the defense budget, which is a case against Irakli Okruashvili, then what about the members of the parliamentary committee who are supposed to scrutinize the budget? Four of them are from Saakashvili’s National Movement.
The murder of banker Sandro Girgvliani? Oversized and above NATO benchmark defense spending accounting for 22% of the budget and 7% of GDP?
The article ends with questioning whether Georgia “is going in the right direction” and wether the political scandal involving the former Defense Minister’s return has derailed Georgia’s NATO aspirations.
The Financial Times covered the recent scandal in Georgia (”Georgians protest as critic of Saakashvili is arrested September 29/30 2007″).
“Two dozen police broke into Mr Okruashvili’s political headquarters on Thursday evening and arrested the former minister, who was sacked by the president in 2006 on charges of extortion, money laundering and abuse of power in the office,” - wrote Financial Times.
A small mistake, which changed the entire story: Okruashvili was not sacked by the president on criminal charges, but resigned from the government a week after he was appointed as a Minister of Economic Development.
Criminal charges were brought against Okruashvili followed his stormy return into politics and scandalous accusations against the acting government.
