For Ukraine, such a model of success of post-revolutionary reforms is, of course, Georgia. Many Ukrainians visited Georgia and witnessed the achievements of reforms: glass bridges, residences and ministries a-la Singapore, vending machine for issuing certificates for 5 minutes, patrol duty in modern uniforms…
Undoubtedly, Georgia before and after the Rose Revolution – these are two different countries. Key achievements of President Mikheil Saakashvili, acknowledged in one voice by both his sympathizers and critics, arefighting crime and corruption – in the popular vocabulary "restoring order."
Often the failure of the Orange Revolution is explained by the weakness of civil society and the fact that immediately after the election, people went back to their daily lives, instead of controlling their newly elected government and demanding reforms. All hoped for the Orange leaders, yet these leaders turned out to be incapable of deep change.
It’s a mistake to believe, however, that the Georgian success is attributable to a more responsible citizenry than that of Ukraine.
In the case of Georgia’s Rose Revolution, much happened the same way as in Ukraine. People completely relied on their leadership. After all, civil society and media of this country is even weaker than ours. Governmental reforms were, instead, initiated solely because of the political will of the Georgian leaders, particularly Saakashvili. And the lack of control by society affected, in distinction to post-Orange Ukraine, such areas of public life as the freedom of speech and democracy.
In distinction to the Orange leaders, in the first four years after the revolution, the Georgian leadership was indeed engaged in transforming and developing the country. However, after the violent dispersal of peaceful demonstrations in 2007 and finally after the lost war with Russia in 2008, the government has been focusing on self-preservation at any price: starting from international PR efforts and ending with a radical law-enforcement policy inside the country.
This was my first visit to Georgia. I arrived at the comfortable airport "Tbilisi" and drove on the new George W. Bush Highway directly to the newly built and shining city center.
Already the taxi driver began to boast that no one now demands bribes from him and that he can sleep well at night, even without locking the door. At first, it is difficult to believe that you are in a post-Soviet Caucasian country that once used to be a cradle of crime and an almost failed state that could not even provide basic services for its citizens, such as light in apartments. It seemed as if one was entering a fabulous oasis of success that is already difficult to identify as post-Soviet. Everything is bright, modern, with English signs, everything – for the people, as it should be. However, this utopian impression ends very quickly, if you stay longer in Georgia, go beyond the tourist center, and try to understand how the society lives.
During the days of my stay in Georgia, I spoke to many acquaintances and strangers: taxi drivers, vendors, farmers, Abkhaz refugees, journalists, and officials. These conversations revealed that behind the shiny facade of Georgian democracy and progress, there is the familiar musty Soviet spirit of fear, pressure, state dependency, and the inability to protect your own human and civil rights.
When communicating with Georgians, I was particularly struck by one thing: every time a person was critical of the authorities, he/she asked me if I was sure his/her name or photo wouldn’t appear in the article. "Why are you afraid?" – I was puzzled. Here are the answers I received: "They’ll cut my social support from the state," "they may send the tax inspectors to my company", "I have a relative working in the civil service, who may be fired because of me", etc.
I can’t judge whether Georgia really established an authoritarian political regime and a one-party political system, and whether the people’s fears have any grounds. Maybe it’s just their post-Soviet psychology, which has not yet transformed after two decades of freedom. However, the story that happened to a Georgian, who decided to go into politics this fall with a critical stance towards the Saakashvili government, shows that the political atmosphere of Georgia is hardly liberal.
I am talking, of course, about the mysterious Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, who announced his intention to create an opposition party. The reactions of the authorities was flash-like fast: Ivanishvili and his wife were stripped off Georgian citizenship and several million euros were confiscated from his Tbilisi bank "Kartu" on charges of money laundering. Ivanishvili was able to register only a political movement "Georgian dream", but is unable to lead a party unless he gets his citizenship back.
The world’s richest ethnic Georgian,, who amassed his $5 billion fortune doing business in Russia during the Boris Yeltsin years, did not invest it somewhere, but plainly donated his money to his native Georgia. He restored medieval churches, theaters, playgrounds, and even a military base in his native Sachherkiy region. The financing of salaries for Georgian officials that had previously been attributed to the American philanthropist George Soros is now alleged to be the work of Ivanishvili.
When this legendary man said he wants to cooperate with (read: "finance") the opposition, particularly former Georgian United Nations ambassador Irakli Alasania, and his moderate "Free Democrats" party, the government became scared. There is a chance that for the first time since the revolution, the upcoming elections – both parliamentary in 2012 and presidential in 2013 – will cease to be a one-actor theater, and become a real political competition.
In fact, almost after a decade of his presidency, Saakashvili enjoyed solitude in the political arena of Georgia. He had to fight rather the hand of Moscow, but no serious domestic opponents. Generally, the motley and weak opposition non-influential was perceived either as infantile and marginalized, even worse, as Russian mercenaries.
"Government-controlled media and public discourse support a stereotype: the authorities are universally modern, progressive, Western-oriented, while the opponents of the government are losers," says the editor of Western-funded "Liberale" news website, Shorena Shaverdashvilli.
"Citizens do not want to admit so, if they are in opposition" – notes a former Georgian official, who recently switched into the private sector – "it’s like to reveal that you are sexual minority." And this is despite the fact that reasons for dissatisfaction with the government have accumulated more than enough.
In view of criticism concerning human rights abuses such as the murder of Sandro Girgvliani by the police (even more appalling than the Ukrainian story on Igor Indylo), ear-dropping of all public communication, or overcrowded prisons, it is clear that the common people’s motivation to support the opposition is growing.
Georgia’s main problem is extremely high unemployment which – according to official figures – is about 15 percent though in reality this figure can be easily multiplied by two. Also, salaries and pensions remain low.
The infrastructure of the rural areas was not rebuilt during the years of reforms, people live in poverty. Farmers are affected by the Russian embargo on wine exports. Today, they are happy, if the government buys grapes from them for US$0.30 per kilogram. The policy of unilateral trade liberalization and lack of protection mechanisms for domestic farmers and producers, showed that they can hardly compete with their Turkish or Chineese competitors. Thus, many people were thrown overboard, and rely on relatives or state benefits to survive.
Moreover, despite all the government marketing efforts, the level of foreign investment in Georgia’s economy is not high. After the war, Georgia experienced an outflow of foreign capital: some investors left due to the feeling of instability and insecurity.
Georgia advertises itself as the country where it is easy to do business. It is correct to say that this is country where it is easy to open a business, in 10 minutes. But then, according to statistics, half of the registered companies are closing. This is not just because of a small Georgian market and poor population. To succeed in business one should be loyal to the government. Then all doors are open. Who, however, refuses to make concessions on certain matters, or, worse, to start supporting the opposition or puts ads into the ‘wrong’ media, should be ready for vigorous tax investigations and other forms of scrutiny. This axiom, together with concrete examples was repeated to me many times by people from different political camps.
Given this picture, not surprisingly, Ivanishvili – a man with more money that an annual budget of Georgia – is of concern to the authorities. Not only is he considered as a potential financier of the opposition. He himself may garner political support. The impoverished population is impressed by the fact that Ivanishvili has such wealth. According to the common people’s logic, he, first, will not steal from the state after coming to power, and, second, will share his money with the public. Ivanishvili’s rhetoric bears not only some socialist elements, but also promises a level of genuine democracy that would make Europeans jealous.
It is unclear whether the emergence Ivanishvili will cause a regime change in Georgia. Saakashvili and his party "National Movement" provokes mixed feelings among the population. People are grateful for the successful reforms of the post-revolutionary years, but they see more and more abuse of power, corruption at the highest levels of leadership, double standards in law enforcement, human rights violations and restrictions of peaceful assembly.
The very fact that Saakashvili is Georgia’s first president who will finish his term puts him on an honorable level in history. If he will allow the democratic change of power in the country, instead of using Russian-type "political know-how," that would be an even more important step to the irreversibility of democratic changes. However, recent events in Georgia indicate that, even if the Georgian president has such an intentions, he hides them thoroughly.
Olena Tregub is a freelance journalist.
Читайте об этом на www.kyivpost.ua
