The goal of Nino Burjanadze and the people that surround her in these past days was very specific. They wanted to create a situation in which there would be photographs and videos that would portray Georgia as the next in a serious of popular demonstrations that started in Tunisia and Egypt. Even though the situation in Georgia has nothing to do with what is now called "the Arab Spring" she succeeded in that portrayal. Many people are calling and contacting me to know if my family is safe. They don't know the details, they only see the pictures, but that is all they need to see to view Tbilisi as a disaster area.
Burjanadze and several other political groupings are not in opposition, and should not be referred to as opposition. "In opposition" means to disagree with those in power. The anti-democratic forces in Georgia want those in power out of power, and don't care much about anything else like policy, the state, the population, their followers, or independence. Their attitude is very similar to the Kremlin's. The Kremlin knows it has no direct influence on Georgian politics but their goal is to promote instability in Georgia. They can also influence international opinion about Georgia by helping to manufacture events in Tbilisi that will create photographs and videos like the ones this past week. The international community is largely uninterested in the details of Georgian domestic politics, all they see are images of dramatic events in Yemen, Georgia, and Libya, and the narrative is clear for them.
The situation is very different in Georgia of course. Burjanadze had miniscule public support before or after these events but that was never the point. She is constantly in the media, including the government controlled and influenced television stations. The leadership often says that the opposition is constantly on TV complaining that they have no access to TV. The group that is actually hidden from the public is the democratic opposition. The democratic opposition criticizes the policies of the government, it talks in detail about the mistakes the government makes, the laws it breaks and incidents of corruption. These topics are very painful for the government and many of them, knowing that they have to give some forum to opponents of the government, would rather give that time to those unpopular figures calling for and overthrow of the government and who promote violence. By spotlighting the non-democratic forces in the media, the leadership accomplishes several goals, it paints all of its opponents with one brush, Georgia appears to have free media since opponents are also given a voice, and the really painful criticism is concealed.
Bujanadze is well known abroad. She has never had much influence in Georgia but has occupied important positions. Twice she has been acting president and twice she has been the chair of parliament. When she was the chair of parliament from 2004 to 2008, the leadership had a deal with her that was useful for both sides. They would be allowed to pass more or less whatever they wanted through parliament and she wouldn't stand in the way except regarding micro-issues. In exchange for that she would get to be a very prominent person and take many trips abroad where she could meet with important people in the international community and use her excellent English. But in the process under her watch, the parliament became a formality, a brief administrative hurdle any executive policy had to hop over in order to become law.
Some have said that now she is discredited and is therefore no longer a threat. But that misses the point. She had no credibility before and has none now. She was carrying out a ritual that is effective. Have a demonstration, provoke a response, and distribute photos. It may not be her that does it the next time but it doesn't really matter, the purpose is not to mobilize people or to become popular the purpose is the generation of the photos that can be posted on Facebook and be on the international news.
If the motivation for this is the government's response, then the effective course of action is not to respond. But then there would have been no parade. Was that parade important? Did anybody talk about it? Certainly not around the world. But even in Georgia, I didn't hear anybody say anything about the parade. I saw it and it didn't seem to me like a show of strength, it seemed to me like a show of stubbornness. What would have been impressive is if the leadership had canceled the parade, and had an independence day party at another location and said that it couldn't have moved the protesters without somebody getting hurt and didn't want to do that.
What Georgia needs is for the political discussion to move into parliament. Now nobody cares what happens in parliament, and why should they? Conveniently there are parliamentary elections in a year and a half. If the government wants the conversation to move there, it will have to allow the opposition into parliament. With the current election law, in my view if two thirds of the population voted against the ruling party it would still control two thirds of the seats in parliament. There is no more important national security question for Georgia than the Group of Eight discussions on the election law finishing quickly with a chance for democratic opposition to enter parliament and have some influence.
Until then, there will be a collection of anti democratic forces clogging up the airwaves, polluting the political dialogue, and preventing discussions about real problems and real solutions that matter for the people of Georgia. But there are those who want to keep it that way.
Post new comment