Opinion | Georgian civil society needs to prepare for the worst

Opinion | Georgian civil society needs to prepare for the worst

0:00

/7:04

1×

Events in Georgia are unfolding turbulently. The highly contentious parliamentary elections and the constitutionally flawed convening of parliament on 25 November have broken the government’s chain of democratic legitimacy. The link between the people and the ‘government’ has been broken.

In all this, one striking aspect is the manner in which the ruling Georgian Dream party appears determined to deliberately showcase their own authoritarianism; to demonstrate beyond doubt that the true source of power in Georgia is not the people, but a single individual — Georgian Dream founder and billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili.

Their actions defy any other logical explanation, reflecting a pronounced determination not merely to retain power, but to do so through authoritarian means.

It was specifically for this reason that they raised further questions about the legitimacy of the parliament when it was convened in violation of the constitution. For this very reason, on 27 November, Ivanishvili nominated Mikheil Kavelashvili — a candidate holding openly anti-Western views — as president, and on 14 December, the parliament confirmed his appointment. For the very same reason, on 28 November, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced that discussions on negotiations with the EU would be removed from the agenda ‘until 2028’.

The unprecedented scale and intensity of the protests that followed were entirely foreseeable. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Kobakhidze’s statement on 28 November was part of a strategy to showcase authoritarianism.

Georgian Dream appears to have deliberately provoked the largest protests in Georgia’s history to create a pretext for widespread repression.

Through police force, beatings, torture, arrests, and other forms of suppression, they aimed to crush the Georgian people’s desire for a European future. In just one month, the regime led its citizens down a path of repression that even other authoritarian countries have taken years to embark on. Today, we are witnessing the establishment of a police state in Georgia.

Having lost legitimacy both domestically and internationally, Ivanishvili’s regime is clinging to power for as long as it can muster the strength. It relies on the hope that repression will not undermine its position but strengthen it and aid in further consolidating the regime.

This leads to two possible scenarios:

1. The regime succeeds in filling the vacuum created by international sanctions and isolation with the support of authoritarian countries. Repression intensifies, bolstering the regime, as police rule becomes normalised in daily life.
2. The regime struggles to contend with the scale of nationalist protests, as international sanctions, pressure, and isolation amplify internal tensions. Rather than fortifying the regime, repression undermines it, ultimately compelling compliance with the popular demand for new, fair, and free elections.

The key question in this context is not which scenario is more likely, but rather  how different groups will react to each one. What role do the opposition and civil society envision for themselves in these two scenarios?

Despite the intense pressure on the regime, it would be a mistake to dismiss the first scenario — consolidated authoritarianism — in which the regime survives in isolation with the support of powerful ‘big brothers’.

Ignoring the possibility of this scenario and focusing solely on the hope that it is the second scenario that comes to pass could leave civil society without the effective ability to operate and sustain itself in an authoritarian environment.

Preparing for the worst

The first scenario, no matter how bleak it may appear, necessitates the development of a long-term sustainability strategy by civil society.

In this scenario, the negative consequences seen in authoritarian countries are inevitable over time. However, sustainability strategies should aim to maintain the effective functioning of civil society until a shift occurs, or, in the most challenging situation, strengthen civil society until the conditions for its existence and activity in Georgia are restored.

In addition, this scenario, a long-term survival strategy for civil society primarily involves adapting to operating within an authoritarian environment. This process can be likened to gaining a foothold. Alongside building knowledge, it is crucial to develop infrastructure.

This process can be divided into two key directions:

1. Building the necessary infrastructure for activities, including legal frameworks and international forms.
2. Creating a network of strong international contacts and platforms.

The international community’s support for Georgia’s civil society in this regard is of dual importance. Such support addresses the immediate challenges faced by civil society during the current crisis and helps sustain its viability. In the event of a positive outcome in the second scenario, the existence of this infrastructure will further aid in Georgia’s democratisation.

Once the necessary infrastructure for operating in an authoritarian environment is established, it is crucial to define the content of civil society activities. Despite the challenges, it will be essential to develop a proactive agenda alongside the reactionary activities.

This approach should help civil society remain in the country, sustain and strengthen its efforts, and, sooner or later, proactively reach the threshold for the start of democratisation. At worst, it should ensure the existence of civil society in the country when such processes begin.

The second scenario of change is positive, but achieving and also transforming it into tangible results requires as much effort as operating in an authoritarian environment. The opposition may play a larger role in this process, but civil society must help shape the visions and processes that shift the country from an autocratic agenda to a path to democratisation, and from an anti-Western stance to a Euro-Atlantic one.

In this scenario, several critical questions must be addressed: How can civil society contribute to the establishment of healthy political processes? How should new, free, and fair elections be organised? What should the democratisation process look like after the elections, and what are the visions of political actors and civil society?

Answering these questions is crucial in shaping a path forward towards a democratic future.

The processes in Georgia are complex, and there may not be a single, easy solution. Events may regress from this point forward. However, regardless of the outcome, in all scenarios, it is essential to find a role for civil society, to develop a long-term strategy, and to mobilise support for sustainability.

Staying true to our fundamental values and principles will also play a decisive role in this struggle.