CHOICE OF DREAMERS

Without exaggeration, the parliamentary elections held on October 26 in Georgia were the most consequential since the restoration of the country's independence. The outcomes of elections will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the future trajectory of the South Caucasus as a whole.

The Struggle of Ideas

Georgia held the recent parliamentary elections amidst an intensifying struggle for influence in the country among leading geopolitical centres. It is therefore unsurprising that the majority of key narratives employed during the electoral campaign were directly linked to the future trajectory of Georgia's foreign policy orientation. For example, the Georgian political landscape is characterised by a confrontation between opposing views on the recently enacted laws on the transparency of foreign influence and the prohibition of LGBT propaganda. Globalist media outlets portrayed supporters of the legislation as opponents of Georgia's integration into the Euro-Atlantic space, while the opponents were labelled as advocates of the country's pro-Western movement. A comparable dynamic was evident in the unyielding confrontation between the Georgian Dream government and President Salome Zurabishvili.

However, it is essential to recognise that while the internal political conflict in Georgia may appear to be a confrontation between a pro-Russian government and a pro-Western opposition, it actually demonstrate the intensifying competition between two factions within an overarching pro-European Georgian elite. The primary distinction is that radical Westerners, primarily in the opposition camp, advocate for Georgia's Euro-integration from a neo-liberal standpoint, fully aligning with the directives of Euro-Atlantic leadership centres. In contrast, the incumbent Georgian administration, which also aspires to EU membership, has indicated that it would only pursue this objective if it could be done in a way that preserves Georgian sovereignty and national identity.

In order to understand the position of the Georgian government, it is essential to recall the statements made by Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze at the Conservative Political Action Conference held in Budapest last April. This occurred during a period when Georgia was embroiled in opposition protests against the law on foreign influence—or, as it was dubbed by liberal media outlets, the "foreign agents" law.

"In the contemporary era, those who identify as liberals are endangering the cultural and national identities of nations and countries across the globe. "These risks are most acutely felt in Europe and the United States," Kobakhidze observed. In reference to an incident where "a few days ago, Georgian self-identified liberals attempted to alter the concept of national identity by replacing the words 'language, Fatherland, and faith' with 'language, Fatherland, and unity,' thereby removing faith from this trinity ... Georgia has successfully safeguarded both its national and religious identity, as well as its traditional values," he stated.

In addition to the nuances of Euro-Atlantic oriented approaches among Georgian political forces, another significant phenomenon of the election campaign was the potential involvement of the country in the West's confrontation with Russia. The Georgian Dream, led by its founder and billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, conducted a robust electoral campaign, persuading the public that should opposition members assume power and formally shift Tbilisi's stance toward radical pro-American and pro-European policies, the country would intervene in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, thereby becoming a secondary front in the armed confrontation between Moscow and Euro-Atlantic centres. In contrast, the Georgian Dream and Kobakhidze's government position themselves as a force capable of leading Georgia into the EU while simultaneously avoiding confrontation with Russia. Georgia held its parliamentary elections amidst these competing ideologies.

Does the Opposition Have Resources?

In an unprecedented move, for the first time in the history of independent Georgia the deputies to the country's 150-member parliament were elected exclusively through a proportional representation system. It is thought that this played in the hand of the Georgian Dream coalition, which has a strong and unified support base. In contrast, opposition parties advocating for rapid integration with the EU were unable to present a unified front due to internal political disagreements.

According to data released by the Central Election Commission, the Georgian Dream party secured a majority of the votes, with 53.92% of the electorate supporting its candidates. The four opposition forces that collectively surpassed the 5% threshold garnered 37.78% of the votes. The Coalition for Change received 11.04%, the Unity - National Movement garnered 10.16%, Strong Georgia attained 8.81%, and For Georgia received 7.77%. As a result, the election results granted the Georgian Dream, which has been in power for 12 years, the authority to form a government without the necessity of entering into a coalition with other political parties.

The opposition did not acknowledge the legitimacy of the results presented by the Central Election Commission, claiming asserting electoral fraud instead. The Coalition for Change subsequently revoked its parliamentary mandates, while the Unity - National Movement associated with former President Mikhail Saakashvili made the following declaration: "It is not our intention to enter parliament."

President Salome Zurabishvili, whose powers will expire at the end of 2024, made it clear that she was siding with the opposition. She characterised the results of the parliamentary elections as "total fraud," attributing this situation to what she described as a Russian special operation—one of the new forms of hybrid warfare conducted against the Georgian people and country. Consequently, Zurabishvili once again accused the Georgian Dream government of being pro-Russian. Meanwhile, she has positioned herself as a potential leader for a radically pro-Western camp, which currently lacks prominent figures. This is evidenced by her meeting with opposition leaders immediately following the announcement of the election results and her call for citizens to join their declared protest.

At a gathering held in Tbilisi outside the parliament building, members of the opposition demanded that the authorities call for new elections, provided that they be conducted by an "international electoral administration." The government has rejected allegations of vote tampering in the parliamentary elections.

Prime Minister Kobakhidze observed that Georgia has previously encountered instances where opposition parties and their supporting non-governmental organizations have declined to acknowledge the results of elections. He further asserted his government's resolve to prevent any destabilisation of the constitutional order within the country. The opposition lacks the resources to continue protesting, and thus, in the near future, the first parliamentary session will convene, a government will be confirmed, and all processes within the country will continue as usual, the prime minister assured.

The government's confidence in their electoral victory, coupled with the evident disarray among opposition members—who had not anticipated such substantial support for the Georgian Dream among a significant portion of voters—indicates that their information campaign aimed at discrediting Georgia's current leadership as an "anti-Western force serving Russia's interests" has been unsuccessful. This suggests that protest actions will be limited in scope and will not result in significant political changes. This outcome is undoubtedly disappointing for those Western countries which anticipated a new "colour revolution" in Georgia.

Western Disappointment

In the days preceding Georgia's parliamentary elections, the European Union declared a de facto suspension of the country's accession process to the union. In the closing statement of the Brussels summit, the representatives expressed "serious concern regarding the course taken by the Georgian government against the values and principles upon which the European Union is founded." They further stated that this course of action "undermines Tbilisi's European path."

In the wake of Georgian elections, European institutions and the US levelled harsh criticism against the electoral process. The Georgian Dream government was accused of violating democratic principles, pressuring voters, buying votes, and employing physical coercion. It is worth noting that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called upon Georgia's political leadership to "repeal legislation undermining fundamental freedoms and collaboratively address shortcomings in the electoral process."

This response from major powers and Western institutions—which have assumed the right to interfere in other nations' internal affairs—further illustrates their stance toward Euro-integration aspirations among individual countries, including Georgia, that disregard concepts such as national sovereignty, protection of identity, and traditional moral values. The West, as a political and economic system, does not afford any priority that would enable a country such as Georgia to become an equal member of this system. Consequently, prospective member states are required to align themselves with neo-liberal standards and contemporary Western norms. These countries are not permitted any autonomy, whether in regard to internal policies concerning legislation aimed at safeguarding traditional values and national identity or in external political behaviour. This also entails a rule that dictates that those countries already integrated into the Euro-Atlantic system or those aspiring to join it must regard enemies of the West as adversaries. This is exemplified by Georgia's provocations toward adopting overtly anti-Russian policies.

In other words, no claims made by individual Western or pro-Western nations asserting their sovereignty or pursuing foreign policy that is aligned with their national interests are acceptable to globalist Euro-Atlantic centres. In light of these considerations, the significance of Georgia's decision becomes evident.

The "European path," which is typically pursued by the prevailing authority, diverges significantly from the expectations of the majority of Georgians. The West does not require adherence to an idealized representation or one advocated through sovereign interests and traditional values. Rather, it demands unconditional compliance with obligations placed upon candidate countries seeking EU membership. Consequently, in recent years—and especially in recent months—the current Georgian government has been subjected to intense criticism despite its efforts to demonstrate its commitment to Euro-Atlantic orientation and aspirations for EU membership by 2030.

The victory of the Georgian Dream party in the recent elections indicates that the government in Tbilisi will continue to pursue a "European path," albeit according to its own understanding and perspective, which differs from that held by the European Union. It can be reasonably assumed that the pressure exerted by Brussels on Tbilisi will intensify, potentially reaching levels that could ultimately negate Georgia's prospects for EU membership altogether.

It is evident that the West is disheartened by the outcome of these elections. Had the Georgian opposition secured a decisive victory, it would have signified not only a change in power but also an opportunity for both the United States and the European Union to reinforce their positions in the South Caucasus. However, such an outcome would have resulted in Georgia becoming a mere executor of the wills of Euro-Atlantic centres.

It is of the utmost importance for the security of Georgia and the South Caucasus region as a whole that it remains committed to strategic partnerships within a trilateral format alongside Azerbaijan and Turkey. This format is aligned with the national interests of each state and has become a significant factor in regional security and cooperation. Therefore, the maintenance and reinforcement of this alliance represent one of the most crucial foreign policy objectives for each country.

For Baku, strategic interaction with Tbilisi will be of particular importance in preventing Georgia from becoming a transit territory for intensified militarization efforts led by the United States and France against Armenia. Should Georgia acquiesce to the pressures exerted by Washington and Paris on this matter, it would represent a significant challenge not only for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ankara trilateral format but also for regional stability in general, as well as for Georgian security interests.

Remarkably, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev sent a congratulatory letter to Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze on the occasion of the victory of the Georgian Dream - Democratic Georgia party in the parliamentary elections. Aliyev highlighted that the vote reflected Georgian citizens' support for economic growth, stability, and traditional values. He expressed confidence in the long-term stability of Azerbaijani-Georgian intergovernmental relations, emphasizing the historical ties between the two countries rooted in friendship, brotherhood, and good neighbourliness. He further noted the potential for these relations to contribute to the stability and prosperity of the broader South Caucasus region and beyond.