Lessons from the Change of Power in Georgia

Thursday December 3rd, 2020Friday December 18th, 2020 admin

What did the results of the Parliamentary elections in Georgia demonstrate? Is the change of power through elections possible in Armenia and Azerbaijan? What are the main lessons to be learnt from the Georgian elections and post-election transformations in Georgia by Armenia and Azerbaijan?

Georgia Has Set a Positive Example in the Region

– It is believed that the Parliamentary elections in Georgia held on October 1, marked a new era for the democratic development in South Caucasus, since as a result of fair elections, the incumbent power has announced of its transition into the opposition. Do you agree with such an assessment?

– Yes, I am sure that with these Parliamentary elections in Georgia, there was a turn in the thinking and political behavior. Once we have already witnessed Saakashvili to hardly retain the power, but the second time he did not fight for power by dishonest methods. Despite this, I would speak of the future policy of Ivanishvili’s government, with reservations. Still there are some questions left open: won’t a corruption pyramid be re-established and won’t the people with the criminal record return to Georgia? However, today Georgia has certainly set a positive example in the region: in the end, undemocratic government, which came to power through democratic elections, is better than the democratic government which came to power through dictatorial methods. Because in this case it will automatically cease to be democratic any more. There will be a real political struggle in Georgia, and what we finally have in the region is not a clash between families (as in Azerbaijan) or clans (as in Armenia), but rather a clash between political parties, political platforms, and political considerations.

– What do you associate the outcomes of the Georgian elections with – the level of democratic development, the development of the civil society, the external need for the change of the regime in Georgia? Could you name a different reason? Is the transition of Armenia’s ruling party into the opposition possible as a result of the elections, after the Georgian scenario?

– It seems to me that Georgia is a privileged country in the region, where economic, human resources and Christian traditions are successfully combined. I think that this last fact it is not due religious, but rather civilization values, and due to these values the country will very easily integrate into the European Union, and it is easy for Georgia to negotiate with other developed countries. Also, if the Russian priority is the only possible way of the formation and development of Armenia for us, which, in my opinion, is quite debatable, the Georgians have never had a political myth of the kind. They have always considered the idea of their own independence a priority, of course, in the context of their integration into more developed structures (NATO, the EU and others).

Thanks to these conditions Georgians have first ensured stability in the country, formed a civil society on its basis, which later was seen to be ready to make a choice of its own.

Armenia has no stable life, and this makes it difficult for us to hold democratic elections. We have, in fact, never had a chance to choose, we always choose the worst possible of all the bad options. Do I think a similar turn of events possible in Armenia? In my opinion, in Armenia the power cannot move into the opposition through elections, because at the moment Armenia has no active opposition. The parties are struggling to be proclaimed oppositional. Even if now the Republican Party announced that it would resign without any elections and hand the power over to, for example, the Prosperous Armenia Party, I would not consider it a democratic choice.

Ivanishvili’s emergence has become a serious momentum for our oligarchs, as we also have some, who would not mind sharing presidential powers. However, in this case, the Georgian oligarch, in contrast to our oligarchs, was independent. He was not under the control of the President or any other superpower, and it would have been impossible to put him into a difficult economic situation. This is why I would not equate the upcoming elections in Armenia with the elections in Georgia.

– On the eve of the elections in Georgia, the legislation was amended to incorporate the transition from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government. Which of these forms of government and which political system is more suitable Armenia? Why?

– In ideological terms I stand for the parliamentary form of government, because there is possibility for consensus there. But I believe that in the transition period the presidential form of government can also contribute significantly to the making of Armenia, as we are accustomed to individual decisions. If the president suddenly takes a single-handed decision on the correct organization of the society, it will be a good preparatory step for the adoption of parliamentary democracy. I think that Georgia has matured enough to transition from the presidential to the parliamentary form of government, and if a complete culture of parliamentary government develops there, it will be a vivid sign of the political maturity of Georgia. We are not ready for such developments yet.

– Who has the Armenian population in Georgia voted for? What expectations does the Armenian population in Georgia have from the factually new government?

– According to the statistics we have received, the Armenian community in Georgia voted for Saakashvili. It is noteworthy that the Armenians in Syria support the incumbent government – Assad. The choice of the Armenian population is due to the fact that Armenians are a conservative community. They assess the situation, and if the conditions of their current lives under the incumbent government are more or less comfortable, any change can be viewed as negative and even dangerous. They want safety and security for themselves in the country they live in and it is in accordance with this logic that they choose to avoid turnabouts or major changes.

Georgian Citizens Determine Their Country’s Future

– Both yes, and no. Yes, I agree, because it sets a good example for the whole region, and the peoples of South Caucasus already understand that the events in Georgia set a successful and acceptable model for the other countries to ensure the development of the rule of law, the free market and the democratic society. In principle, there is simply no other choice.

But I do not agree to the question above, because it is well understood that without the contribution of the international factor it would have been extremely difficult or impossible to implement the model of democratic development in Georgia. As for Azerbaijan, the energy factor comes forth as quite a negative factor in this respect. It can be argued that in the case of Azerbaijan, the international factor needed for democratic development is almost entirely absent at the moment.

– What do you associate the outcomes of the Georgian elections with – the level of democratic development, the development of the civil society, the external need for the change of the regime in Georgia? Could you name a different reason? Is the transition of Azerbaijan’s ruling party into the opposition possible as a result of the elections, after the Georgian scenario?

– I think, first of all, the reforms that were carried out after the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia played an essential role. It empowered the Georgian society to believe in itself. The openness of the society played an important role in the further enhancement of the role and influence of both the civil society and the legal mechanisms and institutions. A Georgian citizen has come to realize the role he/she plays in the politics and the public life in the country and that it is difficult to exclude him/her from politics which cannot be said about Azerbaijan. In Azerbaijan, the very system of socio-political relations is either completely destroyed or is in crisis. It is hard to imagine that such a development in these countries would ever be possible. As for external factors, I do not think they played an important role or influenced the outcomes of the elections, because the election results were primarily due to the expression of the political will of the Georgian electorate.

– The parliamentary form of government is in every way preferable over the presidential system, but it is effective only in case there is precise interaction among all state institutions and the branches of the government. This, in turn, will only work when there is a clear division of authorities among the branches of government and the separation of regulatory legislative norms, and an independent judicial system. If we consider that Azerbaijan lacks all this and will not acquire them soon, the highest efficiency can be achieved by introducing the same reforms that were carried out in Georgia. However, to implement such reforms it will in its turn take the political will of the country’s leadership, which can hardly be expected from the incumbent establishment. This means that the implementation of the Georgian model (through a revolution) is so far perceived as the only way out of the socio-political and socio-economic situation in Azerbaijan.

– Who has the Azerbaijani population in Georgia voted for? What expectations does the Azerbaijani population in Georgia have from the factually new government?

– According to the available data, the Azerbaijani population of Georgia in the places of their residence mainly voted for the motion, led by President Saakashvili. This behavior of voters can be attributed to several factors, of which the following seem to be more likely in place.

First, national minorities always try to side with the authorities, because they want political stability and they do not tend to believe there may be any changes, whereas supporting the opposition may cause the distrust of the power in the community, which may, undoubtedly, lead to undesirable consequences.

Second, Azeris are often advised from their “motherlands,” and it is possible that this time the recommendations were in favor of the incumbent government in Georgia.

Finally, community leaders often represent the authorities, and this plays an important role in determining the political sympathies of the population in the regions in Georgia.