Tweet
DEMOCRACY LEVEL IN GEORGIA
The Messenger, Georgia
June 19 2006
Freedom House, the international civil rights and democracy
watchdog, recently published its evaluation of the current level of
democratization in Eastern European and the former Soviet Union; the
report says the level of democracy in Georgia has improved, slightly.
The conclusions of this internationally respected organization were
welcomed by the current administration, but raised criticism from
both the opposition and numerous experts who are much more critical
of the situation in the country. Freedom House's analysis is based
on a scale form 7 to 1, with 7 being the least free in terms of civil
liberties and political rights, and 1 being the most free.
The report says countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and
Turkmenistan, which are becoming fat off the energy resources they
posses, possess public institutions subservient to the ruling cadre,
and state governance that is mostly self interested. The major reason
for this situation is unsuccessful-or perhaps uninitiated-reform in
the legal system and the media. The high level of corruption in these
countries is highlighted by the report, with Russia described as an
'oligarchy of bureaucrats'.
According to Freedom House, the democratic situation in the post
Soviet space in 2005 deteriorated in Belarus (6.71), Russia (5.75),
Turkmenistan (6.96), Uzbekistan (6.82), Kazakhstan (6.39), Tajikistan
(5.93) and Azerbaijan (5.93); all of these countries are described as
"not free". Democracy strengthened in Moldova (4.96), Armenia (5.14)
and Georgia (4.86); these countries are "partly free"; Ukraine (4.21)
and Latvia (2.07) are both "free". Ukraine is the only CIS member
that is officially a 'free country'.
The Freedom House report was seriously criticized by opposition
representatives here in Georgia. The newspaper Rezonansi remarked
that Freedom House represents the opinion of the US State Department,
which tries to promote so-called Color Revolutions, and thus it sees
the situation as it wants to see it.
It is obvious that the situation in Georgia is far from ideal from
the democratic point of view. The reality is that the country will
not change for better if we turn a blind eye to the problems or if
we ignore the improvements.
All kinds of revolutions, be they color, velvet, bloodless or any
other, pose big challenges for any country. The Georgian experience
is proof of that. Since the Rose Revolution the media, particularly
television came under pressure. At the initial stage several critical
talk shows and TV stations disappeared, and only very recently have
some of these critical TV shows come back. The Georgian media has only
managed to recover its critical side due to the courageous activity
of some TV channels.
Certain democratic victories are obvious in today's Georgia, the
current administration is at least aware of civil society, and
understands the necessity for democratic development. Problems,
however, persist.
Local NGOs and independent experts are especially concerned that
since the Rose Revolution the executive has become very powerful in
Georgia. The balance between the different branches of government
in the country has been shattered. Many questions arise concerning
the electoral law. The election threshold (the percentage of votes
a particular party needs to garner in order to be represented in
parliament) was raised from five to seven percent eight years ago
has not been decreased (most European countries with proportional
representation have thresholds of four percent). There are many faults
in the system of local self-governance; the incumbent authorities
are in such an advantageous position that pluralism will probably
not be achieved.
However if the 'Rose Administration' can take this criticism with the
due sense of responsibility, it should be easily able to overcome these
difficulties. Only then will it regain the sympathy of the population,
support it seems to have squandered since the months directly after
the Rose Revolution.
The Messenger, Georgia
June 19 2006
Freedom House, the international civil rights and democracy
watchdog, recently published its evaluation of the current level of
democratization in Eastern European and the former Soviet Union; the
report says the level of democracy in Georgia has improved, slightly.
The conclusions of this internationally respected organization were
welcomed by the current administration, but raised criticism from
both the opposition and numerous experts who are much more critical
of the situation in the country. Freedom House's analysis is based
on a scale form 7 to 1, with 7 being the least free in terms of civil
liberties and political rights, and 1 being the most free.
The report says countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and
Turkmenistan, which are becoming fat off the energy resources they
posses, possess public institutions subservient to the ruling cadre,
and state governance that is mostly self interested. The major reason
for this situation is unsuccessful-or perhaps uninitiated-reform in
the legal system and the media. The high level of corruption in these
countries is highlighted by the report, with Russia described as an
'oligarchy of bureaucrats'.
According to Freedom House, the democratic situation in the post
Soviet space in 2005 deteriorated in Belarus (6.71), Russia (5.75),
Turkmenistan (6.96), Uzbekistan (6.82), Kazakhstan (6.39), Tajikistan
(5.93) and Azerbaijan (5.93); all of these countries are described as
"not free". Democracy strengthened in Moldova (4.96), Armenia (5.14)
and Georgia (4.86); these countries are "partly free"; Ukraine (4.21)
and Latvia (2.07) are both "free". Ukraine is the only CIS member
that is officially a 'free country'.
The Freedom House report was seriously criticized by opposition
representatives here in Georgia. The newspaper Rezonansi remarked
that Freedom House represents the opinion of the US State Department,
which tries to promote so-called Color Revolutions, and thus it sees
the situation as it wants to see it.
It is obvious that the situation in Georgia is far from ideal from
the democratic point of view. The reality is that the country will
not change for better if we turn a blind eye to the problems or if
we ignore the improvements.
All kinds of revolutions, be they color, velvet, bloodless or any
other, pose big challenges for any country. The Georgian experience
is proof of that. Since the Rose Revolution the media, particularly
television came under pressure. At the initial stage several critical
talk shows and TV stations disappeared, and only very recently have
some of these critical TV shows come back. The Georgian media has only
managed to recover its critical side due to the courageous activity
of some TV channels.
Certain democratic victories are obvious in today's Georgia, the
current administration is at least aware of civil society, and
understands the necessity for democratic development. Problems,
however, persist.
Local NGOs and independent experts are especially concerned that
since the Rose Revolution the executive has become very powerful in
Georgia. The balance between the different branches of government
in the country has been shattered. Many questions arise concerning
the electoral law. The election threshold (the percentage of votes
a particular party needs to garner in order to be represented in
parliament) was raised from five to seven percent eight years ago
has not been decreased (most European countries with proportional
representation have thresholds of four percent). There are many faults
in the system of local self-governance; the incumbent authorities
are in such an advantageous position that pluralism will probably
not be achieved.
However if the 'Rose Administration' can take this criticism with the
due sense of responsibility, it should be easily able to overcome these
difficulties. Only then will it regain the sympathy of the population,
support it seems to have squandered since the months directly after
the Rose Revolution.