Tweet
WILL GEORGIA FACE A CIVIL WAR?
The presidential election is drawing nearer in Georgia and still one
cannot understand to what extent the rating of the ruling party and
its leaders has gone up or down. Public polls suggest that the number
of people who have not made up their mind is growing but nevertheless
electoral activity remains high.
It is possible that the Georgian society has become wiser but
this time it does not demand rapid results, especially that it is
observing energetic decisions. The society is divided by mental, not
social criteria. Specific groups distinguished for their political
ambitions link their social situation and visions of future with
Mikhail Saakashvili's team, which determines to a great extent the
existence of genuine opposition moods.
It should be noted that traditional Georgian politicians are so much
confused by the ongoing developments that they are no longer able to
make more or less realistic evaluations. As always, the opinion of
young politicians and experts is interesting who do not hurry to get
involved in an active phase of political activity. The axiom is that
the Georgian society was not ready for Mikhail Saakashvili's team's
reformist efforts and so far nobody has come up with a delicate
explanation of this phenomenon. The problem sof Abkhazia and South
Ossetia stopped being actual, and they are viewed as problems of
visible future, and everyone wonders what political forces will
further govern the country.
Georgia has experienced the advantages of economic and political
cooperation with Russia although it already has little importance. At
the same time, given the solidarity of a number of public and political
groups, the country approved and adopted a definite format of foreign
political priorities. Georgia designs a policy of neutrality, minding
the balance between the Western community and Russia, under closer
and binding relations with the EU and NATO.
It is not the demand of the West but an "objective course of historical
circumstances". The problem, however, is that such setup may favor
the Western community but not Russia, and Russia will continue the
policy of tug-of-war. "In a helicopter-tractor tug-in-war the chain
will win." Everyone has read this in the reader and hardly anyone is
ready to develop a more detained and substantial policy, and almost
everything in the Russian-Georgian relations has been left up to
"big, effective fragments".
In Moscow and Tbilisi they understand that relations between them
cannot be more or less complete unless the political destiny of
Mikhail Saakashvili and his team is not determined which has a
highly influential cluster in the parliament and local government,
elective and representational bodies. The National Unity Party is
mostly dominant in the economy, in different public administration
bodies, and most importantly the law-enforcement and security agencies.
The National Unity Party has been injured but not defeated and is
ready for a persistent fight during the presidential campaign. It is
increasingly obvious that not only the United States but also Europe
would be satisfied with a bipartisan system in Georgia, and the current
situation of double power may become chronic, especially if supported
by the West which, like Russia, refrains from abrupt moves in the
"war-of-tug".
Whoever B. Ivanishvili is, both sides would like to demonstrate that
he is their man, especially that the prime minister seriously believes
in the policy of neutrality.
It is hard to imagine a state aspiring to NATO membership build a
policy of neutrality in international relations but the problem is
not the combination of legal norms and real politics. Georgia will
first have to answer the question whether a small state may conduct
a so-called multi-vector policy.
The Russian political circles exaggerate simplicity of decisions
on return of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Georgia. Of course,
everything is possible in the politics of Russia and other great
powers, including "legitimate genocidal actions". If a policy of
review of the balance of forces and areas of influence in a global and
regional scale is implemented, the method of "legitimate genocides"
will become apparent and be practiced largely but for the time being
a slow policy of "remapping" is implemented, and it is necessary to
take into account the actual balance of forces.
Is Georgia ready for concessions in this format of relations? This is
the most complicated issue. Will the upcoming presidential elections
answer this question? Young and promising Georgian politicians and
experts who got a good education, mostly in the United States and
the UK, think that bipartisan or two-clan system is not applicable
to Georgia, even conventionally. Georgia is not big enough, and its
society is not politically and economically self-sufficient where
the clans or groups would stand each other for a long time.
It is an illusion that Georgia has had a multi-party system so
far. In fact, there are a lot of parties and a dominant ruling
party. A bipartisan system is an opportunity of strong and functional
influence of the opposition on the ruling party and a real opportunity
of rotation of the government. In Georgia neither the ruling circles
nor the opposition will agree to it.
If the Georgian Dream Party wins in the presidential election, the
National Unity Party will be annihilated politically because Mikhail
Saakashvili's team is not going to give up power.
Some experts think that the ability of National Unity to resist to
the government is another myth of the Georgian society but there is
another opinion that Georgia will face a civil war. These opinions
are diverse while experienced Georgian politicians present more
unequivocal evaluations - either we, or them. Although, in fact,
it is evidence to an upcoming long-term confrontation.
Igor Muradyan 11:51 16/08/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/politics/view/30709
The presidential election is drawing nearer in Georgia and still one
cannot understand to what extent the rating of the ruling party and
its leaders has gone up or down. Public polls suggest that the number
of people who have not made up their mind is growing but nevertheless
electoral activity remains high.
It is possible that the Georgian society has become wiser but
this time it does not demand rapid results, especially that it is
observing energetic decisions. The society is divided by mental, not
social criteria. Specific groups distinguished for their political
ambitions link their social situation and visions of future with
Mikhail Saakashvili's team, which determines to a great extent the
existence of genuine opposition moods.
It should be noted that traditional Georgian politicians are so much
confused by the ongoing developments that they are no longer able to
make more or less realistic evaluations. As always, the opinion of
young politicians and experts is interesting who do not hurry to get
involved in an active phase of political activity. The axiom is that
the Georgian society was not ready for Mikhail Saakashvili's team's
reformist efforts and so far nobody has come up with a delicate
explanation of this phenomenon. The problem sof Abkhazia and South
Ossetia stopped being actual, and they are viewed as problems of
visible future, and everyone wonders what political forces will
further govern the country.
Georgia has experienced the advantages of economic and political
cooperation with Russia although it already has little importance. At
the same time, given the solidarity of a number of public and political
groups, the country approved and adopted a definite format of foreign
political priorities. Georgia designs a policy of neutrality, minding
the balance between the Western community and Russia, under closer
and binding relations with the EU and NATO.
It is not the demand of the West but an "objective course of historical
circumstances". The problem, however, is that such setup may favor
the Western community but not Russia, and Russia will continue the
policy of tug-of-war. "In a helicopter-tractor tug-in-war the chain
will win." Everyone has read this in the reader and hardly anyone is
ready to develop a more detained and substantial policy, and almost
everything in the Russian-Georgian relations has been left up to
"big, effective fragments".
In Moscow and Tbilisi they understand that relations between them
cannot be more or less complete unless the political destiny of
Mikhail Saakashvili and his team is not determined which has a
highly influential cluster in the parliament and local government,
elective and representational bodies. The National Unity Party is
mostly dominant in the economy, in different public administration
bodies, and most importantly the law-enforcement and security agencies.
The National Unity Party has been injured but not defeated and is
ready for a persistent fight during the presidential campaign. It is
increasingly obvious that not only the United States but also Europe
would be satisfied with a bipartisan system in Georgia, and the current
situation of double power may become chronic, especially if supported
by the West which, like Russia, refrains from abrupt moves in the
"war-of-tug".
Whoever B. Ivanishvili is, both sides would like to demonstrate that
he is their man, especially that the prime minister seriously believes
in the policy of neutrality.
It is hard to imagine a state aspiring to NATO membership build a
policy of neutrality in international relations but the problem is
not the combination of legal norms and real politics. Georgia will
first have to answer the question whether a small state may conduct
a so-called multi-vector policy.
The Russian political circles exaggerate simplicity of decisions
on return of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Georgia. Of course,
everything is possible in the politics of Russia and other great
powers, including "legitimate genocidal actions". If a policy of
review of the balance of forces and areas of influence in a global and
regional scale is implemented, the method of "legitimate genocides"
will become apparent and be practiced largely but for the time being
a slow policy of "remapping" is implemented, and it is necessary to
take into account the actual balance of forces.
Is Georgia ready for concessions in this format of relations? This is
the most complicated issue. Will the upcoming presidential elections
answer this question? Young and promising Georgian politicians and
experts who got a good education, mostly in the United States and
the UK, think that bipartisan or two-clan system is not applicable
to Georgia, even conventionally. Georgia is not big enough, and its
society is not politically and economically self-sufficient where
the clans or groups would stand each other for a long time.
It is an illusion that Georgia has had a multi-party system so
far. In fact, there are a lot of parties and a dominant ruling
party. A bipartisan system is an opportunity of strong and functional
influence of the opposition on the ruling party and a real opportunity
of rotation of the government. In Georgia neither the ruling circles
nor the opposition will agree to it.
If the Georgian Dream Party wins in the presidential election, the
National Unity Party will be annihilated politically because Mikhail
Saakashvili's team is not going to give up power.
Some experts think that the ability of National Unity to resist to
the government is another myth of the Georgian society but there is
another opinion that Georgia will face a civil war. These opinions
are diverse while experienced Georgian politicians present more
unequivocal evaluations - either we, or them. Although, in fact,
it is evidence to an upcoming long-term confrontation.
Igor Muradyan 11:51 16/08/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/politics/view/30709