SOME OF GEORGIA’S PROBLEMS ARE ITS OWN CREATION
The Messenger, Georgia
Nov 27 2006
Friday saw the third anniversary of the Rose Revolution, and the event
was marked in Tbilisi with pomp and circumstance, monuments dedicated,
arias sung and folk dance performed, and the Estonian and Ukrainian
presidents arriving to show support.
However, there were also some unpleasant surprises on November 23,
which is also the Saints day of Georgia’s patron St. George. Berlin
based Transparency International (TI) issued a stinger of a report,
which lambastes the political system established after the revolution,
going so far as to say it "has been likened" with Putin’s Russia,
and even the Central Asian states-none of which are known for being
‘beacons of democracy’. As if this wasn’t bad enough, the International
Crisis Group (ICG), an international conflict prevention organisation
based in Brussels, poured cold water on Georgia’s civil integration
achievements.
The TI report suggests that, rather than becoming a ‘French style’
semi presidential system, with a president and an autonomous prime
minister, it has in effect created a super presidential system. It
says that while everybody welcomed the structural change that put a
prime minister at the head of a cabinet of ministers, in reality there
is no checks to the president’s authority. It must make difficult
reading for the government (who are a major German charm offensive
in anticipation of the upcoming German presidency of the EU), and it
certainly doesn’t mice its words. It even suggests that certain things
might have been better in the bad old days of Shevardnadze-almost
blasphemous in Georgia today. Parliament is said to be "at the mercy"
of the president, even a "presidential body" or a "rubber stamp". It
points out that the constitutional amendments of 2004, which handed
the president the right to veto and introduce legislation, disband
parliament and more, was what Shevardnadze had tried to initiate in
1998, but was prevented from doing by the very young reformers that
now make up much of the government.
The "personalisation" of power is certainly a worrying trend, and we
can only hope decision makers take heed of the conclusions drawn by
TI, but the ICG report makes for equally disconcerting reading. The
ICG say that Tbilisi has "done little" to integrate Georgia’s large
Armenian and Azeri minorities-which constitute over 12 percent of
the population-and that more attention must be paid to address their
grievances if Georgia "is to avoid further conflict".
The figures speak for themselves: in the predominantly Armenian
populated district of Akhalkalaki-due to electoral districts created
in Tbilisi-there is one local government representative for every
670 Georgian inhabitants, and one for every 3382 Armenians. There
are five Armenian and three Azeri MPs, therefore over 12 percent of
the population is represented by just over 3 percent of MPs. There
are no Azeris working in the presidential administration, the highest
ranking Armenian is the deputy energy minister. The ICG is a master of
understatement when it calls Georgia’s ministry for civil integration
"weak", it has a paltry budget of just over USD 100 000.
These reports, taken together, point to some of the fundamental
failures and omissions in the strategy of the new government:
coming to power on a platform of freedom and democracy, it has
created a system where there are fewer checks and balances, and
hobbled parliament. Placing territorial integrity at the core of its
platform, it has done very little to reach out to the two biggest
ethnic minorities in Georgia, who have not made any territorial
demands on Tbilisi.
The successes of the last three years must be underpinned by a
system that is democratic and free enough in its fabric to be able to
withstand potential crises that lie ahead, and Georgia must transform
itself into a nation where ethnicity is no longer the trump card if
it is ever to peacefully return the secessionist territories.