EurasiaNet Civil Society - Georgia: Opposition's Criticism of West Only Goes So Far

CIVIL SOCIETY

GEORGIA: OPPOSITION’S CRITICISM OF WEST ONLY GOES SO FAR
Nina Akhmeteli 1/18/08

Despite sharp severe criticism of international observers’ evaluation of Georgia’s January 5 vote, opposition leaders generally retain a Western orientation, many local political analysts believe.

At first glance, the reactions of opposition leaders could create an impression that they have grown disillusioned with the West, and are ready to switch allegiances. For example, presidential candidate and New Rights Party leader Davit Gamkrelidze, who gained about 4 percent of the vote, assailed international observers for their "ostrich position." Meanwhile, Conservative Party parliamentarian Zviad Dzidziguri, a senior supporter of lead opposition candidate Levan Gachechiladze, claimed that some observers in the central Georgian region of Imereti were too inebriated to follow the vote count process.

Other opposition members, while no less critical, have been more moderate in their public comments. Former Foreign Minister Salome Zourabichvili, who was billed as the Gachechiladze coalition’s pick for prime minister, described as not fair the accusation that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe supported rigged elections.

"The OSCE didn’t declare openly that the elections were fraudulent, but they pointed out a whole series of election violations," Zourabichvili said. Abuse of administrative resources and a lack of balanced media coverage were among the problem areas cited by the OSCE report. [For details, see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In large part, commentators say, it comes down to a question of perception. For opposition members who believe the January 5 vote was rigged, statements by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s election observation mission that the election largely followed democratic standards were not easy to reconcile with the international community’s image among Georgians as a defender of "justice and democracy," commented expert Gia Khukhashvili.

But the barbs, Khukhashvili added, only go so far. Apart from Irina Sarishvili, all presidential candidates have called for further integration with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Union. Little sign exists that that position will change, Khukhashvili said. "I think the opposition will mainly keep to its pro-Western orientation," he commented.

Other experts concur with Khukhashvili’s view. With more than 70 percent of the population expressing support in the January 5 plebiscite for Georgia joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an about-face in the opposition’s foreign policy priorities is not likely, noted Dr. Zurab Abashidze, a board member of the Georgian Council on Foreign Relations.

"The main vector for the opposition is Euro-Atlantic integration, and this strategy won’t change because there are simply no alternatives to NATO," said Abashidze.

Nonetheless, personal ties � always key in Georgian domestic politics � are widely seen as having influenced the West’s response to the vote.

As have other coalition members, Zourabichvili, has blamed US Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza for allowing his personal relations with incumbent President Mikheil Saakashvili to get in the way of a harsher assessment of the vote’s shortcomings. A recent exhibit of allegedly fraudulent election protocols put on by the Gachechiladze coalition was, in fact, dedicated to the American diplomat, who will be attending Saakashvili’s January 20 inauguration

"Matthew Bryza symbolizes America for the Georgian people," commented Shalva Pichkhadze, the opposition-friendly head of the non-governmental organization Georgia for NATO. "I think if US officials had been more moderate in their assessments of the Georgian elections, we would not have seen such anti-American reactions in Georgia."

The January 7 statement issued by the US Department of State said that the vote was "in essence consistent with most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections." It describes the election as "the first genuinely competitive presidential election in Georgia," but urges the government to investigate alleged violations and "to work with all political forces" on rectifying problems before spring parliamentary elections in the spring.

The West’s perception of Saakashvili as the sole viable defender of Georgia’s stability has prompted them to think that there are no other alternatives, Zourabichvili and Pichkhadze both contend.

The opposition coalition hopes that a demonstration slotted to be held in Tbilisi on Georgia’s January 20 inauguration day will broaden that alleged perception. "On January 20, we want to show to the whole world that there is Saakashvili and his military parade with a few foreigners on one side, and the [Georgian] population on the other," commented Zourabichvili

Political analyst Ghia Nodia, though, contends that the opposition’s show of emotion to date will do little to dampen doubts about their side’s ability to represent Georgia effectively on the world stage. "Such radical statements after the elections and harsh criticism towards the international community will play against the opposition because in such a country as Georgia, the international community is a collaborator and a safeguard for the opposition," said Nodia.

Editor�s Note: Nina Akhmeteli is a freelance reporter based in Tbilisi.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.