EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Opposition Scoffs as Shevardnazde Sharply Defends Power

EURASIA INSIGHT

OPPOSITION SCOFFS AS SHEVARDNAZDE SHARPLY DEFENDS POWER
Irakly Areshidze 10/18/02

Political tension is again building in Georgia. In a recent state-of-the-nation President Eduard Shevardnadze sought to defend himself from mounting criticism over his handling of both foreign and domestic policy. Government opponents assert that the speech showed Shevardnadze to be "detached" from political reality.

Shevardnadze, who has seen his political popularity plummet in recent months, delivered his State of the Nation address on October 11. In it he provided a vigorous defense of his record during his decade in power. In a stark rebuke to his message, however, over 70 opposition MPs walked out of the chamber in protest of the address, which lasted for over two hours. While most analysts expected criticism of the speech by opposition politicians during the parliamentary debate that was to follow the address, few could have predicted this walkout.

Some observers believe the timing and the scope of the address are indicators that Shevardnadze is concerned about his political survival. It usually takes place in the spring and encountered several delays this year. Shevardnadze abandoned his established practice of discussing the previous 12 months in the address, instead giving an account of his ten-year rule. According to some analysts, Shevardnadze sought to paint a broad picture in an attempt to disarm some of his fiercest critics, many of whom were once his political allies.

"This move was clearly intended to undermine criticism from his former allies, Zurab Zhvania and Mikhail Saakashvili," said Zviad Bokuchava, one-time aide to former president Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Saakashvili and Zhvania, former influential leaders of the pro-presidential Citizens Union of Georgia (CUG) Party, split with the president in 2001. "By giving an account of his entire presidency, Shevardnadze was in a position to spread the blame for various problems that have arisen to these individuals as well," says Bokuchava.

Shevardnadze focused much of his speech on what he termed his successes, including consolidation of the Georgian state, development of democratic institutions and implementation of market reforms. However, he did not touch on many problematic issues that have arisen during his tenure. He likewise did not directly address his plunging popularity rating among Georgians, especially Tbilisi residents. Many citizens blame Shevardnadze for the nation’s economic hardship. In this context, some opposition legislators were particularly disappointed by Shevardnadze’s praise of State Minister Avtandil Jorbenadze, who they feel has spent his 10 months in office rebuilding the defunct CUG party while doing little to solve the current year’s 110 million Lari ($50 million US) budget deficit.

In response, representatives of five opposition factions, including one led by long-time Shevardnadze loyalist Vazha Lortkipanidze, announced that they would walk out. Speaking for the five, David Gamkrelidze, the leader of the New Rights Party, approached a microphone and told Shevardnadze: "Your address convinced us that you have completely detached yourself from the people and country’s problems. Therefore, we have decided not to participate in political debates and leave this hall."

Gamkrelidze remained combative after the walkout. "The two and a half-hour address [to the Parliament] was identical to his past speeches," Gamkrelidze told EurasiaNet. "No one denies that the president has achievements. However, the president ignored the severe political and economic conditions in the country. Moreover, he said nothing about how the country should work its way out of the current situation."

Gigi Tsereteli, a Zhvania ally who serves as Deputy Parliament Speaker, backed Gamkrelidze even as he acknowledged the walkout’s repercussions. "This was the logical conclusion [after] the thoughts expressed in the president’s remarks," he told EurasiaNet

In light of Georgia’s ongoing "governance, corruption, and budgetary problems," the lawmaker continued, "it is natural that there will be unhappiness when there is more talk about successes than about these problems, when there is an inadequate assessment of the budget."

Protesting MPs also may have detected an effort to reduce their influence in Shevardnadze’s remarks. Most analysts found the fact that Gamkrelidze and Lortkipanidze were among those walking out to be particularly striking, since these politicians have generally shied away from Saakashvili’s radical populism and have not echoed his calls for prompt elections. They have also had an uneasy relationship with Zhvania. But Shevardnadze’s stridency may have led these factions to defend parliament as a whole. "The focus was on limiting the parliament’s role, and on expanding the role of the state minister, who represents a political party," said Tsereteli. "The opposition’s move was something new, and we cannot forget that it [the walk-out] was staged by those forces that are generally regarded as being progressive forces in the country."

This assessment may indicate that groups outside the CUG already consider Shevardnadze politically spent. "The whole incident, especially New Rights’ move, has to be understood in the framework of the succession struggle," says Tina Danelia, project coordinator of a Tbilisi think tank called the Partnership for Social Initiatives. "Only [Gamkrelidze’s] New Rights represent real power, and understandably, its relationship with the president is different than that of other forces." In June 2002’s local elections, Danelia notes, New Rights collected seven times as many votes as the Zhvania-Saakashvili coalition. "Zhvania benefited from his association with the New Rights, and he is pushing to create a political union with it."

The real target of Gamkrelizde’s ire may be Jorbenadze, who may be seen as a potential rival in a possible presidential succession struggle. According to Danelia, Jorbenadze "is moving to take center stage in the succession struggle through a new ally � Moscow � by bringing the [Georgian] Socialist Party’s leader, Vakhtang Rcheulishvili under his wing. If this is true, then this would be particularly unacceptable for Gamkrelidze, who is extremely pro-Western."

By forcefully protesting against Shevardnadze, Gamkrelidze is aligning himself with Zhvania’s calls for reform. "We wanted a united front to show that opposition can work together," said Gamkrelidze’s parliamentary deputy Pikria Chikhradze. "However, it was in Zhvania’s interest to be seen with us, because this helps legitimize his protests. We could have done many more things independently."

Editor�s Note: Irakly Areshidze is a Visiting Fellow at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Johns-Hopkins-SAIS. The views in this piece are his and not those of the institutions with which he is affiliated.

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.