Demonstrations in Georgia: A Challenge for Democracy
Georgia is once more in the global spotlight, with tens of thousands rallying in Tbilisi as opposition-led protests unfold. The turmoil centers on the elected government's choice to suspend talks on European Union membership, a decision it defends as being in the national interest but that has faced strong opposition criticism. Intensifying the situation, President Salome Zourabichvili refuses to resign at the conclusion of her legal term, asserting that the parliament is illegitimate, yet failing to provide credible evidence for her assertion.
The situation prompts urgent inquiries into the essence of democracy and the intricate balance between honoring electoral results and addressing public unrest. Are these protests a true pursuit of democratic values, or merely an attempt by a vocal minority to challenge the majority's decision?
The Majority’s Mandate
In the October elections, the Georgian Dream party won a decisive mandate, advocating stability and pragmatism in an unstable geopolitical climate. Their controversial decision to halt EU membership talks aligns with their policy platform. Critics argue it leans Georgia toward Russia, a historical rival, while supporters believe it reflects a necessary reassessment of national priorities amid growing concerns about the costs and conditions of EU integration.
Yet, opposition forces are challenging this government’s legitimacy, with their grievances amplified by external influences. Western governments, quick to support the protests, have portrayed them as a fight for democracy. However, this narrative often ignores a key democratic principle: the results of free and fair elections must be respected, even when they bring inconvenient outcomes.
A President Challenging the Constitution
President Zourabichvili’s decision to stay in office beyond her legal term has heightened the polarization. By labeling the parliament illegitimate without substantial evidence, she has undermined constitutional norms and empowered the opposition. Her actions raise serious concerns about eroding institutional stability at a time when Georgia can ill afford it.
The president’s defiance, alongside her alignment with protesters, has increased tensions rather than promoting unity. Her role should be to mediate and uphold the constitution, yet her approach seems to prioritize political interests over institutional integrity.
Hypocrisy on the International Stage
The international response has been swift and problematic. Western nations, particularly the United States and EU member states, have criticized the Georgian government and backed the opposition. Yet, these same nations deal with documented issues in their own electoral systems—gerrymandering, voter suppression, and contested results. This raises an uncomfortable question: what moral authority do these governments have to lecture Georgia on democratic practices?
Western criticism risks appearing less about defending democracy and more about advancing geopolitical interests. Framing Georgia’s EU membership as an ideological battleground reflects a broader trend of international intrusion, where sovereignty is often secondary to strategic goals.
A Way Forward
For Georgia, the way forward must be based on respecting its democratic institutions. The government, with its electoral mandate, has the right to govern and make policy decisions. Opposition voices have every right to protest, but their actions must remain within legal bounds and avoid destabilization. The president must also respect the constitution and vacate her office at the end of her term to maintain the integrity of the nation’s political system.
For the international community, the lesson is clear: supporting democracy means respecting the choices of sovereign nations, even when they don’t align with external agendas. Constructive dialogue and genuine collaboration—not coercion or selective outrage—are essential for fostering stability and progress.
Georgia stands at a crossroads. It can either carve its own path, guided by the will of its people, or risk becoming a pawn in global power struggles. The choice is its own to make, and respecting that choice is the truest test of democracy.
The Majority’s Mandate
In the October elections, the Georgian Dream party won a decisive mandate, advocating stability and pragmatism in an unstable geopolitical climate. Their controversial decision to halt EU membership talks aligns with their policy platform. Critics argue it leans Georgia toward Russia, a historical rival, while supporters believe it reflects a necessary reassessment of national priorities amid growing concerns about the costs and conditions of EU integration.
Yet, opposition forces are challenging this government’s legitimacy, with their grievances amplified by external influences. Western governments, quick to support the protests, have portrayed them as a fight for democracy. However, this narrative often ignores a key democratic principle: the results of free and fair elections must be respected, even when they bring inconvenient outcomes.
A President Challenging the Constitution
President Zourabichvili’s decision to stay in office beyond her legal term has heightened the polarization. By labeling the parliament illegitimate without substantial evidence, she has undermined constitutional norms and empowered the opposition. Her actions raise serious concerns about eroding institutional stability at a time when Georgia can ill afford it.
The president’s defiance, alongside her alignment with protesters, has increased tensions rather than promoting unity. Her role should be to mediate and uphold the constitution, yet her approach seems to prioritize political interests over institutional integrity.
Hypocrisy on the International Stage
The international response has been swift and problematic. Western nations, particularly the United States and EU member states, have criticized the Georgian government and backed the opposition. Yet, these same nations deal with documented issues in their own electoral systems—gerrymandering, voter suppression, and contested results. This raises an uncomfortable question: what moral authority do these governments have to lecture Georgia on democratic practices?
Western criticism risks appearing less about defending democracy and more about advancing geopolitical interests. Framing Georgia’s EU membership as an ideological battleground reflects a broader trend of international intrusion, where sovereignty is often secondary to strategic goals.
A Way Forward
For Georgia, the way forward must be based on respecting its democratic institutions. The government, with its electoral mandate, has the right to govern and make policy decisions. Opposition voices have every right to protest, but their actions must remain within legal bounds and avoid destabilization. The president must also respect the constitution and vacate her office at the end of her term to maintain the integrity of the nation’s political system.
For the international community, the lesson is clear: supporting democracy means respecting the choices of sovereign nations, even when they don’t align with external agendas. Constructive dialogue and genuine collaboration—not coercion or selective outrage—are essential for fostering stability and progress.
Georgia stands at a crossroads. It can either carve its own path, guided by the will of its people, or risk becoming a pawn in global power struggles. The choice is its own to make, and respecting that choice is the truest test of democracy.
