In recent weeks, leaders of various opposition organizations in Georgia, such as Antisoros and Fairness, have been jailed on unfair accusations of plotting a coup on behalf of Russia.
But the wave of political repression merely reflects President Mikhail Saakashvili's desperate effort to cling to power. With popular dissent growing and opposition forces strengthening, the authorities have sought to control NGOs and strengthen the security forces.
But this will only make mass protests inevitable, ultimately jeopardizing the democratic transition in Georgia that Saakashvili claims to represent.
Saakashvili sees a "Moscow hand" in every challenge to his authority, which could be explained by his government's close alliance with the US.
But the people who were rounded up in the latest raid against the opposition were originally imprisoned by Eduard Shevarnadze's government, which Saakashvili helped depose in Georgia's supposedly democratic "Rose revolution" in 2003.
The latest events clearly indicate that a czarist mentality survived the revolution, reflected in a Byzantine model of political power -- an emperor and his court -- that has as its main vehicle largely unconstrained presidential authority.
Before the security forces targeted the opposition bloc that I represent, supporters of educational reforms were prosecuted, while most of the press is under the influence of the government.
Saakashvili claims that the opposition forces that I represent oppose Western values. But we advocate parliamentarism -- genuine separation of executive and legislative power -- in Georgia. And, in supporting the Western model of parliamentarism, we are on the side of Georgia, not Russia. It is strange that Saakashvili, a graduate of Columbia Law School, fails to see the disparity between his own democratic rhetoric and autocratic actions.
Thus, those of us who value Georgia's historical ties with Russia are called, at best, "archaists," and at worst "enemies of Georgian independence," as if Georgia would become a Russian colony if we ever came to power. But what separates us from Saakashvili is that we understand that history, geography, and economics dictate close ties to Russia.
We simply see no contradiction between that stance and support for Western values. Indeed, even Russia, with all its imperfections, cannot be said to oppose Western values.
The unfortunate paradox in Georgia -- and elsewhere in the post-Soviet world -- is that self-serving pro-Western rhetoric has often led democratic values to be sacrificed in favor of a new dictatorship. When the West actively supports popular revolutions -- as in Georgia and Ukraine -- the newly established power relies on democratic slogans, not democratic behavior.
Shevardnadze, too, was initially viewed as a symbol of post-Soviet Georgian democracy. As a government minister in 1993, however, I was already hearing CIA officials express concern that a "Mafia state" was being created instead.
First with Shevarnadze, and now with Saakashvili, popular disillusionment reflects not rejection of democracy, but frustration with its continuing absence. Saakashvili is evidently mesmerized by the US and the West in general, but what is the point if there is no independent and democratic political process in Georgia today?
And why, then, is sustaining close ties to the US so desirable, while refusing to dismiss Russia as a partner is regarded as being an agent of the Kremlin? Is the US, in contrast to Russia, by definition honest, innocent and high-minded?
There should be no place for such unfortunate double standards. Regardless of what the Saakashvili government claims about his opponents, our political orientation is not pro-Russian, but pro-Georgian. We believe that Georgia should pursue its own interests, which it may share with Europe, Russia or the US, but which are nonetheless our own. We have no interest in merely executing US policy, or in basing Georgia's foreign and domestic policy solely on distancing the country from Russia, as Saakashvili has done.
Thus, pro-Georgian politics should not countenance nationalism. Nowadays, some of our politicians have embraced the slogan "Georgia for Georgians." But nationalism suggests the lack of a coherent conception of Georgia's interests. Georgia's tradition as a multinational, tolerant state, which has been weakened in the last 15 years, must be reinvigorated, because we have no need for enemies against which to define ourselves.
A strong relationship with Russia need not come at the expense of relations with the US and the West, and vice versa. Georgia should be neither pro-Russian nor pro-US. It is a small, poor country that desperately needs stability and economic development. Its model should not be Palestine and permanent battle, but Switzerland and permanent prosperity.
Igor Giorgadze is the head of the bloc of opposition political parties in Georgia.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS