The protest movement in Georgia sparked by the Georgian Dream government’s decision last year to halt EU integration until 2028 shows no signs of slowing down. Despite increased fines and arrests, the opposition and civil society remain steadfast in their resistance. The government, however, insists that these demonstrations do not reflect the sentiments of a significant portion of the population and refuses to consider calls for an election rerun.
The opposition continues its fight. On February 25, another protest rally took place, with demonstrators reiterating their demands. Activists predict that March will be even more politically intense. At the same time, the Government is tightening regulations, demonstrating its unwillingness to back down.
What is the current political climate in Georgia, and what impact can continued protests have? Public communications specialist Archil Gamzardia shares his insights with Front News.
– The protest movement is ongoing, with a major rally held on February 25 and further demonstrations planned for March. The government claims these protests represent only a small fraction of the population and that the opposition cannot even mobilize 1% of its voters on the streets. What significance do these protests hold for the country’s political landscape?
– The persistence of these protests clearly reflects the sentiments of a significant segment of society. Public discontent is evident in the content and nature of the demonstrations. Assessing public sentiment should not be reduced to simply counting the number of people on the streets. The actual number of those supporting the protests is likely much higher.
Even in democratic states, dissatisfaction exists. When a portion of the population feels insecure or threatened, protests become a tool to challenge the government. In functional democracies, such movements push governments to engage and seek compromises. In European countries, demonstrations often yield tangible results, prompting authorities to take action. However, in more authoritarian settings, protests turn into a direct confrontation between the people and the government rather than a catalyst for dialogue and reform.
– While political demands are voiced at these protests, some government supporters and even opposition-minded citizens question why political leaders are not more actively involved. How can opposition parties strengthen the movement and make it more impactful? The government argues that with half a million supporters, they cannot call early elections just because a few thousand protestors demand it.
– This is indeed a critical issue. Civic activism plays an important role in the political process, but it cannot achieve political change on its own. Without strong political leadership, civic protests remain incomplete. Politicians must integrate civic activism into a broader political strategy rather than merely participating in protests as activists themselves.
One of the fundamental problems in Georgia is that opposition leaders have lost their political effectiveness. They must go beyond activism and translate public discontent into tangible political action. They need to build trust, strengthen their reputation, and engage both with the international community and the Georgian public. Protests naturally bring forth new political figures, but existing leaders must work to amplify their roles.
Historically, leaders like [former President] Mikheil Saakashvili and [late Prime Minister] Zurab Zhvania successfully transitioned from activism to political leadership, rallying significant public support. In contrast, today’s opposition struggles to earn public trust. Regardless of concerns over electoral fraud, the reality is that many votes cast in the October 2024 elections were against the ruling party rather than in favor of the opposition. This highlights the broader crisis within opposition parties.
– What do you think about calls for a unified opposition? Recently, Giorgi Vashadze, leader of Strategy Agmashenebeli, has advocated for a grand coalition led by the fifth president, Salome Zourabichvili. Could this be a solution to the current crisis?
– We have seen that the United National Movement [the former ruling party in power between 2004-2012] was only defeated when it faced a unified political front. In a highly polarized society like ours, consolidating opposition forces could be more effective than scattering votes across multiple parties. However, the challenge lies in whether opposition leaders are willing to set aside personal ambitions for the greater good.
Unity will only be possible if the political landscape undergoes changes – specifically, if individuals who are easy targets for government propaganda step aside in favor of new, less controversial figures.
In Georgia’s modern history, such political unity has been achieved only twice: under Mikheil Saakashvili in 2003 and Bidzina Ivanishvili [the founder and honorary chair of the GD] in 2012. In both instances, a clear leader emerged to unite the opposition. Currently, opposition parties argue that leadership should be decentralized, but political movements require strong leaders to be effective. The lack of such figures is a major weakness of today’s opposition.
– The opposition is also fighting on the international stage, pushing for increased Western sanctions against the government. However, the new US administration appears to be taking a different approach. Georgia even co-sponsored a US-backed UN resolution on Ukraine. Is the ruling Georgian Dream party trying to escape Western isolation by aligning itself with the new US administration?
– While there are similarities between the rhetoric of the Georgian Dream and Trump, particularly on Ukraine, I do not believe the new US administration currently considers Georgia a priority. Trump is focused on broader global issues, and at this stage, Georgia ranks relatively low in importance.
Yes, Georgia is strategically significant, but if it were a priority for the Trump administration, we would have seen a response by now.
– Some argue that this situation actually benefits the Georgian Dream and Bidzina Ivanishvili. If Georgia is not a priority for the US, the ruling party can continue consolidating power without external pressure. Do you agree?
– I disagree. The Georgian government’s decision to co-sponsor the US-backed UN resolution was a calculated move to gain attention. They want to be acknowledged by the new administration. So far, the US government’s stance, shaped under Biden, remains unchanged. The continued silence of US officials suggests that this policy will persist. In this context, the lack of attention from Washington is more damaging to the Georgian Dream than beneficial.
The ruling party craves international recognition. If a high-ranking US official were to comment on Georgia, even negatively, Georgian Dream could use that as a propaganda tool. However, if the silence continues, it weakens their standing. If Trump’s administration eventually makes a statement supporting the Georgian government and then disengages, that would be an ideal scenario for them. But prolonged indifference from the US is not in Ivanishvili’s interests.
– The country seems to be in a political limbo. The US administration remains silent, and the European Union is not altering its stance. What is the current reality for Georgia?
– The government has been moving in this direction for years. If you analyze former Prime Minister Garibashvili’s statements and diplomatic moves – including visits to Aliyev, Erdogan, and other regional leaders – it becomes clear that Georgian Dream has been gradually distancing itself from the West. They sought alliances with authoritarian states to replace Western partnerships.
Ultimately, the government hoped the EU would accept Georgia under similar terms to those granted to more authoritarian regimes. When this failed, they began seeking alternative alliances. Today, Georgian Dream is disengaging from the democratic world and aligning itself with authoritarian governments. However, they fail to recognize that leaders like Aliyev and Erdogan operate at a much more sophisticated level. Imitating their governance style will not be as simple as they assume.
Interview conducted by Elza Paposhvili.
