Opposition faces three interconnected challenges ahead of municipal elections, Archil Gamzardia

Tensions may escalate on Independence Day considering the political climate in Georgia. The opposition has announced another rally for May 26, which takes on added symbolic significance given the national holiday. Simultaneously, statements across the political spectrum about radicalization and polarization are further intensifying public discourse.

Meanwhile, the anti-Western rhetoric increasingly adopted by the ruling Georgian Dream party raises new concerns about the country's foreign policy direction and its relationships with Western partners. Against this backdrop, Front News spoke with Archil Gamzardia, Doctor of Political Philosophy, to understand the meaning of May 26 in the current political context, what scenarios may unfold, and what can be expected from both the opposition and the government. The exchange also addressed the upcoming local elections this autumn, the strategic dilemmas facing the opposition, and the prospects for Georgia's Western future.

Front News: How do you assess the opposition's preparations for May 26? Do we see a coordinated strategy or fragmented steps? What do [opposition representative] Gedevan Popkhadze’s statements reveal about the mood within the opposition spectrum?

Archil Gamzardia: If I’m being honest, I get the sense that the opposition itself doesn’t fully understand what it’s doing or how. Lately, they seem disoriented - like a bird that flies into a room and can’t figure out where to go, crashing into one wall, then another. If the opposition fails to create new content or develop new skills for managing political processes, what can we expect? A repeat of April 9: minor clashes, legal disputes, and ultimately arrests. The same images that have been recycled for years and have become tiresome. Even tragedy can become tedious. Personally, I’ve lost interest. People are tired; they don’t want more confrontation. I believe the public shares this sentiment - it no longer wants to go around in circles. If something new and politically adaptive emerges within the opposition, it will be a novelty. But I don’t have high expectations.

Front News: What kinds of scenarios could unfold on May 26? How high is the risk of provocations? How do you assess the likely response from the government - preventive, forceful, or constructive?

Archil Gamzardia: To be honest, I don’t currently expect either side to initiate anything particularly significant. Most of the opposition continues to emphasize peaceful protest and adheres, for the most part, to that principle. I wouldn’t easily reclassify their actions otherwise - with some exceptions, they remain peaceful.

The government also hasn’t been overly aggressive. The GD knows that applying pressure only leads to greater chaos - chaos that wouldn’t arise without their interference. They escalate tensions when it serves their interests, often to distract from other issues. They thrive in murky waters. Paradoxically, destabilization often benefits certain officials.

A third factor comes into play: if the process begins to challenge the ruling party’s so-called dignity, they will certainly intervene. They need to provide some political “meat” for their voters, so as not to appear weak or unprincipled. For example, their supporters viewed the events of April 9 not as a tactical maneuver, but as a sign of government weakness. So, many scenarios are possible.

Front News: Let’s talk about the local elections. Once again, the opposition faces a strategic dilemma. How do you interpret Nika Melia’s call to clarify who will participate and who won’t? Is a unified opposition strategy even possible? For example, Melia is suggesting this be announced on May 26.

Archil Gamzardia: Yes, that’s a real dilemma, and frankly, I don’t have a clear answer for what the opposition should do. On one hand, we must consider the basic function of political parties - elections are essential for their survival. On the other hand, we have to face the reality of the current political landscape.

Only political parties, unlike many activist groups, possess the resources to engage meaningfully in elections. Therefore, boycotting the elections effectively transforms the party from a political actor into a protest movement, stripping it of one of its key tools.

There's also the argument that participating in elections legitimizes the GD. But I think that’s misguided. That line of reasoning takes us down a long road without producing anything useful. I understand the concern that participation may serve as government propaganda, projecting an image of democratic legitimacy. But that raises a more fundamental question: does the opposition have content that matters for local elections?

They were virtually invisible in the last round of elections. I live part-time in a rural area, and I found their campaigns laughable. Beyond the lack of substance, they were also critically short on human resources. Local elections require concrete, capable individuals. So, the opposition faces three interconnected challenges - lack of content, lack of manpower, and strategic uncertainty. Boycotting the elections will likely cost them more than it gains.

Front News: Is a boycott a powerful form of protest, or merely a convenient scenario for the ruling party? The fact that fewer people turned out this year than last has already caused friction within the opposition. What changed? Did the opposition’s turn toward radicalism backfire?

Archil Gamzardia: Every public campaign needs a certain kind of energy - an emotional or motivational charge. That energy comes from citizens who feel compelled to act. Right now, the guiding principles of the rallies haven’t evolved. This status quo has persisted for months. It needs to be re-energized, but we’ve seen no signs of creativity or adaptation.

The opposition hasn’t found its role. It appears to be part of the process, but in reality, it isn’t. Political activism can be effective - but only if it leads to a tangible political process. The opposition is calling for early elections, which implies they aim to bring a new force to power. That means they must also build credibility - at the very least, avoid damaging their image. In my view, they’ve missed that opportunity.

Front News: What is the public mood? Is it leaning toward protest or toward constructive change? In other words, is the opposition unable to present itself as a real alternative in the coming months? What is the ruling party’s weakest point at this stage? What kind of political developments can we expect this summer?

Archil Gamzardia: The government initially responded passively, but it has since begun to capitalize on the situation. The GD no longer suffers from the anxiety of single-party dominance - they’ve gone too far in normalizing it. They’re not interested in compromise. True compromise requires both sides to forego full control of the outcome. But there has been neither a desire for compromise nor any real space for political negotiation in our context.

Everyone is telling the GD not to expect support from the civilized world - it won’t be in their favor. Domestically, time may work for them, but in terms of foreign policy, the advantage lies with the opposition. Still, the opposition is failing to capitalize on that advantage - they’re letting it slip away.

The opposition may gain a temporary boost from statements by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, but such momentum fades within two or three months. Without concrete developments, that energy will soon dissipate.

By Elza Paposhvili