Government favors full opposition election boycott, Conflictologist Paata Zakareishvili

Conflictologist Paata Zakareishvili assesses the government’s lawsuits against critical activists and journalists not only as acts of political repression but also as a calculated message to the as-yet silent segment of society. In an interview with Front News, Zakareishvili discusses pre-election tactics ahead of the municipal vote, the politicized role of the judiciary, strategic missteps by the opposition, and the consolidation of power by Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze.

– Mr. Paata, the ruling party has sued several individuals who made offensive remarks about them on social media or allegedly harassed Georgian Dream MPs. Both journalists and civil activists have been summoned to court. How do you interpret this process, and what is the government trying to achieve?

These actions are not primarily aimed at the individuals being summoned to court. Those people are already active; if they were afraid, they wouldn’t be taking these steps in the first place. The real goal is to intimidate the less active, “silent” part of the population. The government is trying to send a clear signal: criticism will not be tolerated. It’s a classic tactic - those who dare to speak out will be punished. The aim is to suppress any form of dissent and silence critical voices.

– Can these moves be considered part of a broader pre-election strategy?

Absolutely. The logic of these actions fits squarely within the pre-election framework. The government is trying to clear the field of criticism so that no uncomfortable questions are raised by voters. Right now, they face a difficult foreign policy environment - relations with the West have not improved, and there's no sign of a reset with the US. On the contrary, criticism from Europe is intensifying. In this context, they want to minimize critical voices, even those coming from their own electorate.

– Lately, the courts have become a battleground for both the government and the opposition. What message does this send to society, and what kind of political process are we witnessing?

The government is trying to destroy the "middle link" - the segment of society that clearly understands the real threats we're facing and has the potential to influence others. For many government voters, things like social stability, assistance, jobs, and family peace matter most. They may not be loyal GD supporters, but they still expect some benefits. The government is applying pressure to prevent critical views from reaching this group.

If trials are marked by confrontation, aggression, and insults, the message is simple: “We are not ashamed of anything, and we’ll take on anyone.” It becomes a battle over who shapes public opinion more effectively.

– Following [Interior Minister Vakhtang] Gomelauri’s departure, there have been personnel changes in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Do these changes serve to purge sanctioned officials from state institutions or to consolidate Kobakhidze’s power?

I see this more as a full transfer of power to Kobakhidze. If the dismissal of sanctioned individuals were truly a matter of principle, then sanctioned judges should also be removed. But as we can see, people like [controversial judges] Murusidze, Chinchaladze, and others remain untouched. Why? Because the government believes they are professionals who can’t easily be replaced.

So, two things are happening simultaneously: on one hand, it’s a hypocritical gesture - removing certain sanctioned individuals for appearance’s sake; on the other, it’s about giving Kobakhidze full carte blanche. [Bidzina] Ivanishvili has seen that Kobakhidze isn’t just loyal - he’s also ruthlessly effective in implementing radical laws, whether it’s the Transparency Law, the Grants Law, or anything else. It seems [former PM Irakli] Garibashvili had some human limits; Kobakhidze does not. He will do anything to maintain power, and Ivanishvili values that.

– As the GD formulates its election strategy, which scenario is most advantageous to them - opposition boycott, partial participation, or full participation as a united opposition front?

The most desirable scenario for the GD is a complete opposition boycott. The most undesirable is full opposition participation, particularly with a united front, which would pose serious challenges for them in large cities. The elections are taking place across 64 municipalities, and manipulating results on that scale carries significant risk.

They need a guarantee of legitimacy, and ironically, sanctions don’t hurt them directly - they impact their voters, which worries them. In this situation, they may try to create an artificial opposition - a group that formally participates just to declare the elections valid. And if anyone believes that officials in Brussels or Washington will thoroughly investigate whether the opposition was genuine or not - they are deeply mistaken. The GD will simply claim: “The people came, the opposition participated, and we won.”

That’s why the real opposition must be smart enough not to allow this scenario to unfold. They must participate in the elections - not for the sake of formality, but to engage in real competition, especially in major urban centers where they have a real chance to win.

By Elza Paposhvili