Former presidential adviser questions legitimacy of current presidency

One year after leaving the presidential administration under Salome Zourabichvili, former adviser on disability issues Simon Petridisi has publicly questioned the legitimacy of the presidency, arguing that “true legitimacy cannot exist when decisions are driven by personal or partisan interests.”

In a post on social media, Petridisi said that his experience since resigning from his position at the Presidential Palace has clarified for him that legitimacy is not derived from titles or rhetoric, but from tangible service to society.

“Legitimacy is not measured by words or status. It is measured by outcomes, by the weight of actions and their impact on people,” he wrote, adding that leadership truth is revealed through deeds rather than declarations.

Petridisi further said he left his advisory role a year ago and now works independently abroad, describing his decision as a choice rooted in freedom and ethical responsibility rather than formal position. “Freedom comes from within, not from a government office,” he wrote.

Referring to the ongoing public debate over the legitimacy of current president Mikheil Kavelashvili, Petridisi highlighted what he described as a lack of engagement with people with disabilities. According to him, over the past year the president has not held a single meeting with persons with disabilities or their family members, a group he noted numbers more than half a million people.

He also criticised the president’s activities as being limited to partisan interests and what he called harsh public statements aimed at appealing to specific political figures, rather than addressing broader social needs.

“These facts raise serious questions,” Petridisi wrote, arguing that legitimacy must be assessed by whether an institution serves society, protects vulnerable groups, and delivers real results. “Justice is measured by how a society cares for its most vulnerable.”

He also noted that “genuine legitimacy cannot exist when decisions are made to satisfy personal interests, party goals, or prestige.” He called on the public to judge leadership not by promises or declarations, but by concrete actions and measurable care for people.

“Only this defines what is ethical, right, and truly effective leadership,” he concluded.