By Nodar Ladaria, Professor, Cultural Studies, Ilia Chavchavadze University, Tbilisi, Georgia
February 11, 2008

Parliament is not the place for the discussions! – Boris Grizlov, Member, State Duma, Russian Federation

The above words, which have been placed as an epigraph, were uttered during one of the Sessions of the Russian Duma – the dictum that undoubtedly elicits smile, but proceeding from the understanding that every parliament is created in accordance with the principles of representative democracy and it is a reflection of the whole society, it turns out that Grislov’s comic paradox applies to the Georgian political space as well…

By the end of the last year, when President Saakashvili’s first presidential term came to a close, the Georgian mass media dished up the following conclusion: there is no political discussion in Georgia. This point of view has been often used to underscore the general characteristics in the relations between Georgia’s political leadership and its society. At times, it was directly made clear that the ruling political elite in Georgia had significantly limited the public political discussions in the media. The political leadership had refused also to participate in the TV programs, which had surprisingly continued to be on air and survived their closure – all indications that Georgia’s political leadership has practically boycotted its mass media (example, Imedi TV).

In order to explain the meaning of this conclusion, especially to understand the significance of the attitude of mind towards the developing events over the past moths, it would be useful to consider the following two enlightening examples:
 

1. When the topic of the discussion was about to play into the hands of the leading Georgian politicians, the different representatives of the Georgian leadership would often express the following motivation: in the atmosphere of the poorly prepared TV host and in the presence of an unqualified counterpart any discussion would be a losing game, as long as the viewers would anyway ascertain as to which speaker was right.
2. To explain the protest rallies in November, the government officials alluded to the following justification: the growth of the macro-economic indicator naturally instills in the people enhancing expectations and in case of their disappointment their frustration level is increasing. Since almost all rapidly developing countries are no novice to the mass protest rallies, Georgia is no exception.

This time our attention is focused not on the concrete content of these assumptions, but one shared aspect: one bluntly puts forward and the other vaguely alludes to the same postulate: people are endowed with the almost inherent ability to independently identify the potential of the present reality to improve their plight.

Should we decide to be guided by this kind of logic, we are likely to get to the following conclusion: there were not large rallies of protests without serious and notorious reason of rigging the elections in Shevardnadze’s Georgia that it was evident for everyone as to what was realistic to demand and what was futile to ask for within the political and economic reality of that time.

This very logic had defined the main slogan of Saakashvili’s Presidential campaign – “Georgia without Poverty”. Georgia’s political leadership offers the following argument: the Georgian people have fairly evaluated our created potential and took a right guess that under the circumstances it was unacceptable to allow the situation to remain unchanged.

Notwithstanding its logical succession, this matter has one flaw: during the Presidential campaign the slogan had failed to ensure the attraction of a new, not yet realized support, but rather it consolidated the choice of the old-time supporters, who might have hoped for the drastic change in their lives by dint of the imprinted words “Georgia without poverty”, being devoid of any inner resource or experience to independently analyze what did reality had in store for them. This category of people had already been Saakashvili’s potential supporters and remained unchanged during the elections.

This time our attention is focused not on the concrete content of these assumptions, but one shared aspect: one bluntly puts forward and the other vaguely alludes to the same postulate: people are endowed with the almost inherent ability to independently identify the potential of the present reality to improve their plight.

There is a similar situation in the opposing camp. The well planned political tensions during the last year came into fruition on November 2, making a strong resolve to shore up the opposition. The following trend has come into the forefront after the past elections: Georgia’s political leaders had ceased their efforts to fill in their ranks with the supporters by those who had opposed the potential of the most radical core of the society, just like any manifesto or memorandum which contributes to the formations of its own political demands but helps demonstrate their neglect on the part of Georgia’s leadership. Each round of the negotiations is not set out to reach a consensus, but is designed to to put the situation in the stalemate. It is crystal clear that without having taking into account the important foreign policy factors, the strategic goal for the opposition is just taking over the power. And the tactical way to this objective - the constant demonstration of the uncompromising position on the part of the opponent’s wing.

Notwithstanding the clearly visible polarization, a somewhat contained part of the population remains isolated from this process. The large turnout during the elections was the outcome of not by the well organized pre-election campaign of the rivaling groups and the effective political discussions, but the manipulation of almost scandalous matters, triggering the hysterical attitude. One can be certain that the essence of the past elections was the outside expressionism not the rational feeling, not the national reasoning.

As for the post election dispute, it does not bear any resemblance of a discussion either. The street activities organized by the opposition and the concessions made by the Government do not differ much from each other, Neither of these phenomena are not accompanied by the rational revision of the problems and their public coverage including suggestions as to how best the country can cope with them. There is one political importance in all of these developments. Get your opponent make a mistake and then rush to cover it in the media to discredit the rival.

Under the circumstances, the both parties get isolated and bogged down in their own discourses, losing the necessary recourse for dialogue and useful exchange. The fact that the present leadership is far ahead of its inexperienced and politically naive rivals, can in no way be considered as a big advantage in the long run.

In the future period of time no effort must be spared to make Georgia a modern and a strong nation. In order to accomplish this indispensible change, we must in no way forget that the necessary pre-requisite for the successful sale of the merchandise in the market, is not just its good quality, but the appropriate and adequate advertisement.