Repost from EurasiaNet: January 29, 2003
Two key Georgian opposition figures, Mikhail Saakashvili and Zurab Zhvania, have announced an ambitious plan to forge a broad opposition alliance for the fall 2003 parliamentary elections.
This partnership attempt could heavily influence the electoral strategies for both the opposition and for President Eduard Shevardnadze. The challenges involved in creating the opposition alliance, though, are significant, and some analysts already caution that they may prove insurmountable.
Saakashvili heads the radical New National Movement and Zhvania leads the more-moderate United Democrats. Both men were once Shevardnadze allies who occupied influential political posts – Saakashvili serving as justice minister and Zhvania as parliament speaker. Both eventually split with Shevardnadze. [For additional information see the EurasiaNet Opposition Reports].
Analysts say that when they operated as radical reformers within Shevardnadze’s power base, the Citizens Union of Georgia party (CUG), Zhvania generally coordinated his positions to Saakashvili’s. But as their ambitions grew, the two men followed divergent paths. Saakashvili tried for a clean break with the president, while Zhvania was more willing to keep open a channel of communication with Shevardnadze.
Saakashvili formed the New National Movement relatively early in 2001, allying progressive elements of the CUG with smaller radical nationalist and radical reformer parties. Rallying under the slogan of “Georgia without Shevardnadze,” Saakashvili gained a parliamentary seat in October 2001 and assembled a slate for the June 2002 Tbilisi local elections. Zhvania broke from the ruling party during October 2001 street protests [For background see the Eurasia Insight archives]. The move helped precipitate a government overhaul. His attempts to wrestle the CUG away from Shevardnadze supporters failed, and he had to run under the ticket of a minor political party in June 2002 local elections. The hastily assembled United Democrats team managed, however, to clear the 7 percent vote barrier to gain seats on the Tbilisi city council.
The January 21 announcement of political alliance plans confirms that Saakashvili and Zhvania are again willing to collaborate. The popular leaders could form a solid core of a potentially formidable opposition bloc. Analysts argue that Zhvania and Saakashvili do not compete for the same voters, with Zhvania’s United Democrats attracting the support of the intelligentsia and the nascent moderate middle class, while Saakashvili taps into a broad spectrum of protest voters.
The leaders also use complementary skills, local political observers say. Zhvania enjoys a reputation as a team player. He led the opposition-wide dialogue in during the summer of 2002 that discredited the use of violence in the political process. Many voters associate Saakashvili, who now serves as Tbilisi city council chairman, with his uncompromising push at deep-rooted corruption.
Initial statements by the two political leaders suggest that differences over political strategy may hinder the realization of their merger plans. Zhvania says he seeks an “alliance based on sound fundamentals” of shared vision that would continue to collaborate beyond parliamentary elections this fall. “I do not believe in the coalitions formed ‘against’ [specific people],” he has said. Under his plan, the alliance should present a roadmap for governance beyond Shevardnadze’s presidency, which ends in 2005.
Meanwhile, Saakashvili seems more pragmatic, and has spoken of the need for a “winning coalition” that would earn the guaranteed majority in the parliament. He seems to prefer deferring deeper political discussions for the future. This preference touched on political sensitivities when Saakashvili proposed to welcome Jumber Patiashvili, a former communist leader of Georgia who challenged Shevardnadze in the 1999 presidential race, into the alliance. Patiashvili advocates a pro-Russia foreign policy that seems hard to square with Zhvania’s more Western-oriented goals.
Saakashvili told a press conference that he seeks victory, not necessarily kindred spirits. “Patiashvili brings a minimum of several tens of thousands of votes,” he said on January 21. “We should not ignore broad election constituencies. We should agree on the principles, I agree, this is vital. But this coalition should be oriented to the future not to the past.” This seems a starkly different conception of the future from Zhvania’s, since the former justice minister appears intent on crafting a governing philosophy. If the two were to agree on how to nuance these approaches, moreover, they would still face hurdles before they could form a working coalition.
One hurdle comes from the complexity of Georgia’s opposition: as the local elections last June demonstrated, the competition for votes among opposition parties is intense. Among the more well-established opposition movements, the New Rights party has solid financial backing and has mounted an active international campaign to position itself as a long-term political alternative to Shevardnadze.
The Labor Party also still attracts many protest votes and figures to remain popular. Each party can realistically hope to clear the seven percent vote barrier in the parliamentary election, assuring them of new seats in parliament. At the same time, the CUG is seeking to reassert itself under the leadership of the State Minister Avtandil Jorbenadze. Some political experts say Jorbenadze will seek to tap “administrative resources” in order to boost the CUG’s popularity. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].
In the existing political climate, Zhvania and Saakashvili may need to rein in their confidence in order to work together effectively. All opposition leaders expect Shevardnadze loyalists, once the parliamentary campaign begins in earnest, to attempt to tar the duo as a pair of power-hungry politicians. Saakashvili says that this risk makes a broad coalition essential. “When you leave yourself outside of the [broad opposition] coalition, you make yourself available for Shevardnadze’s manipulation against the opposition,” he says. Zhvania is more dismissive of the president’s “rumors and intrigues.” He urges voters and reform parties to “break the vicious cycle” by forging a new politics.
Regardless of the philosophical differences, the budding opposition alliance is already facing a major challenge. Saakashvili and Zhvania appear to be encountering trouble persuading other top opposition parties, namely New Rights and Labor, into the alliance. Labor Party leader Shalva Natelashvili has already stated that he is not planning to enter the coalition. New Rights also seems quite hesitant.
Ghia Nodia, an analyst with the Caucasian Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development says Zhvania and Saakashvili risk becoming trapped in a weak coalition. “There is no strong force [among political parties], thus everyone tries to play on an adversary’s weakness,” he says. If the leaders cannot fuse their different styles quickly and forcefully, they could sink into negative campaign and become vulnerable to attack.
By Jaba Devdariani,
Editor-in-Chief, Civil Georgia
