Georgia Voted for Quick Changes. Can the Elected Deliver?
Georgia has voted against the party of power. Georgia has voted against the political elite. Georgia has voted against. But it is unclear what Georgia has actually voter FOR.
One thing is for sure – both of the opposition parties on top of the race, the New National Movement and the Labour promised radical overhaul of existing political and economic system.
There is a difference in their world-view. Mikheil Saakashvili of the National Movement, rallied against corruption and by enforcing democracy promised to move country closer to the West. Shalva Natelashvili rallied against the rich and the interests of the big companies. His most effective pre-election move was to cancel increased electricity tariff by appealing to the Supreme Court.
The two meet in promising better social protection and vaguely familiar undertones of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Indeed, their success is a sign that the protest vote in Georgia has grown immensely and the middle class has faltered. According to good-old V.I. Lenin, this is a revolutionary situation – those on top can’t govern, those on the bottom don’t want to be governed. So much for the hopes of good governance.
But the people have decided to entrust their frustration to the democratic process – the elections. And this gives hope, but also rings the last bell before the next elections in Georgia will see the democracy gone awry. Which brings us to the vital question: can the elected first formulate and then deliver the changes people request?
Indeed, Saakashvili has tested his governing abilities at Tbilisi municipal council to some success. Both of the parties have managed to govern in Tbilisi council with certain consensus. However, both parties, and the Labor notoriously so, are known to prefer pumping the heat to developing the lasting policy content.
But even if the two would manage not to pull the legislature in opposite directions, in contrast with the municipal council, they would face a strong, and depending on final vote distribution, blocking ‘swamp’. Formed by the representatives of pro-governmental For New Georgia alliance, which is expected to fall apart once in the parliament, and usually obstructive Revival this force can be instrumental in transforming the parliament into a kind of a coliseum. There, the benevolent deity – President Eduard Shevardnadze, will observe the crash of public tribunes: Saakashvili’s National Movement and Natelashvili’s Labor Party. The public is expected to cheer, and later call for blood.
Thus, the task of the winners is daunting. It will become near impossible if the two centrist parties Burjanadze-Democrats and the New Rights who are capable of forming a base for compromise in the new parliament will fall through the cracks of the 7% election threshold.
The new parliament promises to be a fever pitch. And no political leader can avoid the responsibility for disappointing the electorate into radical choices. They all saw it coming, when the local elections of June 2, 2001 gave lead to exactly the same opposition parties. Instead of uniting, the opposition chose to stay divided. Instead of mending the economic and social wounds that breed the radicalism, the government and the president chose to stay on a collision course with the opposition.
Election into this parliament is a ticket to further life for the newly shaped political parties that ran for the elections. One could say, the spectrum before the elections became clearer, party constituencies better defined. But even if the danger passes, all of the leaders should take a closer look onto the abyss – two radical parties and two dysfunctional parties of power in the parliament is a recipe for the accident on the road to democracy. If this happens, the burden passes onto the media and institutions of civil society to keep alert and put wider spectrum of interests on the public and political agenda.
