Democratization’s Vicious Circle or How Georgia Failed to Change

Abstract

IntroductionGeorgia's first peaceful transition of power, through the parliamentary elections in 2012, has been celebrated as an important achievement in the democratization of the country. At the same time, the new government has initiated several high-profile criminal cases against representatives of the former government, including the president and the prime minister, creating solid bases for critical assessment of further prospects for the democratic consolidation of Georgia.1 The new government has signed an Association Agreement with the EU - an important test to prove Georgia's pro-Westem orientation and dismantle speculations about pro-Russian sentiments of the new ruling elite. Nevertheless, how the political change in leadership might impact the external relations of Georgia remains to be seen.Needless to say, Georgia's first-ever peaceful change of government through elections is an achievement per se. However, did the Georgian change bring the country closer to consolidated democracy? In other words, how functional did the Georgian democracy become in terms of institutions and the environment? The Association Agreement is the relevant mechanism cementing Georgia's orientation towards the European community and thus, towards the free and open society; however, questions remain as to how the new government envisages reconciling the course on Western integration with the declared policy of rapprochement with Russia.The answers offered in this article are neither euphoric nor pessimistic. The main reason for this is that Georgia did not change much. First, as a result of the cascade of elections from 2012 to 2014, a new dominant political player replaced the ruling party. Second, even though the new government of Georgia no longer implements tough language towards Russia, the new Georgian decision makers continue to pursue the proWestem foreign policy projects of their predecessors and gradually realize the limits when attempting to balance between Russia and the West, especially under increasing regional security risks since the annexation of Crimea by Moscow. The news that Georgia has not changed significantly is not as bad as many proponents of democratic and European Georgia might assume. In positive terms, one could call the current situation continuity - the continuous modernization and democratization of the country. In the following sections, I will analyze the power transition in Georgia and try to understand the main reason for the limitations of its current stage of democracy. I will also argue that the foreign policy discourse of the new government might have changed, however this did not alter the strategic directions in decision making. Although this is not a primary objective of the article, I will apply the concept of autonomy from citizens in order to better depict the new dynamic in the Georgian polity, which, to a certain degree, relativizes the positive balance created by the peaceful transition of power.New Rulers, Same SystemOne of the major structural predicaments for democracy consolidation in Georgia is the dominant party system.2 The United National Movement (UNM) of Georgia was the dominant party of the country since the Rose Revolution of 2003. The party arose from the coalition of several oppositional groups, which managed to consolidate popular support and push president Shevardnadze and his government to resign, through peaceful demonstrations following the rigged parliamentary elections in 2003.3 The UNM was uncontested ruler of the country for almost nine years. The party enjoyed an overwhelming majority in the national parliament as well as in local councils countrywide.In 2012, the UNM lost parliamentary elections and had to move into opposition. The opposition coalition called Georgian Dream (GD) was formed around Georgian billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili and won the elections, gained a majority in Parliament and was able to form a government. …