What is happening in Georgia in the wake of the 2024 parliamentary elections, which the local opposition has refused to recognise and the West has found fault with? Why did the country turn from a “beacon of freedom” into a problem for Western geopolitics? How did the “historic elections” that were supposed to answer the question “with Europe or with Russia” turn into an ideological defeat for radical pro-Westernism in the country?
The Georgian Dream (GD) government won the 2024 parliamentary elections, receiving the most seats in the legislative body. Moreover, according to the new regulations, the process of direct election of the head of state will be replaced by an “American model” where the new president will be selected by a special board. It will consist of representatives of parliament and other regional authorities, which, in essence, means a guaranteed appointment for a candidate from the ruling party. As a result, on December 16, 2024, the incumbent President Salome Zurabishvili should have left her post, making way for Mikheil Kavelashvili. The Georgian Dream-led legislature has selected the former football player, member of the “People’s Power” party and open critic of Western policy for this position. There are no political or legal prerequisites for the end of this year for GD not to be able to secure total dominance in both the legislative and executive branches, consolidating authority by appointing a “pro-government” president, who, legally, is a public figure, a unifier of the Georgian people. The political opposition has still refused to recognise the election results, and considers them stolen or fabricated. It has stated that they delegitimise the government, as well as all state institutions. President Salome Zurabishvili has echoed the accusations, calling everything a special operation of Russia, which helped the “pro-Russian” government of the Georgian Dream establish authoritarianism and monopolize power. Georgian President Zurabishvili refused to recognize the election results. She repeated these statements in her phone call with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
The promised mass protests did not receive approval within the country and were suspended; the dissenters have no clear plans for the development of events. The hope that the pre-election process and results would not be recognised by the West was partially justified, since neither EU officials nor top Western European officials have openly congratulated the Georgian Dream on its victory, instead calling for an analysis and investigation of the violations indicated in the OSCE monitoring commission report. The Biden administration has echoed this criticism, but in a more moderate form.
On the other hand, the ruling party suddenly had strategic partners like Hungary and Slovakia, which did not allow critical representatives of the European bureaucracy to consider the real possibility of carrying out “punitive” measures against Georgian politicians. Moreover, the GD received immediate recognition and approval from Georgia’s neighbouring countries and China.
The OSCE report does not contain any fundamentally critical remarks that could be used against Georgian Dream; the elections were recognised as normal, competitive, and the results were never disputed.
Georgia, as a small but important part of the geopolitical chessboard, has long been problematic, a challenge for the main political establishment in the West. From a failed state under Eduard Shevardnadze, it underwent a series of important reforms under the government of Mikheil Saakashvili, and then took the current form of a balanced and pragmatic player on the global stage. Over the years, regimes have changed, as have their achievements in terms of freedom of speech and democracy, but never has the West been as hostile to its government as it is today. This is taking into account the fact that the country, led by the Georgian Dream for the past twelve years, ranks ahead of not only Moldova and Ukraine, but also many countries of the European Union in almost all statistical and objective indicators.
Moreover, according to the reports of the EU Commission itself, Tbilisi is leading in most areas, compared to Chisinau and Kiev and yet delayed granting candidate status, and has now announced that it is suspending integration into the union.
The end of Georgia as a “beacon of freedom,” or “island of freedom” in the Western political narrative is directly linked to the beginning of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine. Praised for its restraint and “appeasement” policy towards Russia, the Georgian Dream refused to change its political platform and join the anti-Russian coalition of countries that were supposed to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Moscow. The ruling force rejected demands that it implement the most important economic sanctions as well as calls to officially send volunteers to fight for Ukraine and open a “second front” in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali. This was caused not only by simple political pragmatism, the desire not to destroy their electoral potential, but also by the desire to avert the threat of escalating confrontation with Moscow and a possible economic crisis in the country.
The Georgian Dream turned from pragmatic force into a “pro-Russian” one, and its policies are “complementary” to those of the Kremlin. Also suddenly, “problems” with democracy and freedom of speech appeared, which had been actively promoted over the past two years. It became obvious that the main forces in the West consider the Georgian Dream a threat to their geopolitical and ideological dominance. The ruling party tried to negotiate, as it has done many times, but could not find common ground. The ambassadors of Western countries and the part of civil society financed by the elite began to openly oppose Georgian Dream, spreading negative sentiments, and calling for a change of power.
The ruling party, forced to defend itself, decided to adopt and push through laws on foreign agents/transparency and a ban on LGBT propaganda in order to send a clear signal to the West. On the one hand, the country began to study the assets and financial investments of local non-governmental organisations in political processes, and on the other hand, it appealed for electoral support not to the liberal-minded stratum, but to the conservative majority.
The nomination of Mikheil Kavelashvili, a family man with traditional values, for the presidency after Salome Zurabishvili, an ardent supporter of radical pro-Westernism is not a turn towards Russia, as many would like to claim, but a turn towards the majority of the Georgian population, which wants to be part of the Western world, but with certain “red lines” and traditional values. In its election race, Georgian Dream relied on the domestic voter, while the opposition relied on the radically pro-Western minority and external pressure – so the domestic voter won. The ruling force understood and finally made it clear to other players that in order to retain power and legitimacy it did not need praise from the outside, much less a blind adherence to the geopolitical wishes of Western countries. A dialogue with the central electorate, which was not particularly willing to go through further upheavals, was much more important.
The geopolitical defeat of the so-called pro-European forces in Georgia is only part of the problem that the West faces. Geopolitics transforms from time to time and the election of Donald Trump for a second presidential term may change the balance of power. However, there is another fundamental reason why Georgian Dream and its voters have become an additional threat – a change in political outlook or what can be called the formation of sovereign political self-awareness. The parliamentary elections in the country did not carry any possible statistical surprises, since absolutely all the data pointed to the victory of Georgian Dream.
However, a bright, almost historical mantra was created around the process in the West and inside the so-called pro-Western “bubble” in the country – the country had to decide whether to go with Europe or with Russia.
Obviously, for the majority of the country’s population, such a statement was irrelevant, unacceptable and even completely incomprehensible. Nevertheless, due to external pressure and slander, the parliamentary elections became an ideological indicator, reflecting political, economic, geopolitical and, most importantly, ideological goals. Georgian Dream promoted religious faith, traditions, family, pragmatism, balance in dealings with Russia, the dominance of national interests, and adopting Western institutions with “dignity”.
In contrast, the local opposition, fully supported by the West, promoted anti-Russian sentiments, full and unconditional consolidation with Kiev, and a readiness to sacrifice for Western geopolitical interests and European values in exchange for all European benefits and wealth, as a means of belonging to the “civilized world”. As strange as it may seem, the voters placed their bets on Georgian Dream, which shocked many abroad, since their faith in the total commitment of the Georgian people to Europe was unshakable, because such were the signals they had received from their colleagues from the country. Strategic partners were convinced that the country’s population was not only committed to Western integration, but also ready to sacrifice everything to achieve integration with NATO and the EU. Parallels were actively drawn with Euromaidan, as a manifestation of such sacrifice.
However, the victory of Georgian Dream showed that one should not confuse the desire to live with dignity in a decent state and travel to Western countries without restrictions with embracing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape and the willingness to discard one’s national interests and traditions – everything that has saved Georgia historically and still plays a key role in the lives of the majority of the country’s population. The centrist voter has abandoned this blind, radical idealisation of Westernism/Europeanism, in favour of sovereign political self-awareness.
This presents a greater threat to Western dominance than a possible temporary geopolitical divergence between Washington, Brussels and Tbilisi. The victory of the Georgian Dream in the 2024 parliamentary elections reflected a refusal by the majority of the Georgian voters to sacrifice themselves for Western geopolitical interests, as well as a shift towards sovereign political self-awareness, critical of strategic partners, but not being hostile. The West must decide whether it accepts this “wrong” democracy in Georgia or prefers to suppress it for the sake of its geopolitical and ideological interests.
