Georgia has celebrated the 8th anniversary of the ‘rose revolution’. However, the revolution leader’s team has broken up a long time ago. Ex-PM Zurab Zhvanis is dead and ex-parliamentary speaker Nino Burdzhanadze, as well as Erozi Kitsmarishvili, have become oppositionists. VK correspondent Georgy Kalatozishvili asked David Dartsishvili, one of the ruling party’s ideologists, Peter Mamradze, opposition MP, Levan Berdzenishvili, the founder of the Republican Party and Georgy Nodiya, one of the most respected political experts, to share their opinion on the ‘rose revolution’ results.
Georgy Nodiya
I think we should observe a certain balance while discussing the ‘rose revolution’. In general, the changes are positive. Georgia became a modern state. If in 2003 its level of development was similar to that of Africa, now Georgia is a king of a European province. The state machine functions properly, it is useful to the citizens. Those who criticize it look up to utopian notions, I think. Some of these notions are shared by those ‘rose revolution’ leaders who are now in opposition to the authorities. But of course not every one can be happy, even after a revolution.
There are also some negative aspects. For example, our political system is unbalanced. Opposition and independent civic associations don’t have the influence they are entitled to in a democratic state.
However, some reproaches to the government are absurd. For instance, Georgia lost 20% of its territory in the early 90s, and not just recently. I would even go so far as to say that now the situation is better - before 2003 the district of Adjaria wasn’t under Tbilisi’s control, and now it is. This success, however, created the delusion of the possibility of a similar simple solution to the Abkhaz and South Ossetian problems. Saakashvili’s government fell victim to this delusion. However, now we at least know exactly where we stand: 20% of our territory is occupied; there are specific international regulations for such situations. So you see that there’s progress, not regress in the territorial issue.
As for corruption, it used to be commonplace. Now it still exists, but it’s more an exception. There is a lot of talk of so-called ‘elite corruption’. This means that everyone agrees – there is no mass corruption, it is no longer the main pattern of police and administrative functioning. It is pretty obvious that there is no systematic ‘elite corruption’.
The media has freedom in Georgia, however, they are of pretty low quality. All media channels are politically engaged with various forces., and of course the authorities have a broader field of opportunities to influence the media. Nevertheless, all political forces have access to the media.
The human rights situation also improved, even though there are still some problems in this area.
A lot of revolutionary leaders are now in opposition to President Saakashvili, and this is a normal pattern for each and every revolution: it is always hard to share power, and revolutionaries are always maximalists. They believe that everything should turn good at once – they are idealists.
Levan Berdzenishvili
My attitude towards the revolution hasn’t changed. Its name is weird, though. Roses don’t make revolutions. This symbol appeared in the last days of the revolution.
Saakashvili backed away from the revolution’s main ideals of honesty and purity. It was obvious back in 2004 – Saakashvili is no revolutionary. He usurped power and became a usual Soviet-type dictator.
However, the revolution itself was inevitable, as Shevarnadze couldn’t step away from power. He falsified the 2000 elections and had to be removed. He could have been a better leader if he had stepped aside in 1998, when his positive resource was drained. Unfortunately, he held onto power for 5 extra years. He didn’t do anything useful during this time. And he couldn’t do anything, as he was afraid of public opinion, he was afraid of opposition politicians – Saakashvili, Burdzhanadze, Zhvaniya… And a leader that is afraid of the opposition can do no good. The state was falling into chaos and total corruption. A lot of politicians could have beaten him, but the people chose to trust Saakashvili, as he is an extremely energetic person.
If not for the revolution, Shevarnadze could still have been our president. We are lucky that no blood was spilt – thanks to Shevarnadze, not to the revolutionaries. By his reasonable peaceful actions he deserves the right to be left in peace today.
Of course, evolution is better than revolution, but it was necessary back then. I don’t think we need a new one.
David Dartsishvili
Many of those who criticize the revolution’s outcome probably expected some benefits for themselves but didn’t get them. You’d better ask objective experts.
The revolution was a great breakthrough; it made Georgia into a State. Before 2003 it was not a state, it was just a territory, statehood existed only on paper. The society and state structures were modernized, and that is what the country needed.
Peter Mamradze
There were two stages of development after the revolution. The first one lasted till the 7th of November 2007, when an opposition rally was broken up on Rustaveli Square. This first period was pretty successful, despite a number of mistakes. Police and budgetary reforms were successful.
The second period reduced all these achievements to nothing. Democracy and the economy are failing, our debt and budget deficits are enormous.
So in general the revolution’s outcome is not so good. There are several reasons for this failure: the weakness of our civic society and opposition, the absolute power concentrated in one pair of hands, the lack of restraints on the rulers. Georgia is not the first country to fall into this trap of absolute power after a glorious revolution.
Interview by Georgy Kalatozishvili
