NEWSLINK: No America in the Caucasus: The False Promise of Westernization in Georgia

[No America in the Caucasus: The False Promise of Westernization in Georgia – Foreign Affairs – Thomas de Waal – December 5, 2012 – click here to read full article]

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Thomas De Waal questions whether Georgia could ever be considered “westernized.”

He also holds that the story of political transitions involving Mikheil Saakashvili actually shares themes with that of Eduard Shevardnadze:

Nine years after Georgia’s Rose Revolution, its leader, Mikheil Saakashvili, was soundly defeated in parliamentary elections by the country’s richest man. As the hope of the Rose Revolution fades, so, too, should the myth that Georgia is or ever will be a fully Westernized country.

A leader comes to power in Georgia as the country is in economic turmoil and its citizens are in a state of despair. The people overwhelmingly welcome him as a messiah. Gradually, he mobilizes a group of talented officials and puts the country back on track. Although his task is complicated by a poisonous relationship with Russia, he has many friends in Washington and receives extensive U.S. aid and political support. Over time, however, he loses touch with the Georgian public and grows increasingly remote. Many members of his administration accuse him of autocratic tendencies and defect to the opposition. Eventually, an election is held, and the popular vote goes against him. Neither an instinctive democrat nor a bloodthirsty tyrant, he concedes defeat — if only to protect his reputation in the West.

Curiously, this story has played out not once in modern Georgia but twice. It is the trajectory, most recently, of Mikheil Saakashvili, who surged to power in the peaceful Rose Revolution of 2003. Saakashvili lost decisively in parliamentary elections this October to Bidzina Ivanishvili, Georgia’s richest man, who is now the country’s prime minister and is set to become its most powerful politician when the constitution changes next year. (Saakashvili, however, will remain president until his term expires in October 2013.) But it is also the story of the man Saakashvili defeated in 2003, Eduard Shevardnadze. In 1992, Shevardnadze — a Western favorite for his stint as Soviet foreign minister, in which he played a major role in ending the Cold War — inherited a Georgia wracked by civil strife and dominated by warlords. He initially brought progress to his native land on several fronts, but after a few years he lost his way, allowing the country to slide into corruption and inertia. Finally, the Rose Revolution toppled him.

Although it fell far short of European democratic standards, Georgia’s parliamentary election in October was a breath of fresh air in a generally autocratic neighborhood. …

Comparing Georgian politics with that of feudal overlords, the writing views billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili as having offered a solid focal point for opposition elements.  At the same time, his rise to power has raised questions over his relationship with Russia, and his impact on Russo-Georgian relations.

Georgian politics favors big personalities who command patronage and loyalty: it is more a winner-take-all clash between feudal lords than a contest of ideologically coherent parties. And so the opposition could not have wished for a better standard-bearer than Ivanishvili. As Georgia’s richest man — worth $6.4 billion, according to Forbes’ latest estimate — Ivanishvili could afford to buck the government’s rules. He had a sterling reputation with the public, having for years funded churches, schools, and prominent cultural figures. Ivanishvili’s lofty status provided an umbrella under which Georgia’s disparate discontented could take cover.

Understandably, Ivanishvili’s position on Russia has been the focus of much speculation. Critics argue that Georgia’s new prime minister has unseemly ties to Moscow, given that he amassed his fortune in Russia; so far, Ivanishvili has fiercely rebutted these charges. He left Russia in 2002 and has recently sold all his assets there, and he currently surrounds himself with a team of pro-Western advisers. Until any evidence emerges to the contrary, the most convincing explanation for why Ivanishvili, like many of his post-Soviet counterparts, chose to make his fortune in Russia is the same reason that Willie Sutton chose to rob banks: because that’s where the money is. Besides, regardless of Ivanishvili’s sentiments, Tbilisi is incapable of fully normalizing relations with Russia as long as Moscow continues to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. Trade between Russia and Georgia may well resume, but the political relationship will almost certainly stay frozen. In fact, the nationalist, xenophobic wing of Georgian Dream, which is largely anti-Russian, presents a greater threat to the stability of Georgia’s foreign relations than do Ivanishvili’s alleged ties to Moscow.

[Click here to read full article: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138491/thomas-de-waal/no-america-in-the-caucasus?page=show]