Some thoughts about Foreign Influence Law in Georgia and EU
Reactionary Dual Power in Georgia
I'm currently developing the theory that what we, as socialists, recognize as "dual power," is actively emerging in Tbilisi, Georgia, albeit in a counterrevolutionary form. This dynamic involves a scenario where the government operates alongside a specific cluster of NGOs, media platforms, and the individuals supporting them. Essentially, dual power encompasses:
1) Establishing alternative institutions.
2) It also involves organizing and unifying these institutions to fortify a base of counter-power.
In the Georgian context, the opposition faction has established its own media channels, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations.
Their source of power stems from legitimacy and direct access granted by the EU and US embassy, rather than grassroots support. Unlike the situation in the EU, where parliament members are elected by the people and can theoretically represent their interests, in Georgia, unelected representatives of NGOs hold sway and have access to EU bodies and representatives. They have significant financial resources to fund their activities. They lack the incentive to consider the impact of the policies or demands they advocate for, as they face no electoral accountability unlike the government. Their control over institutions and counter-institutions enables them to propagate propaganda and mobilize thousands of people.
With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the EU has heightened its concerns, leading to the implementation of protectionist policies. This includes the banning of Russian-state-affiliated media and the imposition of sanctions on Russian individuals. Meanwhile, the Georgian government, apprehensive about the prospect of war and destabilization, faces a unique challenge. Many former members of the Georgian government are now part of Ukraine's administration, positioning them on the opposite side of the dual power dynamic in Georgia. These individuals hold the attention and sympathy of European and US politicians, further bolstering the strength and legitimacy of the anti-government forces in Georgia.
Adding to the situation is the false alarm regarding the former president's health and treatment in prison, which was endorsed by prominent "non-governmental institutions." Furthermore, there have been persistent calls for sanctions against Ivanishvili, with reports from Transparency Georgia alleging that the oligarch behind the government's party is connected to Russia. According to Transparency Georgia, this level of influence on democratic institutions constitutes state capture, effectively implying that Russia has seized control of Georgia.
Transparency Georgia is instrumental in setting the anti-government narrative, framing it as a Russian takeover. Additionally, we have Salome for president, a French-born, stuck in the old cold-warrior mentality, aligning herself with the anti-government forces. It's evident that Salome feels comfortable with the hawkish policies of the EU.
Salome has significantly swayed the balance in favor of the opposition. She routinely refers to the government (excluding herself) as Russian and even uses a Russian name when mentioning the police.
Furthermore, with the EU adopting protectionist measures, a resolution was introduced in the EU parliament to sanction the billionaire Ivanishvili based on reports from these influential NGOs, some of which have their own MEPs and direct access to EU institutions.
Most recently, the EU took another concerning step by agreeing to redirect the interests accrued on Russian frozen assets to Ukraine, effectively attempting to maintain the current international financial system while bending it to their own agenda. In this environment of heightened tension and political maneuvering, it's becoming increasingly difficult to predict the next moves and their implications.
In order to secure their stability, Georgian Dream finds itself in a challenging position where they must confront powerful institutions that exert significant influence. This includes implementing measures such as the foreign influence law to restrict the ability of these entities to operate freely within Georgia. Additionally, they want to align Georgian tax codes with the tax shelters utilized by Ivanishvili, potentially to safeguard against the possibility of him moving his assets from countries that are now compromised due to pressure from the US and EU.
It's worth noting that for decades, Western governments have claimed they couldn't take action against offshore tax havens, despite having the capability to do so. This highlights the complex dynamics at play, where political considerations and power dynamics often shape the actions of governments and their interactions with influential individuals and institutions.
In essence, Georgian Dream is navigating a delicate balance between ensuring stability and addressing external pressures and influences, while also attempting to maintain sovereignty and protect their interests in the face of complex geopolitical dynamics.
The implementation of a broad and generalized law on foreign influence by Georgian Dream has inadvertently caused alarm among various groups receiving grants for non-political purposes. By casting a wide net instead of targeting specific entities, the government has inadvertently created a situation where even non-political actors feel targeted and scrutinized. This has led to a sense of unease and apprehension among organizations and individuals who may have previously received support or funding from foreign sources for non-political activities.
Ineffectively targeting the wrong entities under this law has not only failed to address the intended concerns but has also inadvertently strengthened the dual power situation against Georgian Dream. Rather than effectively addressing potential threats to stability and sovereignty, the clumsy implementation of the law has exacerbated existing tensions and further polarized the political landscape.
Moving forward, it will be essential for Georgian Dream to reassess its approach and ensure that any measures taken to address foreign influence are targeted, specific, and balanced to avoid unintended consequences and further escalation of the dual power dynamic. Finding a more nuanced and effective approach will be crucial for maintaining stability and sovereignty while respecting the rights and activities of non-political actors in Georgian society.
If the EU or the broader "West" undergo significant changes in their approach to Georgia, it could have profound implications for the country's political landscape. Currently, the EU's stance is characterized by protectionist measures and a willingness to sanction individuals based on reports from influential NGOs. However, if there were to be a shift in policy towards a more conciliatory or neutral stance, it could potentially alleviate some of the pressure on the Georgian government and its supporters.
On the other hand, if the EU or the broader "West" were to intensify their efforts against individuals like Ivanishvili, it could further embolden the opposition and deepen the existing divide within Georgian society. Such actions could lead to increased instability and potentially even unrest.
Ultimately, any changes in the EU or Western policy towards Georgia will have significant implications for the country's political dynamics and its future trajectory.