29 March 2024, Friday, 10:00
Support
the website
Sim Sim,
Charter 97!
Categories

Giga Bokeriya: Transition of power is a country’s success

Giga Bokeriya: Transition of power is a country’s success

Secretary of Georgia’s Security Council gave an interview to charter97.org on the day of his resignation.

Security Council secretary and one of the leaders of Mikhail Saakashvili’s party United National Movement Giga Bokeriya resigned on November 15, right before the inauguration of the new Georgian president. On this day in Tbilisi the politician met with charter97.org editor Natallia Radzina to answer her questions.

- Thank you for meeting me on this stressful day. Today you resigned. As far as I know you came to politics when you were 32 years old and you went the whole way from a deputy to Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and head of the Security Council. Let’s sum up the outcome of the last 9 years.

- This is correct. Technically I started to work in politics in 2004. Before that, my friends and I had been working in NGOs and different media for quite a time.

If I may I won’t talk only about myself. It would be wrong. Let’s talk about the impact that the “revolution of roses” has had on movement headed by former president Mikhail Saakashvili, about his political team and the Georgian society.

The most important thing is that we have laid the ground of the modern Georgian democratic state. Before the “revolution of roses”, Georgia had been a failed state in all regards. There was a consensus crisis in all aspects. The main achievement of the “revolution of roses” is that the society has got the country back and created a functioning state moving towards liberal democracy, the European Union and NATO.

Previously, Georgians had a reputation of ”good guys” fond of dancing, singing and having a good time. In the soviet times, people had a better life here than in other countries. But it was also a place where bribery and crime flourished, and all serious decisions were taken by “wise men” in the north. Mister Zhvanietski once said: “Why do Georgians need a state of their own? Let them dance and drink wine!” This is a harassment of our nation.

In the old-time Georgia, organized crime, bureaucracy and corruption were a way of living. Of course, corruption exists in all countries, even in the most successful ones. But the fundamental difference of normal countries from abnormal is the law, to begin with. The same goes for the organized crime controlling the country, it used to be a huge problem for Georgia, and I believe that we have managed to overcome it.

After the reform of the court system, a powerful independent judicial power has been established. Indeed, the reform has taken much more time than I hoped, but in my view, the present situation is much better than 9 years earlier.

And here we have the result: the first case of the power transition through democratic elections. Every politician wants to win elections. Everyone considers their opponents to be fundamentally wrong. So do I. But a healthy liberal democracy is a system where the power can change. We have been ruling the country for nine years, and it is a long time.

Power transition through democratic elections is a country’s success. In Georgia, there was the violent destructive precedent of power transition. Then we had a very progressive revolution. And now we have the first totally peaceful case of power transition.

Now let’s talk about failures. First of all, we failed to create a political culture that would contribute to decent relations between different political players despite their fundamental differences, political and personal incompatibility. There were moments when everything turned for the better, but now, after the power transition, the situation is getting worse. I see it as my flop.

Our biggest mistake was that politically we were too strong. In the country with poor traditions of liberal democracy, the ruling circle and the president are strong, while the opposition is weak, which leads to a weakening of the system of constraints and counterweights both inside and outside the government and governmental institutions. It also takes discussion to a lower level. When the system of constraints and counterweights doesn’t work properly, problems occur in different questions, as, for example, it happened with prisons. This was the most terrible thing…

Others have also made mistakes, but the responsibility is entirely ours.

- Addressing the nation on October 28, Mikhail Saakashvili said that “we have been too impatient and too strict in the process of reforming Georgia”, and he apologized for letting some people suffer “from injustice and humiliation”. What exactly did the president mean?

- I agree with him partially. I do agree with the part that you quoted, about the victims. I have just given an example of this problem, the penitentiary system. What “heirloom” did we get? The prison was controlled by the organized crime. The organized crime was controlled from inside and outside the prison. If your car was stolen in Tbilisi, you could call “the guy” in prison and get the car back for 5-10% of its value. And this is not the worst example. The situation was catastrophic.

Resistance came with the beginning of the reforms, including the prison reform designed to shift control over prison from mafia to prison administration. Very specific and powerful measures were needed. These measures were completely within the law, but the resulting elimination of the resistance was not enough. There are no human rights where the administration has no responsibility for protecting them. It turned out that the problem was much more profound than we thought. The situation was out of control, and it evolved to take a form shameful for the country and for us, the political team responsible for it all. This is one example of many.

I partially agree with the president’s definition of reasons. I believe that we had all reasons to try to do everything quickly. Unlike our friends in the Baltic region who have always been an example for us, we had lost so much time. In the 90s, we had the civil war and other problems, not reforms. We had to move fast to compensate. But we didn’t move fast enough towards a system of constraints and counterweights. The problem was in the insufficient speed of the judicial and other reforms. The failure to create these instruments resulted in a dangerous situation, and a part of society suffered afterwards.

And still I am convinced that we had a great economic success. Our nominal GDP rose with 300%, the purchasing power of the currency more than doubled. Given our situation back then, it was a great result. But we still have the unemployment rate of 16-17 %, the hidden unemployment is even higher, especially in the agriculture. This is a big problem.

- Today the state audit institution studies financial flows of the Georgian Security Council. Are you expecting investigation and arrest?

- I don’t like to make assumptions in this regard. In my view this is not about individuals or one specific investigation, the problem is in the context and in the concept that the new powers share. I have already mentioned one of the key factors of a liberal democracy: someday the power will lose elections. But there is another crucial test. The winner must accept the fact that the loser doesn’t simply disappear, go in the shadow, but keeps up a competition. This is where the big problem with the Prime Minister and his team lies. It is publicly articulated.

The Prime Minister (ed.note.: Bidzina Ivanishvili) has repeatedly emphasized that “the queue in the prosecutor’s office” depends on how the United National Movement acts. There is no need to argue about their political motives, everything is clear. If the question is in specific violations of the legislation, it doesn’t matter how a political movement acts. Today, several thousands of people are being interrogated; charges have been pressed against approximately one hundred.

Secretary General of the leading opposition party Vano Merabishvili who used to be an active politician hasn’t fled the country, but for some reason he is in a pretrial detention. Another interesting aspect is the selectiveness. For example, cases against members of parliament who leave our fraction get closed.

Unfortunately the new government hasn’t yet managed to comprehend the main thing about democracy: they have won, but losers have become their peers. And the new government has no right to destroy its competition.

The power must be sustained by a voter’s mandate, not by arrests, investigations or mob rule.

So I’d rather not make forecasts. The problem is not whether I will be arrested or not, the problem is the civilized way to treat one’s opponents.

- When you came to the power, you put officials from the previous government to prison. Now the new government comes for you. It is a vicious circle, isn’t it?

- We gained the power through a revolution, it is a huge difference. In our case, the political opponent disappeared, which left us no political motive to destroy the competition.

Shevarnadze’s party disappeared from the political stage by itself. Moreover, I would like to point out that the number of the arrests was limited. I can recall four or five major bureaucrats who were prosecuted. Most of them have made huge official payments to the budget and were released afterwards. Two persons were convicted and served two-year terms, if I remember correctly. No politician was arrested after the revolution.

This time we lost, and it happened the way it should be, during elections. And we admitted our loss. We haven’t disappeared, but we keep on with our competition. So the situation is completely different from 2004.

- The economic and administrative reforms of your government have obviously been successful. Do you expect these reforms to be abolished by the new government?

- I hope that it will not happen. Fortunately, in some cases the foundation is very solid. But without new reforms the risk of erosion remains.

Let me give you one example, the most successful one. We had a major reform of public services. Please go visit the Tbilisi municipal center: all state services that a citizen requires (passport, ID, driving license, property registration, marriage and divorce) are concentrated in one place and are operated from one desk. On average, it takes 15-20 minutes per visitor. You can order a coffee and a new passport. In 20 minutes you get both, with no bribes or delays.

In my view, it was one of the most significant reforms, because comfort is highly important. We all lived in the USSR, where a visit to a bureaucrat was always humiliating demonstration of power, with or without a bribe, where the visitor was tortured.

Bureaucracy has a natural instinct: everything starts to degrade without political and civil control. Ivanishvili in his turn said that unemployed don’t care when they get their passport – in a day or in a month. This is a typical populist reproach of opponents, but something that used to be a clear success should not be destroyed.

This attitude undermines the fundamental consensus on the key issues in the country. One cannot deny everything done by the predecessors.

- But the course to the European integration will remain unchanged?

- I hope so. Public opinion is a crucial factor. About 80% of Georgians want the integration. No government can ignore this fact. The only problem that we see here is that the new coalition consists of very different wings including openly anti-European.

It is dangerous to say that Armenia is a great example for us to follow, that we need to balance between Russia and the West. It can cause a deviation from the European course.

But for 9 years ago the trajectory of moving towards Europe was laid. I am positive that the summit of the Eastern Partnership in Vilnius will be a success. The association agreement with the EU is crucial. In this regard, we have a consensus with the new powers. The most important thing is that Georgia doesn’t repeat the mistakes of our friends in Ukraine.

- Right, what is your opinion about Ukraine having difficulty choosing between the EU and Russia?

- I’m not fond of commenting interior political processes of our friends. I hope that Ukraine will sign an agreement in Vilnius and it will put the country on a pro-European route. I believe that it should demonstrate to our new government mistakes that should be avoided.

Dependence on the Russian market of a minor economic segment can be a factor of home and foreign politics. Unfortunately the Russian government still uses this tool for political purpose.

We went through this process in 2005-2007. Our economy has advanced in different spheres, including vine production. The Georgian vine has improved because we had to go to new markets with no guaranteed advantage. We have survived, and Russia has lost this tool.

Of course, there is still occupation and military force. But we have to be very cautions, otherwise Russia can use the same tool of pressure that it is using against Ukraine and Moldova.

- The revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia gave Belarusian democrats hope that things will change with the new powers. However, instead of solidarity with the democratic forces of Belarus, both Viktor Yushchenko and Mikhail Saakashvili chose to establish contact with the dictator. What was it like for democrat Saakashvili to shake hands with Lukashenka who ordered murders of Belarusian opposition leaders?

- We had no ambitions to carry revolution to the entire world. We had the ambition to build democratic Georgia with an orientation to the West.

Obviously, we had our view of the Belarusian problems. For example, after the recent presidential elections in your country and after the arrests of all presidential candidates, personally I felt we had to make a public statement that Belarus is our friend, we fully support its sovereignty and understand the threats that exist there, but that we have to urge the Belarusian president to release all candidates. It was our position. But you cannot expect us to become crusaders and interfere in your very complicated political situation.

- I have talked to many Georgian politicians. Just like you, they said “Don’t expect anything.” But then they added: “We won’t criticize Lukashenka because he didn’t recognize Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia.” But in the Georgian-Russian war Lukashenka was on Putin’s side, while the Belarusian people were entirely on the Georgians’ side. Afterwards, the Belarusian dictator didn’t recognize independence of Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia guided by his own concerns and hoping to get loans from the West to use as an argument against Putin. How could you not see that?

- We do realize that the Belarusian government has its special relation with Russia. Life is a game. These are important geopolitical processes. Every country should consider its actual possibilities…

- Lukashenka didn’t follow Russia’s example, he didn’t introduce embargo on Georgian goods. Recently a representative of the Moldavian Foreign Ministry has said that they couldn’t criticize the Belarusian powers because they had huge export volumes of Moldavian wine to Belarus. Do you also think that Saperavi and Borjomi are more important than human rights?

- No, neither Saperavi nor Borjomi are more important than human rights. Belarus was not the only country not to apply the embargo; Kazakhstan and some others continued trading with us. The question here is not how democratic these countries are, but how strong Moscow’s influence is. And it doesn’t have to coincide with democratic processes.

- Today the Soviet Union is being restored in the post-soviet block, and not without Russia’s support. The situations in Belarus, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan are very similar. Their dictatorships use the same methods to strengthen their power and destroy their peers. We really had some expectations from Ukraine and Georgia, but they didn’t do anything to sustain spreading of democracy. What can actually help bring democracy back to the region?

- I would argue with the prospect of bringing democracy back. It would mean that there has already been something in the first place. The success of the countries that have done more than others in this regard will help liberal democracy prevail. We need these countries keep on their work, we need to see more success than failure, our European partners should practice clear politics regarding Russia’s attempts to destroy this success.

If it doesn’t happen, victory in this struggle of ideas and resources will be very difficult. Russia’s economic punches are hard. In case with Georgia and Moldova, Russia uses direct military force and occupation of the regions.

This is an actual fight. And in this fight, it is very important that countries like Georgia don’t stumble but continue building a European country. This is the only way. But we need clear politics from our partners from the West. It should include support of sovereignty and democratic processes in our countries and a clear position regarding Russia.

In your previous questions you criticized me, a representative of little Georgia, in the questions of resources, export and values. I understand why. But if big players have this kind of policy regarding the Russian market, and it affects their decisions, can you really expect risky steps from the countries who still are under a threat themselves?

I do realize that it may sound cynical, but unfortunately this context does exist. The conviction that Georgia and Moldova can change anything is only an illusion without a strong front from the West. In this situation, one cannot be a crusader.

I understand your attitude to the geopolitical game, but it does exist, and we should be careful. This is not an attempt to justify something. I am simply telling you how the situation has been evolving during the past years.

- In other words, the “key” is a steadfast position of the West regarding Russia?

- Yes, the West must be steadfast. A democratic pro-West ring around Russia is the most effective way to make this region more European and to decrease the security threat. Dependence on the Russian market plays a very negative role for Russia’s neighbors, their democratization and finally, for Europe itself.

Write your comment

Follow Charter97.org social media accounts