On a chilly November morning, a somber protest took place in front of Georgia’s parliament building. Despite the opposition’s call for a massive demonstration against a rigged election, only a fraction of the expected turnout showed up. This lackluster protest marked a stark contrast to the lively pro-EU demonstrations that filled the streets earlier in the year.
The ruling Georgian Dream party’s apparent victory in the election, marred by allegations of manipulation and fraud, has raised questions about the state of democracy in Georgia. How did a party with ties to the Kremlin manage to win in a country that prides itself on being pro-EU and anti-Russian? The answer lies in a combination of subtle election manipulation tactics, fear-mongering, and a strategic embrace of conservative values.
Georgian Dream’s approach to election manipulation was calculated and moderate. Rather than resorting to blatant fraud, the party employed tactics like vote-buying, intimidation, and subtle coercion to tip the scales in their favor. By staying just within the bounds of believability, they managed to secure a victory without raising too many eyebrows.
The party also capitalized on older, conservative voters’ fears and anti-LGBTQI+ sentiments to garner support. By stoking fears of Russian aggression and portraying themselves as the guardians of peace, Georgian Dream appealed to a demographic wary of conflict and change.
Despite its pro-EU facade, Georgian Dream’s true allegiance to Russian interests was evident in its messaging and actions. By cloaking their pro-Russian stance behind EU flags and hollow promises of European integration, the party managed to deceive voters and maintain a facade of democratic values.
In addition to these tactics, Georgian Dream’s strategy to quell dissent and discourage protests played a crucial role in securing their grip on power. By allowing protests to fizzle out on their own and selectively targeting dissenters, the government avoided a full-blown uprising and maintained control.
The disillusionment and hopelessness among Georgia’s youth also played into Georgian Dream’s hands. A lack of collective action and a culture of individualism made it easier for the government to sow despair and apathy among young people, diminishing the potential for meaningful resistance.
Furthermore, the government’s corruption and patronage networks, coupled with economic incentives, kept key groups complacent and supportive of the status quo. By spreading wealth among the elite and maintaining economic growth, Georgian Dream ensured a level of loyalty and acquiescence.
Ultimately, the failure of the opposition to present a united front, engage with voters effectively, and respond decisively to election results contributed to the erosion of democracy in Georgia. The opposition’s incompetence and lack of preparedness allowed Georgian Dream to solidify its power and undermine the democratic process.
As Georgia grapples with the aftermath of a contentious election and dwindling democratic values, the future remains uncertain. The lessons learned from this experience serve as a cautionary tale for other countries facing similar challenges to their democratic systems. Only time will tell if Georgia can reclaim its pro-democracy spirit and resist the encroaching forces of authoritarianism.
