Excessive focus on external threats obscures fundamental flaws in Georgia’s political system.
In nations shaped by unique historical paths, such as Georgia, political discourse often becomes disproportionately fixated on geopolitics. Domestic challenges are routinely reinterpreted through the lens of international relations and perceived external menaces. Within the post-Soviet cultural context, this tendency frequently manifests in a particularly unsubtle manner, serving as a tool for manipulation employed not only by governing parties but also by the broader elite.
While it is undeniable that global geopolitical transformations are underway, Georgia’s capacity to exert significant influence on these processes remains limited. Consequently, the excessive use of geopolitical forecasting for domestic political ends, especially when these processes are inherently unpredictable, ultimately proves futile. The critical factors in any geopolitical realignment are the internal organisation of power within a country and the legitimacy of those who represent the people both domestically and on the international stage.
Georgia’s Legitimacy Crisis
The ongoing developments in Georgia starkly illustrate a political system grappling with a profound crisis of legitimacy. A substantial segment of society rejects the established rules and decisions of governance, rendering effective rule exceedingly difficult. The alarmist assertion that Georgia stands at a critical juncture necessitating a return to “normal” politics is, in fact, misguided. The “normal” of the past was never truly sound. The imperative is not to regress, but to forge a new and improved order. Otherwise, a mere return to “yesterday” will inevitably lead back to the crises of today.
Since its independence, owing to a confluence of social and historical factors, Georgian political parties have not evolved into broad-based representative organisations of social groups or coalitions. Instead, they have largely developed as personalised entities centred on individual leaders. Consequently, traditional interest groups, which play a vital role in fostering democratisation, have failed to take root. This phenomenon cannot be solely attributed to a lack of political awareness or elite manipulation, although both are contributing factors. Rather, it stems from fundamental shifts in the social structure itself.
In post-industrial societies (or, in Georgia’s case, a non-industrial one), where traditional social frameworks have undergone fundamental change, society becomes fragmented, and citizens are increasingly atomized. Traditional left-right ideologies largely fail to adequately address this fragmentation and the multiplicity of interests. Consequently, Georgia faces not merely a political crisis but a crisis of politics itself, institutionally reflected in the persistent dysfunction of its parliament.
For decades, numerous democracies across the globe have experienced a decline in political party membership and a corresponding erosion of public trust. Mainstream political parties have either collapsed or significantly weakened, failing in their primary function of representation.
Historically, traditional parties ensured representation through the electoral process and exerted influence on governance between elections. Elected representatives were accountable to their party members, thereby ensuring the representation of various social group interests. Parliamentary decisions were typically the result of compromise between these social groups, rather than agreements struck between disconnected parliamentarians. In essence, democracy was largely the product of institutionalised political struggle, rooted in the social structure of 20th-century industrial society.
Erosion of Democratic Legitimacy
Scholars widely acknowledge a prevailing crisis in contemporary democracy, characterised by institutional erosion, inefficiency, and weakened representation. The ascendancy of economic neoliberalism has effectively undermined liberal democracy, which traditionally sought to balance Christian conservative and social democratic values.
The central paradox at the heart of contemporary democracy lies in the growing divergence between dynamic social transformations and rigid political structures. As ruling elites become increasingly detached from the populace, mechanisms for popular participation have significantly eroded. While social and economic conditions have undergone profound shifts, the institutional frameworks of governance remain entrenched in outdated paradigms. This widening chasm has created a crisis of representation, where neoliberalism exacerbates inequality while simultaneously eroding democratic institutions. Populism, in this context, merely exploits this democratic deficit, ultimately risking the replacement of representative democracy with plebiscitarianism and the consolidation of exclusive elite domination.
The transformative impact of information technology over the past two decades has further complicated these matters. The ongoing process of monopolisation within this sphere is altering the fundamental characteristics of capitalism, enabling certain companies to accrue colossal, quasi-feudal revenues and exert dominant influence over economic, ideological, and political domains.
Analyses of these challenges often lead to flawed conclusions. Proposals aimed at combating populism, corruption, and judicial bias through legal reforms frequently overlook a crucial question: who will be responsible for implementing these changes? If political parties—themselves embedded within a deficient or effectively defunct system—are expected to drive reform, why would they act against their own vested interests? Moreover, these parties often lack compelling alternative visions; even when they undergo change, their shifts frequently adopt populist or authoritarian characteristics, further undermining democratic principles.
Democracy is not merely a discussion about morality or abstract norms; it is fundamentally about power: who wields it and how it is obtained. Strengthening democracy necessitates addressing these underlying power dynamics rather than solely relying on moralistic appeals for a “better society.”
A Network Model for Democratic Renewal: Opportunity For Georgia
Georgia’s current crisis can only be effectively addressed by establishing new rules of governance—that is, by fundamentally rethinking the content and processes of democracy and creating novel forms of participation and representation. The profound disconnect between Georgia’s transformed social reality and its outdated political structures demands not mere incremental reform, but a fundamental reimagining of how representation functions in the 21st century.
Georgia’s recurring protest movements indicate the organic emergence of citizen alliances formed along professional and local lines. These movements suggest that the future of political organisation may lie in “coalitions” that unite around shared objectives concerning participation and representation while preserving their individual autonomy.
A coalition model, where professional organisations articulate specific sector interests and local groups actively address community problems, presents a practical alternative to the current system. This approach prioritises everyday concerns through actionable agendas over abstract political and “ideological” (moralistic) debates. Considering the deep democratic disconnect—where dynamic social changes clash with static political institutions—fostering such alternative movements is not only feasible but imperative. By transitioning away from traditional party politics towards these new forms of representation, Georgia has the potential to transform its current crisis into a unique opportunity to renew its political system in alignment with contemporary social realities.
Gia Jorjoliani is Professor of Political Sciences at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University.
Tornike Chivadze is a PhD Candidate in Sociology at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University.