Spring 2023 in Georgia was welcomed by a swelling of unrest on the streets of Tbilisi, as mass protests formed in response to a bill proposed by the government which would designate Non-Governmental Organisations that receive funding from abroad as foreign agents. This law is widely perceived as an authoritarian tactic used by Russia and other post-Soviet to suppress Western-style democratic accountability, shoring up the position of sovereign but often repressive leaders. In Georgia, the proposal of the bill clashed with the country’s aspiration to align itself with the West and eventually join the European Union. Protestors were seen defiantly holding up EU flags in the face of water cannons as they sought to defend what they believe to be their country’s destiny. The proposal of this bill suggested that the ruling government in Georgia was out of touch with the politics of its people and was destined to become embroiled by a popular pro-EU uprising, but in fact all the major parties, including the governing party, agree on Georgia’s European direction. The reality is that Georgia’s political future is confused and, for now, uncertain.
The European Dream
In the 2000s, Georgia looked Westwards, across the Black Sea to Europe, where a frenzy of European idealism was sweeping across the post-Communist states of Eastern Europe. Many Eastern European countries embraced integration into Western institutions, celebrating the promise of economic prosperity and security of newfound freedoms as the European Union and NATO rapidly spread across the continent. Georgia, a slowly stabilising state after the collapse of the Soviet Union, was also in need of a new geopolitical alignment, and longed for the high economic standards being enjoyed by Europeans. The need to fulfil this political objective became acute after Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and forcible separation of the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which directly threatened Georgia’s sovereignty. Whilst Georgia has been consistent in its enthusiasm to join the EU and NATO, these institutions require high Western standards to be met; and Georgia continually struggles with the sort of political turbulence that Western states have managed to rid themselves of.
Politics in Georgia is clouded by a fog of perplexity. Arrests of political opponents, deaths in mysterious circumstances and accusations of election rigging have marred its transformation into a liberal democracy. The recent protests were not an anomaly of unrest in an otherwise stable political system, but were in fact one of the 11 instances of mass protest in the country’s thirty years since independence. Even the Rose Revolution in 2003, which is widely seen as the moment Georgia liberated itself of a corrupt government and strode towards liberal democracy, was considered by some to be a power struggle between Georgia’s major political players, with the rising star Mikheil Saakashvili, who led the main opposition party, using contested election results to overthrow the incumbent President Eduard Shevardnadze, despite Shevardnadze agreeing to annul the election results.
Ultimately, politics in Georgia is opaque, with claims and counter-claims being traded by opposing parties. The health of freedom and democracy in Georgia rests on the truth behind nebulous uses of state power and accusations of fraudulent elections. On Georgia’s parliamentary elections in 2020, the OCSE concluded that the elections “were competitive and, overall, fundamental freedoms were respected,” but that “pervasive allegations of pressure on voters and blurring of the line between the ruling party and the state” called into question the public’s confidence in the political system. Furthermore, Georgia’s Western-outlook is challenged by the persistence of socially conservative values in its society and a pervasive suspicion of outside influences meddling with Georgia’s sovereignty. Despite Georgia’s headline ambition to become a Western state, the reality it faces is much more complicated, and whether it is ready to transform into a state that champions the values of freedom and democracy is a difficult question to answer.
Alive and Independent? The story of an art protest in Tbilisi
As already examined, many of Georgia’s major political events are muddied by conflicting interests, and it’s hard to conclude from them what sort of a state Georgia really is. Is Georgia a state where law and order is applied justifiably, or does the state abuse its powers to silence opposition? Do the affairs of the ruling party bleed into the state, or do catch-all political movements rule with the confidence of a large portion of the population? These questions can begin to be answered by a little-known and seemingly inconsequential event at an art gallery in Tbilisi. At the beginning of February, a month before the protests began, a Georgian artist named Sandro Sulaberidze removed his own artwork, entitled ‘Self-Portrait by the Mirror’, from an art exhibition and in its place spray-painted the words “Art is Alive and Independent.” The artist’s protest quickly caused a political stir, with a criminal investigation into him committing theft being opened, a decision which was met with outraged protest from the art community. The protests were met with a strong police response, which caused Georgia’s president to criticise the approach that the Government was taking over such petty acts of dissidence. Just 10 days later, the investigation was dropped.
Sulaberidze’s protest had followed a war of words between the Culture Minister Tea Tsulukiani and many of Georgia’s creatives. Tsulukiani was appointed to the role of Culture Minister in 2021, and wasted little time in undertaking an exodus of employees who were supposedly too unprofessional or had gained their positions through nepotism. This uncompromising reform was met with intense backlash, with those in the creative industries claiming that the sackings were politically motivated, and that replacements were chosen on loyalty. As well as dismissing many from the ministry, Tsulukiani made unpopular decisions that questioned the independence of Georgia’s art scene, such as the planned demolition of the Fine Arts Museum and the decision to place a ministry official on the judging panel of a literary competition, causing it to be cancelled. The plans to demolish the museum made the dismissal of a number of the museum’s staff particularly curious, especially as those who lost their jobs had also vocally opposed the demolition.
Tsulukiani’s ruthless reform of the ministry occupies the grey area of Georgian politics. Dismissals that have been taken to court have been ruled as unfair, and judges ordered for compensation to be paid, but didn’t in all cases reinstate the workers back to their positions. Tsulukiani showed little regard for how her reforms are viewed by some, in a speech to parliament acknowledged that what she considered reform others considered repression, saying “both start with ‘r’, and that’s okay.” Regardless of whether her dismissals are justified reforms or cloaked acts of repression, the investigation into Sulaberidze for stealing his own artwork over this issue shows how deeply uncomfortable the Georgian state is when faced with dissent. Taking the political decision to crack down on an act of artistic expression with heavy-handed policing clearly highlights the reality that, despite its ambitions, the shadow of Soviet politics still follows Georgia, with censorship and a party interference in the state remaining habitual problems in its political culture.
The Art of Freedom
Art has long been synonymous with freedom in Georgia. During its short lived period of independence after the Bolshevik revolution, Georgia and Tbilisi in particular became home to a budding international avant-garde movement. Artists in Tbilisi practised pioneering styles such as cubism and futurism, and the city attracted poets from different parts of the world. Georgia came under Soviet control in 1921, and artistic expression slowly became more restricted, culminating in the brutally repressive acts of Stalin’s regime in the 1930s. Dissident artists were sentenced to death, others who didn’t tow the state line were dismissed from their jobs, and eventually certain art styles were completely banned in favour of Soviet schools of thought. Georgia’s once vibrant and innovative art scene died out, and it was only in the 1960s that Georgian artists started to express their ideas again, as part of a wave of nonconformist art in the Soviet Union. In Georgia, however, artistic expression reflected the country’s more European culture, and therefore posed a challenge to the internationalist order of the Soviet Union, so artists continued to be censored.
The way in which Soviet repression of art links with the actions of the Ministry of Culture today does not need much explaining. It is not exaggeration to compare the ministry’s policies today with the brutal repressiveness of the Soviet state, as the old behaviours of Soviet politics are being repeated today – using the state as a mechanism to silence voices that challenge the political status quo, which is dominated by the ruling party. Despite Georgia’s attempts to appear a transformed state that is liberal and diverse in its politics, the norm of a one-party state has continued on from the Soviet era. Since its independence Georgia has lurched between different parties that have held a monopoly on power, and during their time in power they have been accused of corrupt practices and election manipulation, although often the opposition to the government has been headed by parties that had held or sought to hold this monopoly themselves. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the behaviours of Soviet authority have remained a part of the reflexes of Georgia’s ruling politicians.
Georgia faces a post-Soviet identity crisis. Looking towards the West as a path for the future has become consensus in Georgian society, but the country remains troubled by its habitual authoritarian behaviours, and the tendency for party politics and governance to become entangled with one another. As a result, Georgia’s democracy has found itself in a grey area, stuck between the ideals of Western democracy and the influence of its Soviet legacy, leaving many who wistfully long for a joyous liberation from the past increasingly despairing at the country’s inability to take control of its own destiny. When it comes to Georgia’s future, its sovereign will is its priority, but if it wants to transform itself into a Western society, it needs a united opposition movement led by the parties that are uncompromisingly pro-European in their approach to reform. Georgia has already laid the groundwork for becoming an established European democracy, marketising its economy and effectively flushing out corruption in the state, but there needs to be a separation between party and state and a tolerance for differing opinions in order to fulfil what has been begun. The response to Sulaberidze’s art protest and the controversy surrounding the Ministry of Culture show that art is a metaphor for Georgia’s freedom, and that in order to release Georgia from the shackles of its past, it must free its art scene and allow it to guide Georgia on its desired path forwards.
Cover Photo Credit: Sergei Marchenko
Leave a Reply