The Rose Revolution, in Georgia, which aimed to bring peace, order and justice, is over. Outcomes are still significant but also questionable.
.png)
Source Image: DW News
It has been 20 years since the Republic of Georgia changed. On 23 November 2003, a young pro-American politician Mikhail Saakashvili entered the State Parliament holding a single red rose in their hand, calling on the President, Eduard Shevardnadze, to resign. This marked the mere beginning of significant political, social, economic, military, and geopolitical shifts in the country as well as across the whole region. Saakashvili has by now been prosecuted and serves a sentence in jail. His political party, the United National Movement, is on the verge of collapse while the Opposition is dubious whether it can actually counter the ruling Georgian Dream in the upcoming parliamentary election without the immense support from abroad now. Seemingly, the ideas of the revolution remain forgotten by Georgia’s broader population, praised and reminded only by supporters of the same parties and their sympathizers from mainly the so-called pro-Western elites and some American/European agencies. These actors hope to bring back the “good old days” when Georgia was arguably pro-Western and democracy flourished. It is time to remember.
Saakashvili has by now been prosecuted and serves a sentence in jail. His political party, the United National Movement, is on the verge of collapse while the Opposition is dubious whether it can actually counter the ruling Georgian Dream in the upcoming parliamentary election without the immense support from abroad now.
The most widely spread belief was that— the Rose Revolution was a victory of the West over Russia; the triumph of the pro-Western democratic opposition, led by Mikhail Saakashvili, Zurab Zhvania, and Nino Burjanadze against the more pro-Russian government of Eduard Shevardnadze. Almost everything in this formula is a simplification, if not a distortion. First of all, Saakashvili and his colleagues were the product of Shevardnadze’s government. Second, neither the political trio nor Shevardnadze fought in scopes of the West-Russia dichotomy. Eduard Shevardnadze had the same good relations with the leading Western politicians as he had in Moscow. Thus, the former foreign minister of the erstwhile USSR was not considered either pro-Western or pro-Russian but rather pro-Georgian. Shevardnadze “knocked” on the NATO doors. Third, of course, the United States (US) agencies were deeply involved in financing local groups like “kmara” (meaning “enough” in Georgian) to promote peaceful protests and regime changes in the post-Soviet space. Moreover, the main body of the future government was composed of people directly financed by Washington while the Serbian “bulldozer” revolutionists actively trained Georgian colleagues. However, the decision to support the revolutionary spirit was comprehensive. Both Washington and Moscow were engaged in the process. Moreover, the former Foreign Minister of Russia, Igor Ivanov was at the centre of Tbilisi to make sure the transition was taking place and that the situation was controlled so that it did not turn into violence. It was he, with additional safety guarantees from the Western partners, who persuaded Shevardnadze to resign peacefully. And finally, it was Ivanov who helped Tbilisi negotiate with Aslan Abashidze, the former head of the Adjara region, who proclaimed disobedience to place the nation on the edge of bloodshed. Thus, the role of Moscow in the Rose Revolution was immense. Both the United States (US) and Russia wanted to see a political transition in Tbilisi, possibly to a young leader with whom they could negotiate later on.
The second wrong assumption widely shared among Western experts/scholars, as much as among pro-Western Georgians, is that the Rose Revolution was a precursor to Ukraine’s “Euromaidan”. This is simply a falsification of the history that aims to adjust historical facts to the ideological preferences of these people; to bring history in accordance with the latest developments—the statements that there is no other way for Georgia, except to join the Western world on the Western terms. To believe this narrative, the West is inevitable.
The second wrong assumption widely shared among Western experts/scholars, as much as among pro-Western Georgians, is that the Rose Revolution was a precursor to Ukraine’s “Euromaidan”.
Essentially, this was not the case. No US and European flags were dominant in the protests, and there were no “democratic mottos” actively used or promoted. The slogan “I am Georgian therefore I am European!” was expressed by the former Prime Minister of Georgia and prominent local politician Zurab Zhvania later on, and back then, it would have been totally misunderstood as soon as only a minority shared it. Opposite to the Ukrainian “Euromaidan”, where people were persuaded by political elites that Europe could be the only option for the country, the Rose Revolution preceded the so-called Orange (2004-05, Ukraine) and the Tulip (2005, Kyrgyzstan) Revolutions. The main idea behind these movements was to liberate the states from corruption and “rule by law”. Regular citizens of Georgia were tired of a malfunctioning state and Eduard Shevardnadze’s regime that failed to bring stability, order and justice to its people. This is why a vast majority of the society decided to support a young politician, Mikhail Saakashvili. Both NATO and the EU as prospects for integration emerged comparatively later. Especially after the short-term honeymoon between Saakashvili and Vladimir Putin, when it became obvious that Tbilisi and Moscow did not share the worldview.
The latest celebration of the date by one part of Georgian society, anger on the side and generally speaking cheerlessness proved that the nation’s society is divided as never before. Obviously, the so-called radical pro-Westerners and the Western people perceive this happening as crucial on the country’s path toward NATO and the EU, promotion of democracy, and liberation of the Georgian people from the Russian “yoke”.
The latest celebration of the date by one part of Georgian society, anger on the side and generally speaking cheerlessness proved that the nation’s society is divided as never before.
Still, there is the same small number of people for whom Saakashvili’s appraisal was a hope turned into a disaster, including persecutions, assassinations, abuse of power and simply loss of power due to the reforms undertaken. The largest part of the Georgian people, however, is dubious, especially those who experienced it. While they recognise the achievements of the Rose Revolution regime such as tax and police reforms or the eradication of “petty corruption” in higher education, it is hardly forgettable that the same government killed the main idea behind the revolution—justice.
Saakashvili’s government gave people hope, bringing order and peace through laws as well as state violence. In the process, it forgot the most important notion—“rule of law”. This explains why the majority of the electorate appreciates the previous achievements of Mikhail Saakashvili and his United National Movement but it does not consider these political actors as what the state needs now and in the future.
The past must be left in the past and the future must be built by those who can lead Georgia, leaving the Rose Revolution and its narratives behind. This is something that the local opposition as well as those pro-Western NGOs, media platforms, business elites and schools of thought attached to the revolution’s spirit and ideology hardly grasp. And this is why the Georgian Dream will always beat the Rose Revolution. It is simply over. The broader Georgian society has moved on, and the same should be done by the country’s elites and strategic partners abroad.
Thus the Rose Revolution, which aimed to bring peace, order and justice, is over. Outcomes were and are still significant but also questionable. Mikhail Saakashvili is a former president of Georgia with no tangible prospects. His tenure must be left to scholars and experts for a deeper analysis. In the meantime, the opposition must offer a new narrative and detach from the Rose Revolution to counter the Georgian Dream.
Finally, Western allies must stop trying to use the former high officials and/or their sympathisers as alternatives to the ruling party—these people are simply not perceived as new leaders with new ideas; but rather imitators of the new, singing the same “old song”.
Archil Sikharulidze is the founder of the Tbilisi-based research institute, SIKHA Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Archil Sikharulidze is the founder of the Tbilisi-based research institute, SIKHA Foundation. His research areas are Russian and Islamic studies, the South Caucasus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. ...
Read More +
PREV
.png)
.png)