In our previous article, we highlighted that Russia could not forgive the “newcomers” who ascended to power through legitimate means and challenged the empire’s role as a regional arbiter in South Caucasus—Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia and Nikol Pashinyan in Armenia.
Both leaders managed to maintain and strengthen their power positions after the lost wars by fostering economic growth and improving the well-being of their people. Additionally, they achieved this by concurrently reinforcing, expanding, and preserving their person-centered power.
The builder-hero as the giver of all good
Both at the beginning of their tenure and after the lost wars, they positioned themselves as the builder-fathers of their societies, who modernized, constructed and created a “new” state. The role of the builder and the head of “home” was the best match for their modernist-populist character.
For instance, the government of the Rose Revolution, headed by Saakashvili, was proud of the new roads and buildings. As a rule, the president was very keen on personally inaugurating the most wonderful projects. Concurrently, Misha demanded rapid construction, and the local media was full of satirical articles about partly constructed buildings opened by the president himself.
Saakashvili often demonstrated the charm of Georgia and its tourism potential through his presence. He appeared on TV screens, once conquering the mountains of Svaneti in a skiing outfit, and another time on the coast of the Black Sea in a swimsuit.
Similarly, Pashinyan is once found at the peak of Mount Artanish, sending a peace message to the presidents of Iran and the USA. He also participates in various village festivals and opens the “FestiVAR” (“Var” in Armenian means “bright”), emphasizing the attractiveness of ecotourism, village tourism, and traditional culture.
Recently, the Prime Minister, assuming the role of an ordinary inspector, participated in the inauguration and inspection of schools and kindergartens constructed with state funds, highlighting defects and omissions. He complained, stating: “I am brought to open facilities without preliminary adjustments and inspections”.
Undoubtedly, the renovation of Kutaisi, the construction of the modernist pedestrian bridge over the Kur River, Pashinyan’s academic city, and the uniform improvement of village roofs belong to the same series of projects.
Saakashvili governed Georgia under the title of “Minister of Good News and Glory Ministry”, employing the classic package: economic growth, infrastructure construction, deepening ties with the West, and balancing relations with Russia.
Saakashvili distanced himself from any form of corruption, fought against bureaucracy and inertia, advocated for transparent governance, and portrayed himself as a representative and the chosen one of the people.
Facade Democracy
In the case of both Pashinyan and Saakashvili, the establishment of democracy, the building of institutions, and the elimination of the previous corrupt system were central themes in internal political dialogue. Simultaneously, they argued that the centralization of power in the hands of one man, more specifically either Pashinyan or Saakashvili, was just a“small evil” to prevent greater disasters.
According to Machiavelli, the end justifies the means, particularly when it comes to acquiring more power, which in turn offers more opportunities to enact positive change. Both Pashinyan, who rose to power challenging the authoritarian regime of Serzh Sargsyan, and Saakashvili, who aimed to dismantle the corrupt, semi-authoritarian system of Shevardnadze, significantly expanded their political resources. As a result, they consolidated control over the levers of power, further strengthening their positions.
It may appear absurd or even farcical, but for example, during Pashinyan’s tenure, as a result of the proclaimed democratic reforms, the Prime Minister amassed such leverage and decision-making authority that all former presidents would envy.
Similarly, Saakashvili, in the conditions of the prosperity of the country, economic growth, and a construction boom, expanded the president’s authority, acquiring such power that Shevardnadze could not have dreamed about.
Many researchers refer to systems in which strong personalities leverage charisma and popularity to expand their power, all the while invoking elections and the will of the people, as “facade democracy”.
However, many argue that post-revolutionary Georgia’s democracy and accountability failed to progress beyond the facade of new police buildings and the glassy, transparent exteriors of state offices. Similarly, Pashinyan’s lives and visits seem disconnected from the foundational pillars of democracy: the system of checks and balances, parliamentary oversight of the government, and the distribution and limitation of governmental powers.
The irony in all of this was that both Saakashvili and Pashinyan shared one common feature with their sworn opponent and complete opposite, Russian President Vladimir Putin: a deep devotion and diligent work towards building a public figure image and strengthening connections with “the people”.
Like Putin, Saakashvili, and Pashinyan, can also be spotted everywhere: in markets, factories, skiing in mountains, and swimming in seas. Both Pashinyan and Saakashvili not once declared their wish to transform Georgia and Armenia into regional Singapore, South Korea, or Israel (depending on preference and circumstance). In parallel with economic growth, the fight against corruption, the modernization of the country, and the “returning” of power to the people, both Pashinyan and Saakashvili were increasing and strengthening their “cult of personality”.
They ascribed to themselves the image and essence of their “newborn” and “explicit” countries. According to them, their countries would not exist without them. At least, this was the message that they were consistently developing and conveying to the public.
Despite Saakashvili’s efforts, Georgians grew increasingly tired of his capricious, impulsive, and emotional character. Simultaneously, they were fatigued by the inertia of reforms and the “perpetuity” of his rule. As a result of core reforms, a decrease in the black market, and an increase in the demand for a competent workforce, many people found themselves unemployed. These were the same individuals who had supported him into power and now had to “harvest” the fruits of those reforms: unemployment, loss of shadow incomes, and the burden of paying full taxes.
As a result the revolution and social transformations spoke about themselves: the society, which Saakashvili managed to change, was tired of him.
“He was considered very liberal by the church, too populist by liberals, and too progressive by populists.”
The country soon had a new “savior” the billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili and his “Georgian Dream” political alliance. Ivanishvili, who amassed his fortune in Russia during the 1990s, came with one promise: to get rid of Saakashvili and everything associated with him.
Ivanishvili capitalized on the disappointment that arose as an indirect consequence of Saakashvili’s reforms and promised to improve relations with Russia, which was the main perceived threat of invasion. Reactionary and traditionalist groups rallied around him, illustrating social fatigue and political stagnation. As a result, Ivanishvili’s “Georgian Dream” won the 2021 parliamentary elections with 54.9 percent of the vote. Saakashvili’s sponsor, the USA, emphasized the importance of a peaceful transfer of power for the democracy of Georgia.
In the case of Pashinyan, people’s fatigue from his populism and impulsive, conflictual management style can already be observed.
But new Ivanishvili is not seen on the horizon yet.
Great personalities who found themselves at the crossroads of their country’s history cannot have any other fate: they are either loved unconditionally or hated.
Gor Madoyan