ლიბერალების მოკრძალებული ხიბლი

ლიბერალების მოკრძალებული ხიბლი

ავტორი: ბაქარ ბერეკაშვილი


დასაწყისი ანუ დაბადება

რასაკვირველია ჩემი სტატიის სათაური, როგორც უკვე შენიშნეთ პარაფრაზირებაა ლუის ბუნუელის გენიალური ფილმისა ბურჟუაზიის მოკრძალებული ხიბლი. თუმცა ამ სტატიის მიზანი სულაც არ არის ბურჟუაზიული ცხოვრების წესის თუ სოციალური ან გნებავთ ადამიანის ინდვიდუალური ფორმაციის კაპიტალისტური თეორიების განხილვა. მინდა ქართველ ლიბერალებზე გესაუბროთ და ემპირიულ კონტექსტში ჟურნალი ლიბერალი მოვაქციო.

თუმცა, სანამ ქართველი ლიბერალებისა და ჟურნალ ლიბერალის დესკრიპციულ ანალიზზე გადავიდოდი და მათ აზროვნების ველში შევეცდები შეღწევას (მერაბ მამარდაშვილის ტერმინია) მანამდე მაინც მოკლედ განვმარტოთ ის თუ რა არის ლიბერალიზმი.

ლიბერალიზმის გაგება

ლიბერალიზმი, როგორც პოლიტიკური ფილოსოფია დამკვიდრდა განმანათლებლობის ეპოქაში, როგორც ლოგიკური პასუხი ერი-სახელმწიფოების მზარდი აღმოცენებისა. ლიბერალიზმის ორი კატეგორია არსებობს: თანამედროვე და კლასიკური. თანამედროვე ლიბერალიზმის ძირითადი იდეა მდგომარეობს იმაში, რომ ხელისუფალმა არავითარ შემთხვევაში არ უნდა განსაჯოს ის თუ რა არის ადამიანისათვის ცუდი და რა კარგი, რა არის ადამიანური სიკეთე და რა ბოროტება, მაშინ როდესაც კლასიკური ლიბერალიზმის ძირითად პრინციპი უმთავრესად ეკონომიკური თავისუფლების მაღალ ღირებულებაში იყო მოქცეული. ამასთანავე, ლიბერალიზმის ზოგიერთი თანამედროვე მოაზროვნე თავიანთ ფილოსოფიურ რეფლექსიებს უფრო მეტად სოციალ-დემოკრატიული დოქტრინის კონტექსტში აქვცევენ და ძირითად აქცენტებს სამართლიანობაზე და სამოქალაქო საზოგადოების განვითარებაზე აკეთებენ და ხშირად ამართლებენ სახელმწიფოს ინტერვენციონისტურ როლს, როდესაც სოციალური უსამართლობა ჰეგემონური ტენდენცია ხდება (მაგალითისათვის ასეთ ფილოსოფოსებად შეგვიძლია დავასახელოთ უილ კიმლიჩკა და რონალ დუორკინი). Eეს მიდგომები ბუნებრივია სულაც არ არის მიმზიდველი კლასიკური ლიბერალიზმის მიმდევართათვის.

თუმცა როგორც უკვე ავღნიშნეთ, თანამედროვე ლიბერალიზმის ზოგიერთი წარმომადგენელი თანამედროვე საერთაშორისო წესრიგის პირობებში ძირითად ფოკუს სახელმწიფოს ინტერვენციონისტურ როლზე აკეთებენ და მოითხოვენ ხელისუფლებისგან არა იმას, რომ ადამიანისა და სოციუმის ცნობიერებაზე გაბატონდნენ არამედ იმას, რომ ხელისუფლებამ უნდა უზრუნველოყოს ისეთი პოლიტიკური სივრცის ჩამოყალიბება, რომელიც შესაძლებლობას მისცემს ადამიანს იცხოვროვს ისეთ სოციალურ და პილიტიკურ სივრცეში, სადაც სოციალური სამართლიანობის, თანასწორობისა და ეკონომიკური კეთილდღეობის პრინციპი გარანტირებული იქნება და თანაბარი შესაძლებლობების პლატფორმა იქნება გაშლილი ინდივიდებისათვის.

თუმცა როგორც თანამედროვე ასევე კლასიკური ლიბერალები თანხმდებიან იმ ძირითად პრინციპზე, რომ ხელისუფალმა არ უნდა განსაჯოს ის თუ რა არის კარგი ადამიანისათვის და უკარნახოს მას ცხოვრების წესი.

რა თქმა უნდა ლიბერალიზმის კრიტიკაც არსებობს, გამომდინარე იქედან, რომ ის არ არის ერთადერთი პოლიტიკური დისკურსი სამყაროში. ლიბერალების კრიტიკოსების ძირითადი მოტივი მდგომარეობს იმაში, რომ ისინი უარყოფენ ლიბერალების მიდგომას ადამიანის სრული თავისუფლების შესახებ მაშინ, როდესაც ასეთი თავისუფლების ლიმიტი აუცილებელია, ასევე კრიტიკოსები აქცენტებს იმაზეც აკეთებენ, რომ დასავლურ ლიბერალიზმს არ შესწევს უნარი უპასუხოს თანამედროვე გამოწვევებს პოლიტიკაში.

ისიც ვიცი რომ ეს ნარატივი რაც ზემოთ არის მოცემული თქვენთვისაც ცნობილია მაგრამ მაინც, ფორმალობისათვის. ლიბერალიზმის თეორიის აბსოლუტურ სიკარგეშიც ვერ გამოვდგები ოპტიმისტად, განსაკუთრებით მაშინ როდესაც ამ სტატიის ავტორი მემარცხენე გახლავთ, თუმცა აი კიმლიჩკას და კანტის თეორიები მაინც ძალინ მიყვარს.

ლიბერალები საქართველოში – გენეზისი და თანამედროვეობა

ჩემმა მეგობარმა სულ ახლახანს მითხრა, რომ მისი ერთი ნაცნობი ქართველ ლიბერალებს ლიბერასტებს ეძახის. ჰმ, ტინტო ბრასს ალბათ აუცილებლად მოეწონებოდა ასეთი ტერმინოლოგიური შეფასება, იმ ადამიანს აუცილიებლად მოიძიებდა თბილისი რომელიღაც უბანში, სახინკლეში მჯდომს და აუცილებლად წაიყვანდა იტალიაში, სადაც ხინკალს ლოგიკური კანონზომიერებით ჩაანაცვლებდა ლაზანია ან პასტა (პიცას შეგნებულად არ ვამბობ, იმდენად ბევრია უკვე საქართველოში რომ, იმერეთის რომელიღაცა დაბინდულ ტყეში გაშენებულ სოფელშიც კი, ქალბატონ მაყვალას საკუთარი მეთოდოლოგია აქვს პიცის შემუშავებული, რომელიც უკვე სოფლის ბრენდია და სადაც მოცარელას მაგიერ იმერული ჭყინტი ყველია გამოყენებული, რომელიც სხვათა შორის მე უფრო მომწონს ვიდრე იტალიელების მოცლილი მაცორელა).

იმერული სოფლისა და იტალიური პიცის კორელაციას შევეშვათ და ქართველ ლიბერალებს დავუბრუნდეთ. პირობითად საქართველოში ლიბერალების წარმოშვებასა და განვითარებას პოსტ-საბჭოთა პირობებში ორ ეტაპად დავყოფ, ან გნებავთ ორ განზომილებად: პრე-რევოლუციური და პოსტ-რევოლუციური.

პრე-რევოლუციური ლიბერალები ძირითადად სამ ბანაკად იყვენ დაყოფილნი: სამთავრობო ლიბერალები, ოპიზიციური ლიბერალები და არასამთავრობო ლიბერალები. სამთავრობო ლიბერალებს ძირითადად ის ხალხი შეადგენდენ, რომლებიც პრეზიდენტ შევარდნაძისა და დასავლური სოციალური და პოლიტიკური ღირებულებების მიმართ (რაოდენ პარადოქსულიც არ უნდა იყოს შევარდნაძისა და დასავლური იდეების მიმართ ერთ რეჟიმში ლოიალობა) ზოგჯერ მოჩვენებითი და ზოგჯერ დამაჯერებელი ერთგულებით გამორჩეოდნენ და დასავლურ ლიბერალურ დისკურსებს მთელი მონდომებით ითვისებდნენ, ხოლო ასევე იმავე პრე-რევოლუციურ ეპოქაში ოპოზიციურ ლიბერალებს ასევე ის ხალხი წარმოადგენდენ ვინც თავის დროზე სამთავრობო ლიბერალები იყვნენ (ანუ პირველი ჯგუფი). ხოლო არასამთავრობო ლიბერალები კი ძირითადად ოპოზიციური ლიბერალების ღირებულებით სისტემაში იყვნენ მოქცეულნი. ალბათ ჩემმა ამ ჯგუფურმა განაწილებამ გვარიანად დაგაბნიათ, მაგრამ არა უშავს, ჩემთვისაც დამაბნეველია იმიტომ, რომ ქართველი ლიბერალები არიან თვითონ დაბნეულნი.

რა ხდება მეორე ეტაპზე? ვინ არიან პოსტ-რევოლუციური ლიბერალები? სურათი ან გნებავთ ლადშაფტი აქაც არ იცვლება და ლიბერალთა ახალი ანკლავი ისევ ძველი ლიბერალები არიან: თავის დროზე ოპოზიციური და არასამთავრობო ლიბერალები მთელი ქვეყნისა შეერთდნენ და თავად გახდნენ ხელისუფალნი. თუმცა, პოსტ-რევოლუციური ეპოქის პირობებში ნაკლებად ავლენენ თავიან ლიბერალურ რეფლექსიებს და ახალი პოსტ-რევოლუციური ოპიზიცია, რომლებიც თავს ახალ ლიბერალებად აცხადებენ თავიანთი ცნობიერებითა და ცხოვრების წესით უფრო მუსოლინის ფაშისტურ გუნდს მოგაგონებთ, რომლებსაც გონება ვენდეტას მარტივი მისწრაფებებით აქვთ გამოტენილი და ერთი სული აქვთ როდის მოვლენ ხელისუფლებაში, რომ ყველაზე შური იძიონ და სამაგიერო გადაუხადონ. ეხლა, ამ მომენტში, ჩემს წარმოსახვით სამყაროში ასეთი სურათი დავხატე: ახალი რევოლუციის შემთხვევაში, მუსოლინი იქნება კოკო გამსახურდია და ანტონიო გრამში კი გია ნოდია (მიუხედავად მისი და გრამშის განსხვავებული იდეოლოგიური იდენტობებისა), პრინციპული მეცნიერი და პატიოსანი პოლიტიკოსი, რომელიც მკვეთრად არ იზიარებს ამჟამინდელი ოპოზიციის პრინციპებს, ნოდიას აპოლოგეტად ვერ გამოვდგები მაგრამ, ამ საკითხში ვეთანხმები, იმაში რომ ძნელია დაეთანხმო ქართულ ოპოზიციას.

თუმცა, თანამედროვე საქართველოში ვითარდება ლიბერალების ახალი ანკლავი. ესენი ძირითადად ჩემი თაობის ადამიანები არიან (მე 26 წლის ვარ), რომელთათვის ღირებულია შემდეგი:

• დასავლური ფორმალური განათლება (დომინანტური სოციალური სტატუსისათვის)
• ფინჯანი ყავა შარდენზე
• ჟურნალი ლიბერალი
• მუდმივ რეჟიმში იმის აპელირება რომ “ძალიან დაკავებული ვარ” ან “დრო არა მაქვს” (მაშინ როდესაც დროც აქვს და დაკავებულიც არ არის, მაგრამ დასავლური ლინგვისტური იდენტობის დაცვის შემცნება და მათთვის საყვარელი პროტესტანტული ეთიკა მოითხოვს ამგვარ დისკურსულ რეფლექსიას)
• მენეჯერული კლასი
• ვერა, ვაკე, საბურთალო
• ჭეშმარიტი თბილისელობა
• უკვე კარგად გაკრიტიკებული ქართული სოციუმის უმოწყალო კრიტიკა
• ირაკლი ჩარკვიანი (ამ უკანსაკნელს მეც სიამოვნებით ვუსმენ)
• დავით ტურაშვილი
• ტიბეტელი ბერები და დალაი ლამა
• ლაშა ბუღაძე
• მუდმივ რეჟიმში თვითრეპრეზენტაცია
• უამრავი რამ, რთულია ყველა ჩამოაყალიბო, ალბათ რეინკარნაცირებულ ანტიკურ ფილოსოფოსებსაც კი გაუჭირდება ასეთი ღირებულებების სრული იდენტიფიკაცია და ამომწურავარდ ფორმულირება.

ხოლო რათ მათ არ მოსწონს ეს არის:

• გოიმები
• სოფლელები
• უგემოვნოდ ჩაცმულნი
• უპოვარნი
• უცოდინარნი
• ხიხოები
• ხინკლის მწოველნი
• ჟურნალი სარკე
• გაზეთი კომუნისტი
• შალვა ნათელაშვილი
• ლეილას ალბომები
• გოჩა მანველიძე და კარლ მარქსი (ჩემნაირმა მარქსისტებმა მომიტევოს, რომ მანველიძე და მარქსი ეს საბრტყეში არიან, მაგრამ რას ვიზამთ ასეთია ნება ახლაგარზდა ქართველი ლიბერალების)
• საბჭოთა კავშირი
• ოდნოკლასნიკები

ასეთ ახალგაზრდებს კი ძირითადად სხვადსხვა სოციალურ სტრუქტურებში ან პოლიტიკურში შეხვდებით. ასევე ეწვიეთ Facebook-ს, იქაც აქვთ თავიანთი ორდენები ჯგუფების სახით ჩამოყალიბებული. ემპირიული მაგალითისათვის ასეთი ჯგუფი გამოგვადგება: Foreign Educated Georgian Professionals

ჟურნალი ლიბერალი

ახლახანს გავიგე, რომ გამოვიდა ჟურნალი ლიბერალი. Gგადავავლე კიდეც თავლი და ეს არის ჭეშმარიტი რეფლექსია ლიბერალების მოკრძალებული ხიბლისა, რამაც გამოიწვია ასევე ის, რომ ამ სტატიისათვის ეს სათაური დამერქვა. განსაკუთრებით ტექსტუალურმა იდენტობმა გამიტაცა და ჟურნალის სახელწოდებამ – ლიბერალი და უცებ მომაგონდა ჩემს ბავშვობაში მოქმედი გაზეთი კომუნისტი, რომლისაც აღარავის სწამდა, მაგრამ მაინც გამოდიოდა. თუმცა გაზეთი კომუნისტისგან განხვავებით, ვგრძნობ ჟურნალი ლიბერალს საქართველოში დიდი პერაპექტივა აქვს და შევეცდები პუნქტობრივად ჩამოვაყალიბო თუ რატომ, ამისათვის გავაკეთე 7 პრინციპის ფორმულირება, გაიცანით და ისიამოვნეთ:

• მისი სახელწოდებაა ლიბერალი და არა კომუნისტი (ეს უკანსაკნელი საქართველოში იდენტურია სიტყვა “ბნელთან” ან გენბავთ ასეთ სიტყვათა კოტექსტში მოიხსენიება “საწყალი, გაუფრენია”)
• ლიბერალი ქართული გაგებით – ადამიანი რომელიც ფლობს მონოპოლიას სიბრძნეზე და პროგრესზე
• ჟურნალს კითხულობენ ყავახანის ინტელექტუალები
• ჟურნალს კითხულობენ ქართველი ინტელექტუალები და მათ კარგად ესმით რისი თქმა სურს ავტორს, ისინი ხომ იმერელ გლეხებს არ ჰგავენ სულაც, მარტივი ლოგიკით რომ მსჯელობენ სამყაროს შესაძლო აღსასრულზე.
• ჟურნალი ღირს 2 ლარი და პლიუს 80 თეთრი, და როდესაც მას ყიდულობ შენ ამით განსხვადები სხვისგან, მაგალითად, ჟურნალის სარკე ხომ სულ რაღაც რამდნიმე თეითრი ღირს. შენი სოციალური სტატუსი სულ სხვაა მაინც. შენ იცი რომ იმერეთის რომელიმე მარგინალურ სოფელში ბატონი ჯემალი არ იყიდის ამ ჟურნალს რადგან 3 ლარს აგროვებს თავისი პენსიიდან რათა იყიდოს კომიკორი ღორებისათვის და ასევე იცი, რომ ამ ჟურნალს არ იყიდის გლდანის მე-7 მიკროში მცხოვრები ვახო, რომელიც ვაგზალზე ჯინსებით ვაჭრობს და 3 ლარად სიამოვნებით შეექცევა 2 კათხა ლუდს. შენ კი 3 ლარს იხდი და სამაგიეროდ შეიმეცნებ ინეტელქტუალურ სამყაროს. აქ მოქმედებს ფილმ ფორმულა 51-ში განვითარებული ლოგიკა “დამეხმარე, დაგეხმარები”, დაეხმარე ლიბერალს და შენ დაეხმარები საკუთარ თავს შეიმეცნო ლიბერალიზმი და მაშასადმე გახდე ბრძენი.
• ჟურნალს აფინანსებს სხვადსხვა დონორები, მათ შორის ფონდი ღია საზოგადოება - საქართველო, რომელიც თავშესაფარია იმ ქართველი ლიბერალი ინტელექტუალებისათვის, რომელსაც არ ესმით გოიმი ქართული სოციუმის.
• ჟურნალის დამფუძნებლები ის ადამიანები არიან, რომლებიც ქართველ ლიბერალთა სივრცეში უკვე დიდი ხანია ინტეგრირებულნი არიან და პატივცემული ადგილი უკავიათ უკვე იქ. და თუკი შენ, გაიცნობ მათ და მათ ხედვებს მაშინ გიხაროდეს რათა მოვიდა ჟამი შენი გონების განათების.

ჟურნალ ლიბერალს ასევე აქვს ერთი კარგი თვისება, კერძოდ კი არ არის საჭირო შეისწავლო კლასიკური და თანამედროვე ლიბერალიზმის თეორიები, რადგანაც სწავლა ნიშნავს ძიებას და თუკი შენ ხარ ჟურნალის მკითხველი შენ უკვე იპოვე ის რასაც ეძებდი – სიბრძნე და პროგრესი.

დასასრული ანუ აპოკალიფსი

მივადექი ჩემი სტატიის აპოკალიპტურ ნაწილს და ვამთავრებ მას. ერთი შემოთავაზება მინდა დაგიტოვოთ და რომ თქვენც გაგებაში ჩავარდეთ ისევე როგორც მე (ესეც მერაბ მამარდაშვილის ტერმინია). ლიბერალიზმის კლასიკური და თანამედროვე თეორიებიდან, რომელს უფრო მიესადაგება ქართველი ლიბერელების იდენტობა, ან იქნება მათ აქვთ ახალი თეორია? შეიძლება ასეც იყოს.


24 ივნისი 2009 წელი
ბოლძანო, იტალია

On Current Crisis of Human Consciousness

On Current Crisis of Human Consciousness


By Bakar Berekashvili


Current heavy discussions among the intellectuals about conformist nature of modern society are closely related with the crisis of human consciousness in the modern world. In my own view, there is no doubt that conformism makes human much more depending or subordinating to something or to somebody. And conformism itself is a logic consequence of uncivil consciousness which definitely separates citizen not only from state but also from world, from nature as such. We are born in this world as free individuals and the idea of civil consciousness asks us to follow this holy value of freedom in order to keep our individual identity and thus to be in eternal contact with world, with our planet with our own beliefs and views.

The crisis of consciousness is not a simply new phenomenon of our time. And this is not also an abstract, unrealistic term which exists only within very definite space just as a part of our inner imagination. But mostly, crisis of human consciousness is a process which has its roots from old time and we still witness it. For example, if the crisis of human consciousness during the middle Ages was human admiration towards the idea of holy wars that should serve for prosperity of their countries, currently the clear reflection of the crisis of human consciousness is conformist and uncivil discourses which dominate over the minds of modern individuals. But here, of course I do not mean that conformism is also new phenomenon, of course this is also old one but point is that new post-industrial and post-modern society presented their own and new character of conformism.

There is a logic question on our minds. So, what are the basic reasons of conformism and why are people striving to gain conformist nature? Well, I would say that no person, as such, is encouraged and devoted to be conformist, but current trends of social and political thinking makes human to be conformist and subordinated one. But, of course we can seek the roots or let’s say the reasons of conformism which made society and individual as a member of society to follow conformist lifestyle.

Well, Georgian philosopher, Merab Mamardashvili thought that economic well-being or social welfare is not absolutely positive phenomenon for human, just because of that economic well-being makes individual as passive citizen with uncivil consciousness because he or she only strives to gain economic prosperity and for this purpose individual may sacrifice everything and thus to be value-free person, which of course is a clear example of conformism. And so, with such attitude, an individual gradually separate himself from nature and from the idea of individual identity and such identity makes this nature and our planet wealthy because diversity as such in many senses and terms is completely useful thing, and diversity of various individual identities is a source of attractive and brave human race.

Obviously, as I have mentioned, I believe that current crisis of consciousness is based on the idea of conformism, but mention should be made that economic benefits are not the only reasons for origin of extremely conformist society of our time. But, I believe that another reason of conformism and especially in contemporary Western Europe is raising and development of bureaucratic character which exists not only within particular institutions but also within individuals. Bureaucratic character for Europe is not new, of course, but this is alerting challenge for such Europe who claims to be democratic to have such strong reflections of bureaucracy. And there is no doubt that bureaucracy stimulates and encourages conformism and just for simply reason, and reason is that itself bureaucracy has conformist nature and bureaucracy can not survive without conformism.

But, if we take into the consideration the case of current Russian society, we can easily conclude that crisis of human consciousnesses and development of conformism is comprehensively related with human fear and this is not only fear of physical liquidation but also fear to loose happy and careless life full with economic wealth and one day you may loose all these if you decline to be loyal with existing political authority or with existing adapted social and political values in Russia. I would say that current crisis of human consciousness is deeply reflected in Russia as Russian citizens lost ability of free thinking and thus declined keeping individual identify, free thoughts and free imaginations, even inner, invisible imaginations.

Currently I am in Georgia, which is my native country and talking now from the heart of Tbilisi where crisis of human consciousness is also, of course, deeply visible. I can list three main reflections of current crisis of human consciousness in Georgia, and they are: passive citizenship, snobbish social identity and of course, I suppose you need not guess it and this is conformism. And this is so pity that especially young people in Georgia are victims of this conformism and passive citizenship, but this is also true that they decided to follow this road of passive activity as citizens just because of that they are motivated to meet economic wealth and to dedicate their life for accumulation of economic wealth and such approaches of course helps young people to be very popular and to satisfy their interest on any social and political level, from sexual intercourse with beautiful girls to holding high political position or probably non-political but proud positions and to be known among the people, and especially among the poor rural people who has a dream to have such family member. Young people, here in Georgia strive to gain education not for sole purpose to live with truth but for very poor pragmatic reasons which is to be popular and desirable person for some clans and snobbish social groups and also, current capitalist system and social thinking made human consciousness of young Georgians as very greed for mass popularity and wealthy.

The crisis of human consciousness with its all negative challenges is a legacy of wars, decomposition of society and social disarticulation which started existence from old ages. This is very clear that current crisis of human consciousness also creates obstacles for social justice, solidarity and common understanding among the nations which should be key foundations for post-modern societies for eternal survival. This is indeed very visible for us also that contemporary world capitalist order for which conformism as a reflection of human consciousness has vital importance damages holy ideals of non-conformist and active citizenship. There is no doubt that capitalism co-exists with current conformist nature of society perfectly and without any serious resistance.

Luchino Visconti, in his brilliant and dramatic film La Terra Trema, tried to show us that this is capitalism which made human consciousness and consciousness of society as such very conformist and loyal with any kind of negative and damaging challenges of life, and if somebody wish to change local social lifestyle he is completely sacrificed and potentially dead if there is no social consolidation within society around the idea of solidarity and common respect of human dignity.

I believe that there is no other way in modern world than to change the crisis of human consciousness with all trends which it contains. And of course, the only way for us is unification, worldwide civil unification for protection of eternal peace, dignity and our individual identity

Thank you very much and as John Lennon said I hope one day you’ll join us and the world will be as one:)

On Civil Society in Post-Soviet Countries

This is a foreword written by Bakar Berekashvili for March Issue of A Different View, IAPSS Monthly Magazine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Foreword: In Memory of Merab Mamardashvili
by Bakar Berekashvili

“Truth is higher than nation”

Merab Mamardashvili

Dear friends,

I am especially happy to see another issue of A Different View which aims to discuss and evaluate development of civil society in post-soviet countries, to seek and analyze several key mistakes and achievements which we face now in this area. And I am very excited that this issue of ADV is dedicated in memory of Merab Mamardashvili, outstanding Georgian philosopher and public intellectual who gave his brilliant contribution in promotion of civic and democratic values in former soviet countries, including Georgia.

Merab Mamardashvili spent most part of his life in Russia where he graduated philosophy from Moscow State University and he deeply believed that it was his mistake to study in Russia. He studied in the country where soviet tyranny and oppressive regime of soviet system was awfully reflected and where academic freedom and right for free thinking among the scholars and intellectuals merely did not exist due to so-called political correctness. And even within such terrible conditions which Mamardashvili faced in Russia he remained faithful towards his values and principles which were reflected with his compassion of democratic state based on strong free civil society. Mamardashvili strongly promoted the idea of civic participation and need for civil society for any state and he delivered his lectures with such visions and views during Soviet era and despite high pressure from state bureaucracy he never joined large group of conformists which existed in academic community of USSR.

Despite high criticism of Soviet Union by Mamardashvili, this is a great mistake to say that Mamardashvili disliked Socialism, in contrast, Mamardashvili had his sympathies towards philosophical and conceptual basis of Socialism and he thought that Socialism was great European idea. And his critical reflections towards Soviet Union was relevantly accurate because Soviet Union did not manage establishing of real Socialism where social justice and solidarity should be guaranteed, instead of this Soviet Union and its Bolshevik founders established great tyranny and managed to close minds for majority of its citizens.

Citizens and civic groups were central for Mamardashvili in formation of state. He deeply trusted that citizens and society in general should emancipate their minds from such stereotypes, biases and prejudices which can disturb democracy and civil harmony in country. In late 1980s Mamardashvili returned in Georgia and worked for the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of Georgia and he also delivered number of lectures in philosophy at Tbilisi State University. This was time while in Georgia there was large scale promotion of nationalistic discourse from opposition political forces who soon took power in Georgia and also from large part of society there was active propaganda of nationalistic ideology. Mamardashvili strongly confronted with such nationalistic discourse and criticized those people who were in favor of such way of thinking Many people during this time did not like Mamardashvili because they thought that cosmopolite nature of Mamardashvili’s thinking was damaging for Georgia and he was especially discriminated by Zviad Gamsakhurdia, famous Georgian Nazi politician whose political team gradually started growing the power and finally it took state power in Georgia by the end of 1990s and in Spring of 1991 Gamsakhurdia became president of Georgia.

Merab Mamardashvili died by heart attack in November 1990. By that time he was on the peak of popularity in the groups of European intellectuals and philosophers, his writings are very valuable in contemporary Europe but unfortunately in Georgia still Mamardashvili is not respected and not many people know about his brilliant intellectual life.

One year later from the death of great Georgian philosopher, Soviet Union formally destroyed and this happened in December 1991. All member states of Soviet Union remained alone towards new challenges and initiatives. Some managed successfully to develop in progressive ways and some could not do it because of weak and powerless society.

Civil society is a very dangerous word for many governments in majority of former soviet countries. For example, this word “Civil Society” has cruel essence for the governments in Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Uzbekistan and etc. Deaths and murders of journalists, human rights defenders and civil society activists in these countries show high level of dictatorship and totalitarianism which is established in these countries by their political leaders. Formation of civil society eventually means opening of the minds of citizens and their active civic participation which of course will be defeating phenomenon for corrupted political regimes in post-soviet countries and that’s why they brutally attack idea of civil society.

However, in terms of development of civil society in post soviet countries there are still some progress together with regress. For example in Georgia we have thousands of NGOs, civic groups and associations of citizens who strive to promote and advance democracy in Georgia; however regress is that many such institutions and associations are controlled by the government and lost real significance of civil society organizations. Also, universities which are central actors of civil society are totally controlled by the ideological mechanisms created by state authority.

This is an achievement for civil society development in former soviet countries while we see brave life of Gari Kasparov in Russia against government, while we see how Kasparov and his group struggle for protection of human rights and solidarity in Russia, and this achievement is caused by small part of citizens in Russia who wish to bring down totalitarianism and to replace it with democratic order.

I hope this issue of ADV will give clear landscape and basic trends of development of civil society in post-soviet countries and will give its modest contribution to promotion of the idea of civil society in former soviet countries. This issue also includes links on the topic of the month where you can learn more about civil society in former USSR and countries of Eastern Europe. I am really very thankful to all persons who contributed to this issue of A Different View.


Best regards,

Bakar Berekashvili

An Open Letter to Mr. Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, President of the Party of European Socialists (PES)

An Open Letter to Mr. Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, President of the Party of European Socialists (PES)


Dear Mr. Rasmussen,

At the very beginning I would like to express my genuine appreciation personally to you and to the Party of European Socialists which you lead currently. I believe that PES is one of the most important intellectual and political players in promotion of human rights, democracy and social justice in Europe.

I decided to write you this letter, firstly as a citizen of Georgia and then as young political scientist who is extremely worried about political and social identity of Georgian country. This letter is just sincere expression of my thoughts and reflections on current political and social processes in Georgia and I decided to send this letter exactly to you as I consider you and your organization as a strong voice for freedom, democracy and social solidarity across Europe.

This letter is also modest attempt from my side to push PES to be critical about contemporary Georgia and to be critical not only towards political authority, but also towards political opposition and towards some basic stereotypes and social values which affects democratic transformation of Georgia.

On Political Authority in Georgia

In 1991 Georgia gained independence. Oppressive soviet regime which lasted approximately 70 years left hard legacy for Georgia. However, people tired with oppression and humiliation by Soviet nomenclature had deep hope for brilliant democratic future of Georgia. But this hope was destroyed by the nationalist regime led by Nazi president Zviad Gamsakhurdia who brought only brutality and disrespect of human dignity in Georgia. Then Gamsakhurdia’s regime failed and Eduard Shevardnadze took political power in Georgia. High level of conformism, large roots of corruption, terrible types of state bureaucracy and many other things became basic political and social values in Georgia under president Shevardnadze. And in November of 2003, through the Rose Revolution, citizens of Georgia brought down Shevardnadze’s hybrid political regime. In 2003 new hope was born into the hearts of Georgian citizens and this was a hope for being European country, hope for building European democratic country.

Today, Georgia is gradually losing this hope and it even started to lose this hope one year later after the Rose Revolution, while it became clear for everyone in Georgia that Mikheil Saakashvili and his political team is not an example of democratic government. Lack of intellectual resources and embittered young political officials turned out to be the most important problem in Georgia. Embittered faces of Georgian ministers and political figures and their hate speech towards different view remind citizens of Georgia brutal political regime and state repressions in Georgia during 1930s. However, I totally disagree that current political regime in Georgia is relevant with Bolshevik political system just because of that Bolsheviks carried fundamentally different ideological identity than Saakashvili’s government, but mention should be made that the forms of hate and discriminative approach towards different political opinions in contemporary Georgia is very relevant to Soviet Georgia during 1930s.

Saakashvili claims to be a patriot of Georgia and in the name of patriotic spirit he regularly violates the most important value of each individual on our planet – a dignity. Human rights and human dignity became unserious discourse in Georgian under Saakashvili, for his political regime the most important thing is statehood and not democracy, but he forgets that statehood without human rights protection and democratic values is a monster that has much in common with tyranny and nothing common with humanism. Saakashvili claims that national security and national interest of Georgian nation is more valuable principle than a human and his dignity. And this is a terrible mistake of Saakashvili. This is a mistake which definitely shall lead Saakashvili to his political apocalypses.

In his brilliant work The Republic Plato said “I am the wisest man in Athens because I know I don't know. I am only singularly ignorant. The rest of the citizens are twice ignorant. They think they know, but they still don't know”. The idea to know something or the idea of knowledge is also sensitive issue around Saakashvili and his political authority; they think that they own objective truth and everybody should admit to this truth discovered by Saakashvili. But point is that there is no hegemony over objective truth in our humankind, because objective truth itself is a phenomenon that could not be hold by human. But still, despite this, Saakashvili thinks that this is exactly he and his government who knows what objective truth is and even not only knows but they hold and maintain such objective truth. So, Saakashvili decided to be a god, a real god who knows everything. And this is another great mistake of Saakashvili, particularly to identify himself with god and therefore to be known as Misha Almighty!

Georgian philosopher Merab Mamardashvili believed that a state without citizen is a monstrosity. He talked about necessity of civic life during Soviet era where relationship between the state and citizen merely did not exist just because of that Soviet Union saw a citizen not as an actor in state building but as an animal who should be feed by country. Mamardashvili pointed out that the result of October Revolution of 1917 in Russia was that state stepped in and tried to mediate everything, and according to Mamardashvili this was the death of civil society. Unfortunately, same happened in Georgia after the Rose Revolution of 2003, state decided what is good for society and what is bad for society, state started to rule the country without citizens, political authority did not consider citizens as source of any power and consequently Georgian state started to be formed as a state without citizen. Political authority neglected to accept citizen as a foundation of state, instead of this they accepted foundation of state their principles and doctrines because as noted above they think that they know everything and they dominate over the truth. Therefore, Georgian country is under great threat, I do not see this country with its citizens but I see this country as a country without citizen.

The great shadow of conformism is still visible in Georgia. Young people, encouraged with their aspirations to become influential officials agree to do everything with neglecting of moral values and honesty in order to achieve their holy aim – dominate over employees at their public offices. The sense of naughty makes young state officials unmerciful towards other people who do not share their opinions or simply criticize them. Strong desire of young people employed at various public agencies to became promoted officials stimulates them to peach against their colleagues and even against their friends within their agencies. Impregnated with envy and grief, young people at public offices try to humiliate others who are honest and intellectuals and unfortunately number of such intellectuals at Georgian public offices is extremely low. There is a significant gap in Georgian young generation and this gap frequently divide them into numerous parts which definitely does not constitute any foundations for consolidation of young people in Georgia to obtain freedom, dignity and democracy in this country.

The universities are most important institutions on our planet whose key purpose is to provide team of young intellectuals for country who should contribute to development of democracy, civil society and social justice together with all parts of society. This is very clear that in Georgia the idea of university and academic freedom is very neglected and disregarded by state authority. For example, Tbilisi State University which is a first university not only in Georgia but in South Caucasus does not realize real functions of higher educational institution. Unfortunately, critical and creative thinking among the students of university suddenly disappeared and university administration together with governmental structures successful try to offer the only dominant discourse for students and teachers and like during 1930s, university administration argues students and teachers that their task is only to study and teach and not to be involved in civic and political life. The rector of Tbilisi State University directly calls to all students and teachers not to join any actions and manifestations against state authority, because he thinks that such engagement will be relevant with high treason and everybody should be faithful before Georgian government. This is also cynical that current officials of Tbilisi State University who unmercifully attack different views in Georgia are persons who follow political conceptions of Georgia’s former Nazi president Zviad Gamsakhurdia. This is a tragedy of Georgian educational system that nationalistic discourse and nationalistic doctrines are pretty respected at Tbilisi State University which definitely will lead this educational institution to ignorance. In fact, in contemporary Georgia, there is not even the only higher educational institution that is not managed and controlled by state authority and so Georgian universities became not a place of creative and critical discourses but they became outlets of Georgian government. This is extremely bad fact that student self-government of Tbilisi State University is a key player in abusing academic freedom and student rights at the university and with this action, conformist students prove their loyalty to president Saakashvili.

Many intellectuals of our era and also previous centuries develop and agree the idea that revolution should take place in the minds of individuals and that revolution just for institutional changes will not bring any well-being for the country. I totally agree with this idea that this is important to have revolution in the minds of individuals and therefore to revise some social and political values. We expected revision of social and political values after the Rose Revolution of 2003, and we had a hope that old traditions and negative values would be finally broken down but, now we are disappointed, because we clearly see that nothing has changed. After the Rose Revolution we have received just new political authority with the same old taste.

On Political Opposition in Georgia

Speaking about political opposition in Georgia is doubly emotional thing for me than speaking about weaknesses of Georgian authority. Currently, in Georgia there are several opposition parties who criticize president Saakashvili and his team. However, I believe that these opposition parties, including their political doctrines or conceptions are much more dangerous for Georgian country and generally for Georgian society than Saakashvili and his government. Here, I mean below, I shall try to urge my opinion.

Religious nationalism is the most important characteristic sign of any opposition party in Georgia. Almost all opposition parties absolutely agree to the idea that state should derive its political legitimacy from adherence of Eastern Christian Orthodox values and consequently opposition strives to form theocracy in Georgia which is a central value of religious nationalism. Almost all opposition parties agree that they should listen to the advices given by Georgian patriarch, leader of Georgian Orthodox Church. And almost all opposition parties declare in their political conceptions that they recognize Eastern Christian Orthodoxy as the only doctrine who should rule the country and frequently representatives of these parties deliver their hate speech in manifestations and within Georgian media against ethnic and religious minorities in Georgia. Especially, such opposition parties as are: Political Movement “Freedom”, Political Party “Conservators” and Political Party “New Rightists” are famous with their hate speech and with their adherence for religious nationalism in Georgia. For example, recent statement of Davit Gamkrelidze, leader of “New Rightists” where he considers possibility for Georgian patriarch to be a regent of the country and to establish monarchy as a crucial political order clearly reflects nationalistic nature of his political party, mention should be made that part of old intelligentsia and part of new generation support Gamkrelidze because they consider them as a “Truly Georgian” and obedient before Georgian Orthodox Church. But the most important dangerous opposition party which I consider in Georgia is Political Movement “Freedom” who is chaired by Konstantine (Koko) Gamsakhurdia, a son of Georgia’s ex-Nazi president Zviad Gamnsakhurdia. Mr. Gamsakhurdia is the most dedicated protector of the nationalistic regime led by his father in early 1990s, he actively promote same nationalistic discourse like his father and if you take a look to the mission statement of his political party, you shall easily discover that this is a neo-Nazis political party in Georgia which will overflow everybody and everything who do not share “Georgian” values if they could take the power in Georgia.

Brutality against different view, embittered faces and dark political past are another characterizing sings for Georgian opposition like for Georgian state authority. Almost all politicians currently engaged in opposition activities has non-democratic and uncivil individual nature and they criticize Georgian government not for the reason that they would like to build democratic Georgian state but they criticize them because they wish to take power in country and just to satisfy their personal ambitions. I do not believe that Georgian opposition can save the country; in contrast, I believe that Georgian opposition, due to its ineffectiveness and numerous weaknesses can bring much more injustice and brutality in Georgia. I strongly believe that that nationalism and xenophobia which are their ideological identity will destroy not only democratic transformation of country and but in case of their coming in state power, Georgia will face serious isolation and marginalization from international community which could have fatal consequence for Georgian country.

This is a real tragedy of Georgian opposition that some of the parties who declare that their ideological identity is linked with liberalism are not faithful before their values. Republican Party, for example, which is considered as a political party based on liberal values and principles decided to join United Opposition due to their hate towards Saakashvili and therefore started to cooperate closely with Nazi and neo-fascist politicians such are Gachechiladze, Gamsakhurdia, Gamkrelidze and many others. This decision made by Republican Party deeply disappointed me, because I saw how this party betrayed their values and principles just in order to gain some political popularity and political dividends and therefore to take power in Georgia after Saakashvili. Actually, I strongly disagree with disseminated idea that political pragmatism is relatively nice thing. I think that political pragmatism makes any political movements vulnerable to betray their values and principles and to neglect idealism, in such case they frequently forget faithfulness towards their political principles and thus they loose their independent and different thinking towards various topics and problems. I am very sorry that Republican Party became real victim of such political pragmatism in Georgia and as a result of such approach we can easily see how Republican Party successfully managed friendship and collaboration with nationalist opposition parties in Georgia.

Another key problem to which opposition faces currently is ineffectiveness to maintain their proposals and initiatives on various social issues in Georgia. Problem is that Georgian opposition does not stand on progressive path and it simply generates dark and regressive ideas and therefore it is not able to propose any successful and attractive proposals before the society. Georgian opposition, similarly with Georgian state authority regularly reflects their hate towards different view and critical opinion expressed towards them. Opposition discriminates all critical opinions dedicated to their activities and they consider all the persons who criticize their mission and political outlook as supporters of government. Therefore, we can easily conclude that both opposition and political authority are talking in same context towards different view and critical evaluations of their activities and political vision.

On Myths and Stereotypes within Georgian Society

I do not think that current crisis in Georgia is caused only by political authority or political opposition. I do not see only political and social crisis in my country but also I see huge crisis in the minds of Georgian society, in the minds of individuals who has shared old stereotypes and myths on various topics and which of course damages progressive development of Georgian state and society. Georgian film director Tato Kotetishvili, in his excellent film Anemia which was released in 1988 reflects its sorrow that even after Perestroyka, part of Georgian society still stayed in old communist stereotypes and they assess our life with non-existing myths and stereotypes created by Soviet dictator Stalin. Unfortunately, Tato Kotetishvili died several years ago and he could not see contemporary Georgian society who still remains in same system of social values created by Soviet order. Furthermore, now Georgian society mixed it Soviet values into nationalistic values and we have got hybrid which totally destroys possibilities to create tolerant and open society in Georgia.

Popular Georgian stereotype or tradition to assess human in terms of his or her work career is still characterizing and damaging for country. Especially young people in Georgia are extremely motivated to take high positions in governmental structures and with this action to increase their authority within society and so they are surrounded with high sense of naughty and consider themselves as individuals who own monopoly on wisdom. Such people are always concentrated to humiliate others who are subordinated upon them due to job conditions. And scared with the possibility to lose the job, the people who are supervised by such young nomenclatures frequently experience degrading treatment form such young bureaucrats. Even, within Georgian young generation there are clans and cycles who try to establish their own order and make everybody to follow their demands. Unfortunately, such clans of young people can be found in Georgia in many governmental and even non-governmental institutions.

Lack of critical and creative thinking within Georgian society and especially among the young people is especially sensitive for Georgia. This is a Georgian stereotype that people are pro-governmental or ant-governmental; there is almost no sense in society to be critical against both political authority and political opposition. People who live in this country with great wealthy are pro-governmental and loyal with every steps taken by political authority, while people who live with extremely poor conditions in Georgia hate government and embittered by their poverty they passionately support opposition and therefore people lost ability of thinking as they assesses the things according to their social well-being. And this is a tragedy of Georgian country while we have here extremely rich and extremely poor people. And so, today we have got broken bridge, two divided parts of Georgian society: reach and poor and this is a problem which was noted and discussed yet in the second half of 19th century by Georgian writer and publicist Ilia Chavchavdze in his works. Unfortunately, such broken bridge on which Ilia Chavhavadze talked about exists in contemporary Georgia as well.

Recently, brilliant Georgian public intellectual and writer Naira Gelashvili talked about problems of modern Georgia. She absolutely truly noted that this country is not developing through free thinking and that people still carry some myths and stereotypes which definitely do not bring free and creative thinking in the country. I agree with her opinion that like in Soviet Union, in modern Georgia political authority does not appreciate free thinking. And the greatest problem of Georgia is that neither government and nor society is committed to have free thinking, creative and critical thinking which is a crucial source for formation of open and tolerant society. I think the snobbish character of Georgian society mixed with its nationalistic nature will bring only extremely negative results for Georgia. We should recognize and we should always keep in mind that only free and critical thinking can bring Georgia on the way of eternal peace, universal prosperity and real democracy.

Despite the fact that one could assess my opinions and reflections as very pessimistic, I still have a hope, and I hope that once Georgian country will stand on a proper path which should bring peace, democracy and social justice in the county.




Sincerely yours,
Bakar Berekashvili


21 February 2008
Tbilisi, Georgia

On Human Rights

This is a foreword by Bakar Berekashvili writtent for December Issue of A Different View, IAPSS Academic Magazine.

Dear Friends,

I am writing you this letter from Georgia, from my native country where I was born in 1983 while Georgia was a part of USSR. By that time, doctrine of human rights in Soviet Union was considered as a negative European idea and political discourse giving nothing to the nations. Then Soviet Union collapsed and Georgia gained independence. But human rights still were not basic part of Georgian political agenda due to authoritarian-nationalist government which came into power in Georgia after dismantle of Soviet Union and seriosly damaged country’s reputation in international arena. Then in early 1992 this nationalistic regime was brought down as well, but still no progress for Georgia in terms of human rights protection just because of that new president Eduard Shevardnadze who was a former communist leader did not care of human rights and established hybrid regime in Georgia. Then like their incumbents Shevardnadze’s government was removed and by peaceful means, particularly by the Rose Revolution of 2003 and opposition leader Mikheil Saakashvili became country’s president in 2004.
On 7 November of 2007, huge peaceful demonstration was organized in Tbilisi by which people protested Saakashvili’s political regime and accused Georgian president in abusing of human rights and democratic principles in Georgia. So, still here we see again that even in case of Saakashvili who enjoys of having good international reputation, Georgia could not achieve to be formed as a democratic country. Saakashvili responded protestors with dispersal of rally and by announcing state of emergency which was canceled few days later. He also announced conduction of early presidential elections in January of 2008 and so few days ago he resigned. Georgians intend to vote in January, some shall vote for Saakashvili and some shall vote for opposition, but they shall vote with new hope, with the hope for better Georgia, but also there are significant part of Georgian society who gradually lose this hope. And this is a drama of Georgian democracy.
It turned out that this is extremely difficult for Georgia to preserve human rights and democratic principles and to take succeesful steps for democratic transformation. I have already noted above that Georgian governments of any period could not manage establishment of truly democratic regime in the country. But what I always urge to my friends and distinguished colleagues is that this is not only political authority in Georgia who makes problems for human rights and democracy in Georgia, but also this is a Georgian society who lives with double standards. Point is that on the one hand Georgian society wants to live in democratic country where protection of human rights will be guaranteed, but on the other hand this is exactly Georgian society who has nationalistic nature of thinking and snobbish character as well which are in confrontation with the protection of human rights and human dignity. However, I do not want to be a pessimist and I should say that I see progressive groups in Georgian society, not very strong and capable in decision making process of Georgia but I see them and they make me to think about possible perfect democratic future of Georgia.
Georgia is not the only country in this diverse world that has troubles with human rights protection. Just observe other countries of contemporary humanity and one would easily discover worse situations in the field of human rights protection. Let’s think about post-soviet space where we can see Russia, Belarus, Uzbekistan and other countries where political authorities still consider the idea of human rights protection in soviet context and they achieved to form conformist and scared society who can not think about protection of human rights even in their inner mental world. Russia, for instance, is a clear example how authority managed to take control over the minds of individuals who acknowledge the only dominant discourse offered by the government.
The enlightenment era played crucial and decisive role in emergence of contemporary idea of human rights which is so much important and simultaneously disrespected in modern world. The ideas and conceptions developed by Lock and Kant provided clear determination of what individual rights are and why human rights are necessary for humanity. Then other philosophers of next centuries gave us more explanations in which conditions human rights are protected and how people and governments should deal with human rights protection. So, what is called for society where human rights protection is guaranteed? Karl Popper, 20th century Austrian-born British philosopher suggests that this is an open society who can provide strong basis and environment for protection of human rights and individual liberties. And the open society is the most important enemy of any totalitarian and dictatorial regimes of our world, because the open society is an idea and concept developed by 19th century French philosopher Henri Bergson who argued that within open society political authority is trasparent and tolerant and according to Popper open society itself is an enemy of closed society where the idea of human rights protection is strongly neglected by the government. Democratic countries have open societies and totalitarian countries have closed societies and where the closed space is discovered there can be also definitely discovered darkness.
On 10th December the world celebrates Human Rights Day because exaclty on 10 December of 1948 United Nations General Assembly adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights and we decided to dedicate this issue of A Different View to Human Rights. With this issue we would like to explain how we see human rights today and to identify who respects true ideals of human rights and fundamental liberties in this world. This issue of A Different View may serve as a small but a very smart contribution for promoting and defending human rights worldwide. This is very important that the work of IAPSS has few dimensions and among them is to support protection of human rights and democratic values and for this purpose since its establishment, IAPSS carried out numerous activities focusing to promotion of human rights and democracy, and this issue of ADV is just continuation of IAPSS work in promoting basic principles of human rights, democracy and civil society.
I am really very happy to present before you this December issue of ADV and this became possible with existing of strong, motivated and common spirit within editorial board of ADV. I would like to say many thanks for everyone who took part in preparing of this issue of ADV. Special thanks for Zia Hosszu, Editor-in-chief of ADV and brilliant intellectual who did excellent job in preparing of December issue. I would like also to say many thanks for Irma Qehajaj, Co-Editor of ADV for her contribution in promoting of magazine. I am very thankful and especially grateful for Gábor Beregszászi, Michael Teodoro G. Ting Jr., Nikolett Sebestyén, Zsanett Papp and Kamilla Németh for their excellent articles on the topic of the month.
Finally, I wish to ask our intellectual readers to provide us with their very valuable comments, remarks, and suggestions. We are always more than happy to hear about your innovative ideas for our magazine and also to accept your articles for the next issues of ADV which will be also very interesting and attractive for all of us.

Reflections on Contemporary Georgia – Vision from Czech Republic

Reflections on Contemporary Georgia – Vision from Czech Republic (This article is simultaneously published for the newspaper The Georgian Times on 15 October 2007)

By Bakar Berekashvili

„There is no guarantee that the civil society is always benign. But we must take the risk. The civil society corresponds to the historical possibilities of man and history as a drama of good and evil. This is the dignity of man: the choice of good and evil.“

Merab Mamardashvili



Brief Discourse on Georgia’s Desire to become European Democratic Country

Georgia’s political and social aspirations are an open secret. These aspirations are based on country’s strong desire to build democracy and civil society in Georgia, to integrate into the European space of democratic and civic values and thus to confirm again for modern world that Georgia is a democratic European state. But definitely the task is not so simple, it is very challenging and still full with various obstacles. Georgia still has to pass a long way of democratization in order to achieve its democratic goals and finally to be formed not transitional democracy but real democracy in our own country.

In Czech Republic, where I live now, it took approximately 10 years to become democratic country. Since 1989 when communism died in this country, Czech Republic started rapid consolidation of democratic values that was doubtlessly led by Václav Havel. Currently, Czech Republic returned to its hostorical roots and enjoys to be democratic European country. However, here I mean no way that there are no problems in Czech Republic and that here we have absolute democracy. In fact, there is no absolute democracy in our universe.

It took 10 years for Czech Republic to achieve its goals and to become European democracy. And despite perfect progress which it experienced by the end of 1990s, it was possible for Czech Republic to join EU only in 2004, while it joined NATO in 1999. So, even for Czech Republic which is located in the central area of Europe and whoese political and social values always were truly European, it was still hard work to rehabiliate and to become real European democratic society.

So, now we can imagine how difficult it is for Georgia to pass sensitive way of democratization which should lead us to be formed as European democratic country. Despite some progress which Georgia achieved since Rose Revolution of November 2003 that can be seen in police and military reforms, Georgia still faces serious difficulties in building a democratic and civil society. It is still very difficult for some to say whether Georgia has opportunity to become European country and these problems and obstacles are not only related with political authority.

Weak civil society, conformist young generation, ineffective and powerless opposition, lack of critical judgjment within society – these are main problems and obstacles for building of real democracy in Georgia. This is not what Georgia gained after the Rose Revolution, but this is simply soviet legacy of Georgia, this is a sorrowful destiny of Georgia that even Rose Revolution could not change. It is hard to agree with the Georgian opposition groups who claim that Saakashvili’s administration established dictatorship after the Rose Revolution. I would say that so-called idea of „strong hand“ is a very successful model of geverning Georgian country and Saakashvili just follows this model. The only power that can stop implementation of the idea of „strong hand“ is only society or people. And the idea of „strong hand“ is not linked with the philosophy of dictatorship, it is just another phenomenon which is characterizing for former soviet countries, including Georgia.

Czech Intellectuals on Georgia’s Democratization

Despite serious defficulties and problems which Georgia faces now, here in Central Europe Georgia is still very promising country and model of democratic transformation after the Rose Revolution. Saakashvili is a popular person both in Brussels and other cities of Europe. Rose Revolution of November 2003 made good impressions for European intellectuals to think and speak abouth bright future of democracy in Georgia, some of them think that it will take long time for Georgia but still they beleive that Georgia selected good path for democratization. Petr Kratochvil, Deputy Director of the Prague Institute of International Relations said following: „There is no doubt that democracy in Georgia has improved after the Rose Revolution. However, comparing with the west, Georgian democracy is still under the way of development and not such strong as it is in west. Czech Republic also experienced demoractic reforms and it took couple of years, however we still achieved to become democratic in short period. Regarding Georgia, I think it will take much long time“. However, Petr Kratochvil also noted that there are some important steps that Georgian government should take in order to achieve its democratic goals: „Well, point is that if you want to have a real democracy this is important not only to adopt democratic laws and access democratic principles, but also to implement them. Georgia should be stronger for implementation of adopted laws and democratic principles as well. I think that the most important for Georgia is to strengthen institutional buildnig, to carry out strong anticorruption measures, to support building of autonomious capicity and etc. Also, poverty reduction should be important subject for Georgia.“


This is not only Czech think-tanks who think that democracy in Georgia improved and who believe in perfect democratic future of Georgia, but the Czech officials think also similarly. This is what Tomas Szunyog, Director of South-East and Eastern European Department at the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: „We hope that Georgia can become fully democratic country and not transitional one. We have full confidence with your government and this is very clear that you made very good progress in terms of democratic development after the Rose Revolution. I would like also to note that there is a stable political landscape in Georgia, economic policy is developing and social standards of living are higher“.

Above mentioned speech given by Mr. Szunyog is a very clear example of political symphaties provided by some influental Czech politicians and decision makers towards Georgia. And this is not only Czech Republic in Central Europe who has such political symphaties towards Saakashvili’s government, you can see such support in other countries as well.

What are the reasons of European support for current political authortity in Georgia? Another Czech intellectual, Marek Vozka who is very familiar with Georgia and currently works for influental Czech foundation „People in Need“ said: „I would say that before the collapse of Soviet Union and during the collapse of it, every member countries of USSR stayed on same political line. After collpse of USSR, some countries still remained on same old line, including Russia. But as for Georgia, it is very visible especially after the Rose Revolution that situation changed significantly. Saakashvili’s government is much more effective and the reforms which your government carried out are democratic“



Georgia’s Membership to EU and NATO – A Pessimistic Landscape

However, despite of positive point of views expressed by leading Czech experts on current political processes in Georgia, they have still sceptical view on the question of Georgia’s possible membership for EU and NATO. This is well-known that Georgia strives to join EU and NATO and declared that this is strong political will of contemporary Georgia to became full member of European family. Here, in Czech Republic, almost majority of Czech experts and academicians beleive that Georgia has less chances to join EU. „As regarding EU, here subject is much more pessimistic. And again problem comes from EU, and problem is that EU has adopted and introduced to Georgia ENP as a substitute of Georgia’s membership to EU, like it did for Ukraine and Moldova as well. I think that that question of Georgia’s membership to EU is a subject of political decision.“, said Petr Kratochvil.

So, it seems that we should not be happy to enjoy with having ENP in Georgia, however many Georgian NGOs and government itself try to make sure people that ENP is a step for EU membership. But the truth is that ENP is a substitute for Georgia to EU membership, the Georgian NGOs tend to misrepresent it, probably, due to so-called „Political Correctness“. As for NATO, here Petr Kratochvil is still sceptial, however, he noted that chances for NATO are bigger for Georgia: „Well, I understand why Georgia has such a strong desire to join NATO, but this topic for me more or less is sceptical and this not due to Georgia but due to NATO approach. Well, point is that NATO itself is very sceptical about Georgia’s membership, and this is not so much linked with the factor of Russia as many interprets it, but this is due to frozen conficts which exist in Georgia. However, if you compare with chances for EU membership, it is very clear that chances for NATO are bigger.“ he said.

Representative of Czech government also thinks that Georgia’s possible membership to EU is a very complex question, however Czech government fully supports to Georgia’s aim and aspiration to join EU but at the same time they say that this would be very long and difficult way for Georgia. This is what Tomas Szunyog said: „This is very complex question. Currently, EU is mostly focused of having negotiotions with applicant countries which are Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey. Also mention should be made that another issue is whether Georgia is ready to join EU. I think that Georgia still has many tasks to implement in this regard and it needs to pass long way“. Regarding NATO, here Mr. Szunyog strongly beleives that Georgia is a serious partner of NATO, however, here also he beleivs that this would be long way for Georgia „Georgia is a serious partner of NATO. We would also strongly support Georgia’s inclusion to MAP. This is right that you carried out positive defense reforms but joining of NATO is more demanding then only military reforms. I would say that this will be a step-by-step process for Georgia“ said Thomas Szunyog.

It is very clear that Georgian population is not aware of what NATO is. Curiously, most of the people beleive in popular political speech in Georgia that NATO is a pro-humanist, democratic union, while in fact NATO frequently broke down the basic principles of democratic values and the case Balkan region is a very clear example of it.

Why Georgia is Important for European Demoracies?

At first glance probably this question seems to be both difficult and simple. Petr Kratochvíl answered this question perfectly: „Georgia is a very important country for Europe, because we share same common values. Georgia shares European and generally western values and I would say that Georgia is a part of European community in many aspects“.

This is more then truth. But at the same time we still have to take many steps to be perfect member of European family and this is not only linked with building strong political and economic system, but this is importantly related with strengthening formation of strong free civil society in Georgia and to the promotion of basic civic and democraties values. Georgia should form effective society with creative and critical judgjment and to defeat conformism as a legacy of soviet social lifestyle.




Bakar Berekashvili is intern at the Institute for European Policy in Prague

The Georgian Times interviewed Bakar Berekashvili

Why do we need this lustration law?

By Nino Edilashvili, Georgian Times

23 March 2007

The knowledge of who the spy was is power. Who knows this, he naturally can rule him. - Georgian philosopher A. Bakradze
Why do we need this law? To be tolerant with those who collaborated with the former regime, or to condemn them for their past sins against us? This was a key question raised at the meeting on lustration on March 9.
The Tbilisi-based Goethe Institute, together with funding from the Heinrich Boell Foundation, arranged a meeting with Dr. Joachim Gauck, Federal Commissioner for the Files of State Security of the former the Eastern-Germany’s ,,shtazis'' (State defense service) archives. The main aim of the meeting was to share Eastern Germany’s experience with a lustration law with the Georgian audience.
MP Nika Rurua, Giga Zedania, Associate-professor at Ilia Chavchavadze State University, and Ivliane Khaindrava, an opposition-minded MP, participated in the discussions.
Lustration- which derives from the Latin Lustrum and describes a ceremony of purification of the Roman people after every five-year census - in the current world implies exposing those who collaborated with the former communist regime. This topic is very sensitive in post-Communist countries. The meeting hall was overcrowded and, despite repeated requests of moderator Lasha Bakradze to finish the discussion, the meeting exceeded the scheduled time by several hours.
According to Joachim Gauck, who is a legendary person in Germany, society’s attitude towards a lustration law is a kind of benchmark of tolerance for its own enemy. He said that the Eastern-European countries regulated this issue in such a way that it did not provoke any kind of discord among European society. Dr. Gauck advises Georgian society to choose the same path and promises to give consultations in how to achieve that.
In the communist era the best way to climb up the carrier ladder was to apply for membership in the ruling communist party. Georgia, with 70 years of communist history, was on one of the first places with a number of communist party members. According to popular statistics, every 10th Georgian was a member of the communist party. Many of them cooperated with the regime as agents, and the communist regime could control the situation with a dense network of spies. There were very few dissidents who were against the regime and were announced the people’s enemy for several years. After the collapse of this regime the former dissidents who wanted to know the truth and be rehabilitated started active work to adopt a lustration law. But their attempts ended unsuccessfully.
An opposition-sponsored draft law on lustration which was submitted to Parliament in 2006 November is the third attempt to initiate a law on lustration since Georgia gained independence.
The draft law, which was proposed by the Democratic Front parliamentary faction, says that those who worked in ex-Soviet special services, held high positions in the Soviet Communist Party, or served as KGB agents will be banned from holding key positions in the government. But it is a kind of tolerant, because this draft law will not have to publicize the full record.
Georgia's current government demonstrated its approach to lustration law when the new government formed (2004) under the leadership of late PM Zurab Zhvania signed the “10 Steps to Independence". The authorities pledged to pass a law on lustration, but no document has been proposed so far by the government. This subject is still a very unpopular topic for the ruling party and media alike. It is very difficult to recall any kind of initiative related to lustration that the government has proposed since then. It seems that lustration law is a very sensitive topic among the members of the government. That’s why the parliament majority don’t have a unified position, and that was the main reason why this draft law was rejected in February.
Giga Bokeria, MP from the ruling National Movement party, said in an interview with Civil Georgia in mid-November that “debates within the ruling majority are not yet over.” But he added he would support an “even tougher” law on lustration.
Nika Rurua, an active figure of National Movement party and the deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Defense and Security, tried to justify the parliamentary majority's careful approach to this issue at the 9 March meeting. He said: “Lustration as a process is not technically ready. 84% of the documentation is destroyed, or the main list of agents is currently in Moscow and unavailable to the Georgian side.” Rurua claimed that the very few documents in the hands of Ministry of Internal Affairs will not shed light to the issue.
The government-affiliated Liberty Institute NGO recently proposed a new and tougher vision on lustration which is kind of alternative to the parliamentary opposition's blueprint.
According to this proposal, lustration should target not only former KGB employees and Communist party functionaries, but also those who have been cooperating with Russian state structures since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The meeting on March 9 raised a key question on lustration: why do we need this law? To be tolerant with whose who collaborated with the former regime or condemn them for their past sins against us?
According to former political dissident Levan Berdzenishvili, it is important and absolutely necessary to expose the identity of the person who squealed on him to KGB, and who banned his colleagues from the university to attend his court trial.
Journalist Davit Paichadze, the Deputy Dean of Social and Political sciences of Tbilisi State University: “It would be better if Georgian society learns who, for example, Vazha Lortkipanidze [former state minister], Temur Shashiashvili [Shevardnadzes former governor], Zaza Shengelia[former director of TV broadcasting] are.”
Representatives of the young generation are opposed to the radicalism of the lustration law supporter. Bakar Berekashvili, a young independent researcher on Eastern Europe issues, told GT that the former dissidents who want to adopt the lustration law do not the follow dissident values, since tolerance was the most important idea for the communist era dissidents. “For them [the former dissidents] the main problem was the system, not individuals. They didn’t fight to bring those who squealed on them to justice."
According to the young researcher, in Georgia, which is building its democratic institutions, Georgian intellectuals should talk about how to help improve the democratization process and protect human rights rather than to adopt a lustration law. The adoption of the lustration law will only clarify who squealed on whom, but brings nothing to Georgian democracy itself.
"In my opinion, the State should begin digging into history, what happened 25-30-40 years ago, when it has finished its most important function – shaping a true democratic country." He added.
According to 35th US President John F. Kennedy, public peace does not require that that every one like his neighbor. It requires only that they live with each other with tolerance. So this lustration law will be one more test for Georgian society to verify how tolerant it is and whether it is ready or not to look back firmly at its past, neighbors.