Bush, Georgia and Authoritarianism

[Gandalf Grey]

Bush, Georgia and Authoritarianism

By Nat Parry

Created Jan 6 2008 - 9:34am


As America focuses on the start of the U.S. presidential election process,
another election half a world away offers important insights into the nature
of democracy and the shortcomings of George W. Bush's democracy promotion in
other countries.

In the former Soviet republic of Georgia, citizens go to the polls today for
the first time since the widely celebrated Rose Revolution of 2003. Then,
Georgia was hailed by Western governments as a beacon of democracy in a
region beset by authoritarianism.

Yet, there is mounting evidence that the Georgian government is sliding back
toward authoritarianism.

Two recent reports criticize the Georgian government for human rights abuses
and corruption, warning that the democratic advances of the Rose Revolution
may already be falling by the wayside.

In one report [1], Human Rights Watch asserted that "the fragility of
Georgia's commitment to human rights and the rule of law was revealed on
Nov. 7, 2007, when government forces used violent and excessive force to
disperse a series of largely peaceful demonstrations in the capital,
Tbilisi."

In the other report [2], the highly regarded International Crisis Group
warned of a creeping authoritarianism in Georgia and urged Western
governments to pressure the regime in Tbilisi to respect democratic
principles.

The ICG report, "Georgia: Sliding Towards Authoritarianism?," was prompted
by that violent crackdown on opposition protesters in November.
Disproportionate force was used against peaceful demonstrators, and a
private television station was violently shut down, the ICG wrote.

The imposition of emergency rule "brought a halt to hitherto unquestioning
Western support of the Georgian leadership," the ICG said.

In response to these troubling developments, the ICG called on Western
friends of Georgia and especially Washington to pressure the Georgian
government to correct its "increasingly authoritarian course."

The United States "in particular" needs to "make clear it supports
democratic principles" in Georgia and not a particular regime, the ICG said.

But even as these calls are made for the U.S. to support democratic
principles abroad, democratic principles at home continue to be undermined,
a reality which makes it increasingly unlikely that Washington can apply any
meaningful pressure on a fragile democracy in the Caucasus.

This is an argument that has long been made by world leaders, human rights
campaigners and international organizations - specifically, that by ignoring
international norms and standards in its prosecution of the "war on terror,"
the Bush administration would end up emboldening authoritarian governments
and weakening the ability of the West to uphold human rights worldwide.

Diminished Moral Authority

Indeed, although the Georgian government has heeded some of the demands from
Washington, such as its calls to lift the emergency rule put in place in
November, and reopen the television station Imedi, which was closed during
the crisis, it is apparent that many of the areas cited by the ICG as
evidence of authoritarianism in Georgia could just as easily be applied to
the United States.

For instance, the ICG frets that in Georgia, "the concentration of power in
a small, like-minded elite and unwillingness to countenance criticism have
undermined its democratic standing." Also, "cronyism is increasingly
evident" and "checks and balances have been stripped back, justice
arbitrarily applied, human rights too often violated and freedom of
expression curtailed."

On each of these counts, it could be argued, the Bush administration is just
as culpable as the government of Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili.

The neo-conservatives in the administration are notoriously like-minded and
hostile to outside criticism, and with President Bush's signing statements
and executive orders, checks and balances have been eroded to the point that
they're almost non-existent.

And when it comes to applying justice arbitrarily, again, this is an issue
for which the U.S. has been heavily criticized dating back to the earliest
days of the "war on terror."

In July 2002, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Terrorism and Human Rights
issued a report stating [3] that many of the anti-terrorism measures the
Bush administration enacted after 9/11 failed to conform to the principles
of international human rights law, particularly the arbitrary detention of
more than 750 people in the U.S., primarily of Middle Eastern descent.

The mass arrest of immigrants was an apparent attempt by the government to
capture those responsible for the terrorist attacks, but there was little
evidence that any of the detainees had connections to terrorism.

Despite this lack of evidence, they remained in custody for months without
proper access to counsel or basic due process rights. [By contrast, the Bush
administration cleared the way for well-connected Saudis, including members
of Osama bin Laden's family, to leave the United States on special flights
only days after the 9/11 attacks.]

Over the next few years, it became increasingly evident that the "war on
terror" was leading to a steady erosion worldwide of human rights standards.
Equally troubling, it looked as though Western governments that had long
championed human rights were losing the moral credibility they needed to
pressure authoritarian regimes on human rights practices.

In December 2005, for example, Louise Arbour, the United Nations high
commissioner for human rights, openly criticized the U.S. for its human
rights practices in the "war on terror" and directly made the connection
between U.S. practices and a deteriorating human rights situation worldwide.

American "moves to water down or question the absolute ban on torture, as
well as on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" are "particularly
insidious," in that they are contributing to an erosion of human rights
standards across the world, Arbour said. "Governments in a number of
countries are claiming that established rules do not apply anymore."

These authoritarian regimes cite the U.S., she said, in claiming "that we
live in a changed world and that there is a 'new normal.'" [Washington Post,
Dec. 8, 2005]

Amnesty International also weighed in on the issue. In May 2006, it released
a report criticizing Western governments and the UN Security Council for
turning a blind eye to the excesses of the "war on terror" and inadvertently
enabling human rights abuses worldwide.

"When the U.K. remains muted on arbitrary detention and ill-treatment in
Guant

 

[Debbie Smythe]

FULLY LOADED NEW PARLIAMENT THE BEST SHOT FOR THE FUTURE OF GEORGIA?

Matthew L. Bryza
for ...the future of Georgia

Nov. 7th, 2007, Tbilisi

I believe Ms. Hammick, a reporter recently writing for JANE'S DEFENSE
WEEKLY, upon the upcoming election in Tbilisi, was practicing the art
of, as F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, of "the test of a first rate
intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at
the same time, and still retain the ability to function".

How so? She was evidently flipping through her mind the several
conflicting tentative dates set for the parliamentary elections,
starting back in late 2003. Since Nov. 23rd, 2003, when President
Saakashvili parachuted into his position as ruler of Georgia, and the
rarely clarified-in-the-media Georgian constitutional amendments, made
in December, 2005, most people are understandably deeply confused and
divided on basic democratic procedures here, regarding efforts that
would help the majority of people, rather than propping up some cold
and abstract ideology in its stead, helping old insiders and new
"graspers," only.

Here is a blurb from Freedom House back in mid 2005, to refresh your
memories of the jigsaw puzzle of parliamentary election procedures
here:

[First, Saakashvili and NED and the Liberty Institute set in train the
protests which brought him to power on 23rd November, 2003. Thus, it
can be argued, that parliamentary elections should have been held in
Nov. of 2007.]

15.06.2005 - Source: Freedom House, ... the 2004 elections were
somewhat free and fair; however, the level of political pluralism had
been severely reduced, as no party could compete with National
Movement-Democrats

("Nations in Transit 2005") [#32929], [ID 4745]

"...the elections of 2004 were considered generally free and fair,
though voter lists were still not fully complete. There was no
harassment of the opposition. However, the level of political
pluralism was sharply reduced as the former ruling party completely
disbanded and no political group could compete with Mikhail
Saakashvili and his National Movement-Democrats. Only one opposition
bloc of the New Rights and Industrialists was able narrowly to
overcome the 7 percent threshold for party lists."

RHETORICAL QUESTION: Compared to Georgians and their 6 or 7 thousand
year old fiercely loyal and devotion-oriented family traditions, how
many Americans do you know who actually look after their old parents
and grandparents themselves, and who do not put them into criminally
overpriced USA-style and shamefully profitable nursing/senior/memory
care homes, backed up in large measure by HHS/MEDICARE political
insiders, working along with State and Federal congresspersons to milk
the tax system? Probably two, one, or none. How many Americans
typically speak and read three languages and alphabets, and who work
45 to 65 hours a week with not a tetri [penny] of paid overtime, and
who never complain about the total lack of labor laws in their
Parliament??? Again, nearly zero. You can count such Americans on one
hand! Here, in Georgia, such models of self-sacrifice and duty are as
common as khachipuri, their local grilled cheese sandwich.

These diamantine and sparkling Georgians [illustrated briefly above]
are the citizens who belong in their Parliament, and not only elites
and millionaire businessmen/women, and THEY should be the ones to
select a new president, if there is to be any hope of true democracy
here in Georgia any year soon.

A president such as "Misha" [short for Saakashvili], who galloped into
power overnight on the day quoted above, would be fairly tested by the
people of his new democracy, if and only if, the people themselves
gave him something like his report card grades after the last 4 long
years in which he could evaluate himself too, in careful and painful
self-examination. The result of a revitalizing and invigorating new
parliamentary election process, in which a `new batch of 2007/2008
parliament MPs', not in any way part of Saakashvili's clan, nor part
of the current Opposition's clan, could and would implement fresh and
vigorous legislation and programs. If only they had been allowed to do
so at the end of 2007, a global miracle would have been born - a real
beacon of light !!!

A real beacon of light, especially when one considers the helpful and
democracy-building funding from outside agencies of the last 4 years,
thanks to credits and currencies from the USAID, the EU, the UN, SECO/
SDC, the German and Polish governments, et al, who have greatly helped
make many of the improvements the Georgians have desperately needed,
after the mayhem and ugly scenarios following the collapse of
communism in this nation.

Isn't this Parliamentary "stuffing" the nub of the conflict today, and
a major cause of the loss of public and international confidence in
the current Saakashvili government? Aren't I correct that these
Georgians need to immediately reload their Parliament?

Georgians themselves, excluding the ever and over and twice again
prospering current Members of Parliament, the normal children of the
legendary Family of Georgia are cut off at the knees from any kind of
truly democratic structures and planks and platforms, in nearly every
respect, in the current situation. Can anyone remember how
Shevardnadze reinstated most of his Parliament after he dismissed
them, more or less, can you dig out these events from the faded
memories of the past? How many key players in Saakashvili's current
clan worked at one time [for quite a long while, indeed] on the
monorail of Shevaradnadze's express train to disunity and oblivion and
hunger?

Will not the Saakashvili MPs and he as their leader, and most of the
old Opposition MPs, simply repeat the same mistakes again and again?

So we might conclude after an hour or two of productive thought on
this matter, [i.e., of a fresh and uncompromised Parliament], that the
Georgian people were indeed deprived of a timely, and legal, and in-
their-favor, parliamentary election, in November of 2007, which might
have brought about the promising guiding-light of fresh teams of
Georgian MBAs and MDs and Masters degree winners, coming back from
USA, UK and Germany and France-- the EU, et al.

A parliament comprised of the principals and top teachers of Tbilisi
and Kutaisi and Batumi and Telavi schools, and Georgian physician-
activists for the desperately needed hospital care and health care
here for the struggling desperate people of Georgia, and along with
them also the passionate property rights activists fighting the
Chancellery, and the grey panthers of organized parties of disgruntled
pensioners, and the many magnificent and proud Georgians, which
include displaced farmers from their hectares who are being replaced
by huge corporate conglomerate automated farms, owned by many current
MPs, these urgently needed new MPs -- who could have stampeded into
parliament as newly elected MPs this if just given the chance -- and
that this imagined truly democratic and model parliamentary election,
could have come into being at the most opportune time for the natives
of this land, late 2007, early 2008, consisting of the non-elite of
Georgia, basically. They would have swept out most of Misha's MPs, and
along with them the bulk of old Shevardnadze and Moscow-resonating
fiddlers too, who/which are frequently and deeply embedded in the half-
dozen or more, old and very tiresome Opposition parties here, as time
rolls on like tank treads on these pot-holed streets?

These never recruited and never elected new MPs would have averted the
hurried and hasty presidential elections of Jan. 5, 2008, and would
just as likely waited until a late 2008 election date to install their
new president. By this time there would have been nearly a full year
of generous and hospitable Georgian debates, within a newly
transfigured Parliament, MPs most probably not in tune with Misha
during this hypothetical 2008 year's passing, and they would all have
had to agree and/or disagree with each other in a gentlemanly or
ladylike way, until end of 2008. Political pluralism would have
flowered like the Garden of Eden, and new and friendly coalitions
would have emerged [only in this scenario] and triumphed from the
reforms of Saakashvili's first two years.

These new and unheard of, but now lost to Georgia's better and
undiscovered destiny, these many freshly minted MPs could have TRULY
debated issues and policies and finances, rather than the mud slinging
ejaculations and shout spasms we see today, and these angels of
democracy were in many aspects stolen from the garden of justice, just
as its flowers were showing her firsts blossoms. These hypothetical
MPs might have had the chance to vote in Parliament on the issues
TRULY important to THEM and to their constituents, and not just to
pocket USAID money for imported goods laden highways, nor toady up to
the Pentagon's missile strategies for Georgia, nor kneel to the
proponents of Vladimir Putin, his inner team evidently NOT allies of
Georgia, nor would these ideal MPs have supported the old camaraderie
business ties to Russia are still deeply entrenched here, but not
clearly seen, and counterproductive to a new democracy.

I am truly astonished by the bright and hopeful and hard-working and
self-sacrificing Georgians in their 20s and 30s and 40s and 50s also,
who are well educated with admirable characters and genuine integrity
and who want to make a big difference in their country's destiny, in a
disciplined communitarian manner, women most welcome too, to join the
ranks, and they are all blocked by the current `map of democracy', by
teams, Saakashvili's team, and the motley cluster of Opposition teams.
Typical and honest Georgians must control the future of Georgia , and
not American military investment conglomerates nor old Russian mafia
business networks.

These sterling Georgians mentioned directly above are the citizens who
belong in Parliament and THEY should select a president, if there is
to be any hope of true democracy here any year soon. After this "turn-
around", Presidential elections could be arranged to coincide with
Parliamentary elections, as in other nations. After such a model
transition, Saakashvili would go down in history as a fine and admired
agent of transition, a team player who saw he should enter private
business after 4 years at the helm, rather than what is in store for
his legacy should he win the election this Jan. 5th. His past
achievements would quite likely be blemished beyond repair by another
term in office.

These new hypothetical MPs would be loyal to Georgia, and her best
interests, and not to Saakashvili, as if he were their beloved CIS
factory boss, or a Godfather in a Francis Ford Coppola film, or a
mirror of Putin's autocracy, and these new hypothetical MPs would not
and could not be loyal, either, to any tricked-out business interests
of the old Opposition, one would pray.

Georgia needs a totally new opposition, or she will sink.