Georgia Today: Keeping Its European Promises?

Events in the EU’s Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood testify that starting revolutions is easier than keeping their momentum: Seven years after the Rose Revolution and four years since Georgia committed to further reforms under its ENP Action Plan the country can be credited with taking steps to come closer to Europe.

Yet the road to reform has been far from steady and challenges remain. There are doubts as to the potential of recent constitutional reforms to foster genuine democratic pluralism. The spectre of open conflict over the breakaway territories—which flared in August 2008—continues to cast a shadow over Georgia’s development and distract from efforts to enact key reforms to strengthen the judiciary, fight high-level corruption and foster media freedom. Meanwhile negotiations on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement advance slowly, raising doubts about Georgia’s commitment to EU regulatory standards.

At this Open Society event, experts from Georgian civil society analyzed the country’s progress in meeting its reform commitments and address the following questions: How effective has European integration been in shaping Georgia's domestic political development? What are Georgia's prospects for further democratisation following the 2010 constitutional reforms? What role can good governance and transparency play in ensuring that future growth is sustainable and fairly distributed? 

Speakers

• Ketevan Khutsishvili, Open Society Georgia Foundation
• Tamar Khidasheli, Georgian Young Lawyer's Association
• Manana Kochladze, Green Alternative
• Jacqueline Hale, Open Society Institute-Brussels (moderator)

Summary

Georgia is making progress under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), yet seven years after the Rose Revolution many reform efforts are superficial, and promises remain unkept.

This was the assessment put forward by the event panelists, who contributed to a recent report monitoring Georgia’s ENP implementation in 2010.

Unlike previous years, which were dominated by the war with Russia (2008) and civil unrest (2009), the past year was for Georgia one of stability and reforms. The country has fulfilled several of its commitments under the ENP Action Plan. A new tax code was adopted; the electoral code was amended, followed by peaceful and orderly  local elections in May 2010. Last year also saw Georgia embark on a significant constitutional reform process during which the government showed some openness to cooperate with the opposition and involve civil society.

Nonetheless, recent measures have barely scratched the surface of the country’s deeper problems. Speakers argued that the Constitutional reform agreed in the autumn, which significantly enhances the prime ministerial portfolio at the expense of the president whilst keeping the Parliament relatively toothless, may fail to introduce a true balance of powers, raising concerns as to the sustainability of reforms and of a democratic power transfer. Guaranteeing the independence of judiciary is still a challenge and while petty corruption has been successfully addressed, corruption and abuse at higher levels continue to represent a real concern.  Restrictions to freedom of assembly, lack of access to information and opaque financing of the media remain major obstacles to democratic development.

As the speakers pointed out, Georgia is increasingly experiencing modernization without democratization. In this context, concerns were raised about the most vulnerable members of society (internally displaced persons, or those in need of social justice and assistance) and the worrying social effects resulting from absent or inappropriate measures to support them.

For Georgia, 2010 had more to do with rhetoric than deep reforms, and there is a continued need for vigilance from the international community. The EU remains an important partner for the Georgian government, as well as for civil society, which actively participates in the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum. Speakers concluded that, given its leverage, the EU can afford to be more vocal about questions of political reform and should propose concrete conditionality and benchmarks in support of the reform agenda.