Eva Gotsiridze: After almost every election, statements are made: the elections were rigged, there is a demand for a boycott, accompanied by protests - when this is ongoing, how favorable is it for Georgia's interests?
"After almost every election, sometimes one party, sometimes another, and sometimes all parties constantly make statements: the elections were rigged, rigged, rigged — this perpetually high tone. If we consider that since the restoration of independence, the fate of the first president ended this way, and the fate of the second president ended this way, isn't this an indicator of low political culture and taste, and doesn't it cause more harm to the country than sometimes enduring something?" — Constitutional Court judge Eva Gotsiridze posed this question to the representatives of the "National Movement" during the court session examining the lawsuit regarding the banning of opposition parties.
The judge expressed interest in whether the continuous non-recognition of election results, boycotts, protests, and revolutionary narratives are, overall, advantageous to Georgia's national interests.
"A practice has formed in Georgia regarding elections where, after almost every election, various or all parties constantly declare that the elections were rigged. There is a demand for a boycott, a demand to declare the government illegitimate, including appealing to foreigners not to recognize the Georgian government. This is accompanied by protests that last quite a long time, and often a narrative about the necessity of a revolution, quite energetically voiced words, and so on. Overall, when this is ongoing, how favorable is it for Georgia's interests? Doesn't this generally lead to the discredit of the idea of elections? To people losing hope that time can genuinely pass peacefully and that, after the expiration of the government's term, power can be peacefully transferred? This constantly high tone maintained in Georgia — considering that since the acquisition of independence, the fate of the first president ended thus, and the second president's fate ended thus — isn't this overall an indicator of low political culture and taste, and doesn't it harm the country more than enduring things sometimes?" Eva Gotsiridze stated.
In response to Gotsiridze's question, "National Movement" representative Ani Tsitlidze replied that they will never reconcile themselves to the idea that Georgia will never be free and democratic.
"You left out that the third president peacefully transferred power when he saw that he had lost the election. Ms. Eva, what are we supposed to endure? The violation of Georgia's constitutional order? What are we supposed to endure? Rigged elections, when the voting rights of Georgian citizens are taken away? What are we supposed to endure? That Georgian citizens are beaten on the street? What are we supposed to endure? That we have political prisoners, that we are poisoned with gas, that we are left with no choice of our own, that the state has been hijacked? I don't even consider myself repressed; people have been through prisons. Do you think the goal of any of us is to be in prison or to be on the street fighting? That is not our self-serving goal. Our goal is not to perpetually refuse to recognize elections. The main goal is that in order for this country to calm down, return to a path of normal development, return to a path of democratic development, and return to constitutional frameworks and the path of European development, it is important that once and for all, Georgian citizens reclaim their hijacked state and secure free and fair opportunities. Accordingly, until Georgian citizens have this right, what should we reconcile with? Should we reconcile with slavery and with the fact that this country will never be free and democratic? We will never reconcile with that!" Tsitlidze declared.
