Allegations saying that a blue-print for how to build a Civil Society is in their hands are nothing more than preposterous -- Valerian Gorgiladze
-- A decision from Tbilisi Mayor to set rather high salaries for vice-Mayors as well as other high officials has become a point of hot debates in our public. When it became known that the new Government is following in the footsteps of their predecessors and decided to enjoy immensely high bonuses, I though that the Government would have tackled this issue by bringing a new law and in this way suppressing the public’s outrage. However, they have not lived up to my expectations. It’s true that Mr. Narmania appeals to them to be more conservative with the state budgets but actually doing this does not really fall in their plans. Against this backdrop, do you think, Government has simply refused to take public opinion into consideration or are we dealing with something else?
--I do not really support the idea that high officials should not be able to enjoy high salaries. I mean that the top officials must be highly qualified figures, and in the wake of this, must be adequately compensated in the private sector. However, if the members of the new Government long to occupy positions in the state sectors only, their determination to achieve this goal can be defined as their besetting sin.
- A disagreement between Bidzina Ivanishvili and “Civil Development Institute” Head, Ia Antadze, has also recently been thrown into the mix. In the words of Ms. Antadze, Civil Institute can be defined as many self-organized groups on-the-ground and, unfortunately, she cannot really say that Bidzina Ivanishvili supports these groups. She also thinks that according to the ex-Premier, only thanks to centralization can we support these groups while as per Antadze only decentralization can empower these groups. How would you evaluate the parties’ positions?
-- Frankly speaking, I cannot even get what made them start this debate. If Civil Society is really a unification of some self-organized groups what hampers them from doing it without financing from the ex-Premier? Or do we have to deal with some kind of new paradigm when we allege that they don’t need the Government’s encouragement to form the civil society? Do you really think that in the 1990s, they built the civil sector without help from the Government?
One of the renowned American social experts, Martin Lipset, gives us a very interesting and exhaustive account of how Roosevelt’s administration formed an x-number of religious denominations to hinder the communist and some extremist forces from grabbing power during a “Great Depression.” For millions of destitute and unemployed people a communist ideology seemed rather attractive and only by imbedding the people’s mindset in the religious discourse, they devalued the harshness of their political protest. Unfortunately, today these organizations function not only in the USA but also in different countries of the world. Gorbachev’s move to declare a “Reformation” policy also contributed to the development of the civil society at the final stage of the SU. And precisely this finally collapsed this country. Thus, allegations saying that a blue-print for how to build a Civil Society is in their hands are nothing more than preposterous.
- Can we suspect that ex-Premier Ivanishvili has raised this initiation due to the hyper-active steps from those NGOs that, in fact are, independent bodies and make independent decisions? Thus, the ex-PM may really want the Non-Governmental organizations that will sometimes oppose the Government and from time to time will also approve its taken steps to emerge in the public sector.
-- I do agree with the aforementioned. Georgia’s NGO sector that, along with political and media elite, has a great impact on the civil society is autonomous to the core. And they preserve this autonomy thanks to the grants received from private sources and not from the Government. That is why, in the information space we come across a western discourse so often today. However, in addition to this, some less influential segments pursuing the interests of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, also exists in Georgia.
And you know I do not really see anything tragic regarding this fact. Even the U.S. has rather influential Hebrew, Arabian and Chinese lobbyist groups. The actual fact is that the Georgian Government lacks a “civil advocacy” and this, obviously, disables it from making different maneuvers. That is why the necessity for the Government to create its own “civil discourse” has surfaced today.
- “Georgian Dream Democratic Georgia” is becoming a member of “Europe’s social party.” This NGO sector which is a completely independent body and is not reliant on the Government is a staunch supporter of the pro-western and liberal course. How well-founded seems a statement saying that along with their determination to pass criticism on the Government, despite the Government’s clear-cut western ideology, Bidzina Ivanishvili does not like liberal and pro-western views of the same NGO sector? You know that the acting authorities themselves maintain that they long to find the most advantageous balance between the West and Russia…
-- I think that this choice is conditioned not only by ideological but also by pragmatic motives. Since the National Movement has a clear-cut right-wing authoritarianism orientation, for the Georgian Dream Coalition left-wing camp, where the dominant party is the socialist party, is apparently more attractive.
In addition, we must pay attention to their ideological component…
A decision from the Georgian Dream Coalition to join socialist international will free us of the nuances similar to those having recently occurred -- I mean the move from the EU Council to draft not so auspicious resolution for Georgia. Even your recently posed question verifies the validity of my presumption as per which they will attempt to implement a new socialist trend in the civil society. As for the links between European socialism and our contemporary Russia, I assure you that today Russia is the least socially oriented country across the continent if we don’t take Georgia and other Caucasian countries into account.
- Information as per which the ex-Premier will become an anchor of his own TV program has already been corroborated. This program will enter Georgia’s TV space when the run-up to the parliamentary elections of 2016 is started. It’s an actual fact that the TV program of one of the influential and wealthy man in Georgia will enjoy great popularity from our public. In your opinion, what kind of a role will the premier’s TV program play in Georgia’s domestic policy? And how big is the chance that Mr. Ivanishvili’s program will prove to be main stream in the country’s political life?
- Even the fact that the necessity of creating this program has surfaced means that the Government has failed to pursue a trenchant policy and take effective steps in the political arena. And you know this is a natural process. We’d better not pursue a head-in-the-sand policy and not maintain that the ex-PM does not wield great influence on the government. It’s also a fact that Bidzina Ivanishvili has remained a true center of power and an unofficial leader of the country. It’s natural that the public longs to get credible information from the only trustworthy source regarding their future.
In addition, a massage conveyed by the ex-Premier to the public will serve as a message box for the majority. And this will undoubtedly bring the permanent cacophony in the Coalition to an end. I think that after the ex-Premier’s program is put on air, the journalists will find themselves in hardship too. I mean that the representatives of different media outlets will have to assess Bidzina Ivanishvili’s statements and comments rather than spread information to the public. Everyone knows that not even a single political talk show will be able to ignore the statements from Mr. Ivanishvili.
- If we believe Mr. Shashkin, ex-Minister of Corrections, Defense and Education, Mikheil Saakashvili will undoubtedly take over power again and this is an inevitable prospect for Georgia. As for Nino Burjanadze, as per her, if the Dream Coalition keeps pursuing the same policy, the Nationals will undoubtedly take up the reigns of Georgia again. In your mind, is this allegation close to the truth?
- I am left with an impression that today the only political alternative for Georgia is that it must be ruled by either criminal bastards or dimwitted politicians. Similar political dualism clearly fuels revengeful dispositions from our public. If the Georgian people are once and for all assured that the country can be ruled by an iron fist only and there is no other alternative for Georgia, it may finally make a choice for a rebranded and “humanized” National Movement party.
Koba Bendeliani
InterPressNews
