Stay off Trump’s Radar: Lincoln Mitchell on Georgian Politics

Exclusive interview

What the West thinks about Zurabishvili, why Georgia shouldn’t be on Trump’s radar, and what he thinks of his erstwhile employers’ current grasp of the ruling reins in the country: this is the definitive Lincoln Mitchell interview.

We are approaching the 28 October presidential elections. What is your assessment of the situation?

The most interesting thing about these elections is that so few people are talking about them; I can't remember an election in Georgia that has generated less interest. There's good reason for that: one, it's not a very powerful job, and second these are no inspiring candidates; so that's I think where we are in general with this election. As for the candidates, what strikes me is that since 2012, the Georgian Dream (GD) party has been cruising to victory with or without much enthusiasm from the electorate but this time one doesn't get the sense it’s going to be so simple because GD are trying to thread a very complicated needle here: nominating somebody who if elected would not have a genuine power base independent of Parliament, independent of the Speaker, independent of Bidzina Ivanishvili who is still the most powerful single individual in Georgia even when he doesn't necessarily hold an official government role or title. They couldn't nominate somebody too charismatic who could really energize the Georgian people, but they needed to nominate somebody they believed could win because they want to control the presidency; so they arrived at Salome Zurabishvili. She’s a reasonably controversial figure inside of Georgia; outside of Georgia she's still pretty well respected. Salome is very good with a Western audience, is very good at speaking at everything from UN settings to academic settings in the West, obviously speaks two important Western languages very well. So, externally, she could actually be a very good face for Georgia while not threatening the real power structures in Georgia.

Would it be fair to say GD did not want another Margvelashvili scenario?

Margvelashvili is not the most dynamic and charismatic politician in the world but he sought to use that office for something other than the GD agenda; I always viewed Giorgi as seeing his role as almost an uber-Ombudsman, knowing he had no real legislative power but that he could draw attention to problems, try to push the country towards greater reforms and greater democratic reforms and it's something that certainly ruffles the feathers of not just GD but Bidzina in particular.

So why did GD not choose someone less controversial?

I don't know, but anyone nominated by GD is going to be attacked by Rustavi 2, the UNM’s hit machine; so that's not unusual- they're going to find something on anybody. I know this is considered radical and blasphemous in Georgia, but a lot of what Salome has said about the war is the consensus in academic and policy circles outside of Georgia, other than those kind of ultra-hawkish anti-Russia circles. There’s a consensus that Russia was the aggressor in 2008, that Saakashvili mishandled the war. Say that in the West and no-one bats an eyelid but say it in Georgia and you get outrage.

What Zurabishvili said allocated blame to the Georgian side as well as to Saakashvili, as representatives of the country in that war

Language is important here: “blame” is a different word to “mishandle,” which is the word I prefer to use with regards to Saakashvili and the war. But there is an appetite among more centrist people in Europe to see Georgia moving away from this position that Saakashvili fought Putin admirably and was not pulled into a trap by Putin and did not overreact and did what he had to do - there's an appetite in Europe to see more rational leadership from Georgia than we had in the 2008 to 2012 period.

So, you don't consider this a pro-Russian narrative as a result of Russian disinformation?

It’s certainly possible, in fact likely, that Zurabishvili is less of an ultra hardliner than Grigol Vashadze or any other contemporary political figure, but that doesn't mean she's pro-Russia. I've said this a million times: this Georgian political dynamic of describing anybody you don't like as pro-Russia is very destructive to the Georgian democracy, political culture and image of the country.

What makes Georgia's international image?

Many Americans, whether it's at the academic or policy-making level, think about Georgia through the perspective of Russia; that it’s a country under threat from Russia, and that if we want to be tough on Russia, Georgia is a country we should support. But Georgia is beginning to break through as a country that is interesting, as a country you want to go visit to check out the vibrant arts, culture, and cuisine, and that helps people in the West see Georgia as a familiar country like our own.

How much is the current perception of Georgia in the US attributable to the late Senator John McCain?

McCain was an enormous advocate for Georgia; I don't know that I can think of a bigger, more visible advocate. However, it needs to be said that the John McCain in the United States is very different from the one you hear about in Georgia. McCain voted against making Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday, McCain voted to put Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas in the Supreme Court, McCain voted for every major Ronald Reagan era economic policy, McCain was caught up in one of the biggest corruption scandals here… It is important to remember that he is also viewed by many [in the US] as a very conservative political figure who sought to move the country backwards and it doesn't always help Georgia to be associated with people like that. John was a strong advocate for Georgia, but he stuck with Saakashvili way too long. He was a complex, although decent, political figure.

Did that complexity affect the perception of Georgia in the US?

It wasn’t McCain's complexity but this sense that Georgia had cast its lot with the far right in America; when the new PM came to America and went on a television network that is viewed by most Americans as a mouthpiece for the Trump Administration, which is a very unpopular administration, there came this association that the Georgian government has sought to get with the right wing of American politics, which is a minority. The Republican Party is a minority party in the United States empowered because of the quirks of our election law, not because they have majority support, and that’s dangerous.

And what would your advice be? Go to CNN instead?

Yes. CNN, MSN, NBC: they'd be happy to have any Georgian leader come on and attack Putin. They’d have any Georgian leader talk about how bad Putin is, how dangerous Putin is.

But Trump accuses CNN of being a fake news outlet. If the Georgian PM were to sit there and snub Fox News, what impression would that make on the White House?

If you go on CNN and talk about Georgia and what your country's interests are, how grateful your country is for US support, Donald Trump is not going to have a problem with that. I think you overestimate the absorptive capacity of the US President. He can’t even pronounce Bakhtadze’s last name right, so he’s not even going to remember who he was. I don't think President Trump spends a lot of time on Georgia and I think that's a good thing. There's this sense in Georgia that it has to get on the President's radar: no, you don't- you want to stay off the President's radar and let Pence, Pompeo and Mattis make the Georgia policy in the Congress and Senate. Don't get Trump involved because he has a different relationship with Moscow.

We've seen articles in US press, like that of Edward Luce, alleging behind-the-scenes governance in Georgia. How are these affecting our international standing?

There are continued lobbying efforts being carried out by friends of the former president and in the American media, the UNM is still more influential than GD. Saakashvili is often on TV and CNN, Fox, etc. refer to Ivanishvili as a Russian oligarch and you never hear another side of that story. I don't think it’s a secret to anyone who pays attention to Georgia that Ivanishvili is extremely influential and how much so is a legitimate question to ask because it’s on everyone's mind.

What can be done to change the perception?

[Ivanishvili] has got to learn to let go. When someone calls with a question, he's got to say I'm not taking the call: you make the decision. But I’d be very surprised to see that happen. He really seems to believe that there's only one person who really has the answers and he's afraid that other people will take the country in the wrong direction, but that's what democracy means: making some mistakes.

His detractors often say that he treats the country like a private company

He's a powerful, wealthy businessman; I think it’s a bit wrong to say that’s how he treats the country, he treats the country like he's an absentee manager, an absentee president who checks in every now and then, and that the Prime Minister functions largely as a Chief-of-Staff with varying degrees of influence and power depending on how engaged Ivanishvili is on any given day. What I urged him to do early on was remain as PM and hire a very strong Chief-of-Staff and feel free to go away for the weekend or on foreign trips but at least have the formal role so everyone knows where the bus stops and everyone knows who holds the actual power. That’s not how it is now.

Where does that put Georgia on the scale of democratic countries?

Georgia is a semi democratic country. This government has done a good job of increasing freedom compared to the previous one; of allowing more civil liberties and more civil freedoms.

I'm not a spokesperson for the Georgian government; I'm an advocate for democracy, for Georgia; I'm trying to be helpful. I hope people in the government will take this as constructive feedback from somebody who wants balance, who would like to see them succeed. I'm not here to destroy GD: I think they've done many good things for Georgia and I think that as long as the UNM is viewed as the major opposition, then GD is the better option and that's why they keep winning these elections.

How would you assess their overall performance so far and where are they going?

They’re moving uphill but slowly, not as quickly as they'd like. Georgia is a freer country that it was; Georgia is a more pluralist country than it was; Georgia is closer to being integrated into the West than it was: those are all positives- it's not a fully consolidated democracy and there’s more work to be done and it will take some time; there are still real problems in the economy. Nothing is perfect but it's in a better place than it was; the next 2 - 4 years are going to be critical, as support for GD is weakening.

What can gd do to turn things around?

Should GD do what its predecessors did which is try to consolidate support, or does it allow itself to lose a few elections? Does it allow other voices to get into government? If that happens, it will be an enormous breakthrough for Georgia. The vexing questions of the economy continue but I don't hold the GD responsible for that; this is a very difficult economy for everybody; jobs are disappearing in the industrial and professional sectors because of automation; capital is being concentrated; low-paying jobs are being sent to even poorer countries; Georgia's agricultural wealth is not what it was when it had the captured market of the Soviet Union, it's very different now, and the tourism market is extremely competitive. So, this is the challenge. I think they’re doing the best they can. But could it be done better? Yes.

By Vazha Tavberidze