Learning from the Past & Moving On

Exclusive Interview

Few, if any, scholars can boast such vast, first-hand experience with the post-soviet space as Dr. Dennis Sammut, a foreign policy analyst with two decades experience working in the Caucasus Region under his belt. As a Director of LINKS (Dialogue-Analysis-Research), Dr. Sammut visited Georgia yet again recently and found time to sit down with GEORGIA TODAY and Panorama TV Show to offer his perspective on Georgia’s geopolitical conundrum.

You’ve been in the South Caucasus since the early 90s

I first came to Georgia in 1992, and I’ve come at least once a year since. Georgia has transformed. I remember being in this very hotel [Holiday Inn], in July 1994. It was a place where refugees had just arrived from the war in Abkhazia. And they kept 3 or 4 rooms for guests. On that occasion, I could see immediately the painful process of war and the impact refugees have made on Tbilisi, and on almost every community in Georgia. It’s been a long journey [for Georgia], it has been difficult, has had its tragic moments, has had its moments of glory; but now Georgia is on a different page. People need to learn lessons from past experiences, they should not be prisoners of the past. we really must ensure that both the debate within Georgia and between Georgia and the international community is a debate about the future. It’s a debate of how quality of life for the people can improve in the future. It is about how the democratic institutions of Georgia, that are still young and fragile, can be internalized in the system so we can be sure that what has been achieved cannot be lost by a single event or a single situation.

Why do you think the Georgian Dream party dominated the recent elections?

Since 2012, GD has dominated the political scene. In my view there are two important reasons that underpin it. One is that they offer a political system that is calm and aims not to allow surprises. I think the people of Georgia, after the 90s turbulence and the Rose revolution, entered into this phase of wanting calm, and they do not want to change this yet. The second is, it is very interesting how the GD has started to be a very wide political movement with people of very different ideological and political views. Although they lost part of the coalition alliance that they constructed in 2012, I think they maintain this broad image. Even I was surprised it lasted so long. But it has lasted. The main opposition remains a political movement that speared the Rose revolution in 2003. It is in two groups and I think neither of them have yet been able to articulate a new political agenda: they are still fighting yesterday’s one, and this is their problem. Some of the leaders, both in the UNM and European Georgia, understand this, and we see some attempts to move in this direction. But it needs to be faster if they really want to be ready for the next parliamentary elections.

GD moved from legal based politics to party based politics. When western experts publish their opinions, the fingers point at one man in particular. What is your assessment of his role?

What we see in the world is a movement from ideological parties. But what has happened in Georgia is somewhat different. Firstly, you had laissez faire under President Shevardnadze, and history will perhaps judge him more kindly than the Georgian people have judged him up until now. He was here as the president at a very difficult time, and it was not easy for him to keep the country in some sort of organized way. President Saakashvili took over and needed to shake things up. In 2003, things were not going well. Of course, some people say he shook things up too much. At some point people got fed up. What happened in 2012 is that while there was a general consensus that there was a need to change the government, it was unknown exactly how to trigger a change of this kind, peacefully, not through rioting in the streets, but through the electoral process? This was incredibly difficult, thus what emerged in 2012 with GD, regarding Bidzina Ivanishvili, was a movement that, I would say, was a very genuine movement of people who wanted change but not through violence but electoral, constitutional processes. And this was achieved. I think to everybody’s credit - to Saakashvili, to Ivanishvili and everybody else in between. In 2012, the peaceful transfer of power was a defining moment for Georgia; and whatever happens, the moment Georgians said: ‘we are mature enough to do this in a proper way’, is going to be remembered forever.

What is your take on Saakashvili’s ongoing legacy and what is his future?

Let me start from the last part of your question. It is a problem with politicians when they occupy the #1 position at a very young age. What do you do after that? You either move to an international institution or you do something completely different. I know no other person who chose the path that Saakashvili did – to change his citizenship and to be a politician in another country after being president of one country. So, it is odd. I have no idea what he’ll decide in the end. But certainly, if you have experience of being a head of state, you have to contribute something at least intellectually to humanity. If he decides that this Ukrainian initiative is not going to work, he may decide to spend his time contributing intellectually to the development of ideas around the world.

What’s your take on the Russian opposition? On Navalny, Sobchak and on all this “alternative Russia” image that they seem so keen to promote?

Russia is always an important part of the story when you’re talking about Georgia or the Caucasus in general. You’re right in phrasing the question on Russia’s domestic politics. It is the most interesting part as it will impact on Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and on the whole region. What is going to happen next in Russian domestic politics? I’m not one of those who believes that Russia’s story of the last 10-15 years is solely according to Putin. Putin is only the tip of the iceberg, under Putin there is an iceberg and if we do not understand that, we will start with the assumption that once Putin is gone then the problem is gone and something else could happen that may be positive. I’m not sure about that. It is possible? I would say it is very difficult. These forces that are challenging Putin right now are heroic, not irrelevant and not insignificant. There is widespread support for them, especially among certain sections of Russian society. Whether this support is large enough to start really nibbling at the power base that Putin has set out on in the last 10-15 years, that is the big question. It will take time. There is a new generation of Russians that are questioning much more. Because in the end, despite all restrictions, Russia is a much more open society today when it was in the Soviet Union.

For Georgians, the most important question is how the young generation will treat relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Is the new generation of Russians going to reconsider the Kremlin stance?

They’ll not only have opinions on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, they’ll also have views on Russia’s imperial vision, and how they need to act in order to be safe. This is all about safety. Russia’s fear is that of its outside enemies, ready to intervene. Russia is the biggest country in the world, it’s a super power, it has nuclear weapons and so on and still has this fear. This is one of the most interesting factors in international relations.

And Russia also has an almost reflex-like ambition of its role as big brother to everyone.

Yes. I always say that Russia is a key player, and needs to be involved in all matters. Russia feels the need to have a veto against Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, and that they need a buffer zone around it. Of course, these are unacceptable things. But that Russia is a key international player and should be involved in the discussion of world problems, that I agree with. The young generation will question the future role of Russia in the world, and how we can be safe without independent nations trembling around it. So, that is a discussion I see coming up in the future. I’d like to make one point in regard to Georgia’s population. Georgia needs to manage its relationship with Russia. Of course, a firm stand needs to be taken on certain issues, but there needs to be a process of engagement. Both on behalf of the government and the population in general. Georgians used to be fluent Russian speakers. This is a skill that’s been lost with the younger generation. And it is a big mistake.

So, do we need more Russian language classes? That’s not going to sit well with some of our readers

Russia is always going to be Georgia’s biggest neighbor. It’s not going away. And you cannot put Georgia on wheels and take it to a different part of the world. So, managing relations with Russia is always going to be a challenge. And having people who can deal with Russians, who have language skills, who understand the culture, is useful. Georgians should not lose those skills because they will help in the process of developing a different basis for relations in the future. This may be a bit controversial because people see these things from the prism of the past, they were tools of oppression: the Russian language was pushed in some periods of Georgian history in the 20th century as a counter-balance to Georgian. Even as an alternative to the Georgian language. Of course, people will come to that conclusion, on what the Russian language symbolizes. We need to look at this from a 2017 point of view, and say, in this present moment, when Georgia needs to establish a new setup of engagement with Russia, it also needs people who are able to interact with Russia and Russians.

Vazha Tavberidze