Third platform needed
Observing events from Georgia, I feel that there is a need and space for a Third Platform. This should be a group of political forces and individuals that are not AGAINST someone by FOR something, for reforms, for better healthcare, for reduced military budget, for negotiations with Abkhazs and Ossetians and with Russians, for reforms and more money in education, for integration with the European institutions etc. This group would come up with a positive, progressive platform and would engage with everyone- not just Georgian- Orthodox population. It should be based on respect and not on swearing, cynicism and aggression. It would try to change current discourse. There are people that share these values within Georgian opposition now, yet they have been completely silenced by radicals from both sides. They should be helped so that they sound as "sexy" and grassroots as do the radicals. They are the ones' that should reinforced. Because the two existing platforms of Saakashvili and anti-Saakashvili do not instill much hopes for a better, more democratic future.
Anna, yep, and that's precisely I felt looking in -- albeit on the ground -- in Yerevan last year for the presidential election here. To be honest, I think this is a problem with the domestic political situation in all three South Caucasus republics.
Some would argue that it's also a problem that exists in the U.S. too (although nowhere near as bad as here).
A hypothetical question for you, however. Even though we haven't truly democratic opposition movements in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia -- and not least because the frozen conflicts impact local politics too much -- is there the chance to try to develop a regional pro-democracy movement in the South Caucasus?
Reply to this
Hi Onnik, I think this is a very timely suggestion and idea. The situation is certainly ripe for this kind of movement. All of us would have to overcome ethnical prejudices and political conspiracy theories so entrenched in our political discourses. But we should certainly continue thinking of this and working on this, and finding other collaborators.
Reply to this
Anna's point on need for pro-something movement vs against-something opposition is valid. It has always been valid. The problem is deep because it is based on knowledge, not amoution, it more about being prepared and providing real alternatives on how to get to that something, what the practical steps to take, how to avoid obstacles and navigate the currents to the desired end. So, Anna’s point has always been valid. But at least my recollection of events in Georgia show that radicals tend to dictate the course and "thinkers" tend to get marginalized into supportive roles at first, and than into obscurity. This happened in 1988-89 and again in 1991-1992. I remember people than who were trying to do painstakingly slow and tedious work of thinking things through, putting pros and cons together and trying as a result to do “smart” politics, instead of “laud” politics. Grand posturing somehow always won against the substance…
The "Caucasus our common home" approach has been on minds of many people since predating the days of USSR collapse. First time I heard enthusiastic buzz about this was 20 years ago in 1988 (I remember attending conference in Tbilisi which gathered quit large delegations all over Caucasus). It is a great idea which realistically had no chance than and even less chance now, when domestic political situation diverged so profoundly thought the Caucasus countries. But I would encourage another attempt, preferably on the level that would focus on creating public movement rather than on political movement.
Reply to this
Hm, Such a good point Anna raised. Buttt,
You can not imagine how strong pathological roofs you encounter with this point. What I mostly face in my daily experience is that absolute majority discourage to think and to act-pro at the local level, because, the standards of low-conduct permits them to stay passive and still live wonderful life.
The easiest life-role is to treat cynical, critical and in an aggressive manner. to humiliate and distress.
And Pro-approach of individuals versus this pathological stream becomes un-fruitful, until the strong partnership among group of such individuals is formed - to back up.
Well, this is what we dealing each day at the local level and no wonder that this practice is absolutely copied in politics.
Reply to this