Contradictory Polarization in Georgia - Sometimes Reduces and Sometimes Increases Trust in Political Institutions

Dr. Beka Chedia is an Associate Professor of Political Science at East European University, Tbilisi, Georgia. With extensive experience in media, NGOs, academia, and research institutions, he serves as a country expert for Georgia in global research projects and contributes to leading think tanks, including the Jamestown Foundation and CEPA. A former visiting scholar at several European institutions, he has received numerous research grants and awards. Dr. Chedia has published over 30 scholarly articles and is one of the most frequently cited Georgian political scientists abroad.

Citation: Chedia, B. (2024). Contradictory polarization in Georgia: Sometimes reduces and sometimes increases trust in political institutions. TRUEDEM Blog. https://www.truedem.eu/blog/blog10

Georgia is defined as one of the most polarized countries in Europe. However, some doubt how legitimate the use of the term polarization to describe the current political process of Georgia, since polarization is characteristic of democratic countries and Georgia is identified as a hybrid country. The fact is that the country has all the signs of polarization at two levels, both at the level of the elite and at the level of society. 71% of the country's population also believes that Georgia is increasingly polarized.  Freedom House indicates that National democratic governance in Georgia is characterized by polarization, political antagonism, and illiberal tactics by some major political actors. The EU in its reports for the successful integration of the country into the EU council indicates precisely the need to overcome the high degree of polarization.

The current alarming level of polarization, which characterizes the radicalization of political life, dates back to 2012 when the leader of the ruling elite put forward a doctrine on the need to form a bipolar political environment in Georgia. According to the doctrine of the Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, who came to power after the rule of the United National Movement through parliamentary elections in 2012, and has been ruling the country for 12 years: To ensure the stability of the political process, it is necessary to eliminate the golden mean. Ivanishvili, in his doctrine, pointed to the need for polarization and called the struggle for power between only the two parties ruling the Georgian Dream and the United National Movement (UNM) (former ruling party) an acceptable model of political competition for Georgia. It is noteworthy that there are currently 280 registered parties in Georgia.

The conflict between the two main political players in Georgia for many years took place not based on an ideological split or competition between different political doctrines, but simply based on a power struggle.

The line of political confrontation was based exclusively on the use of hate speech and personal insults. Artificial polarization essentially took the form of radicalization of the political process, which gradually undermined the trust of the country's population in politicians and the main political parties. Freedom House indicates that polarization and increasing extreme rhetoric—negatively impacted democratic governance and the ability of political elites to build consensus in decision-making institutions, as well as public trust in government. Some observers argue also about the loss of faith in such democratic institutions in Georgia as political parties. It is not the trust in parties that has decreased, not as a political institution, but simply the existing parties that have become marginalized. In all sociological surveys, the rating of political parties drops sharply every year.

According to an NDI poll: 64 percent of citizens believe that none of the existing political parties in Georgia represents their interests. In the research of the International Republican Institute (IRI) among 15 main political institutions in Georgia political parties occupy the second-to-last 14th place  37% indicate that they trust the parties, while 52% of the population does not trust them. At the same time, 80% of the population is expecting the emergence of new parties that will better reflect the agenda of society.

Polarization and division into two warring political poles are also facilitated by the country's electoral legislation, which prevents small parties from achieving success during elections: the 5% electoral threshold during parliamentary elections forces parties to group around one of the poles in the form of a coalition, which on the one hand prevents the development of new original parties with their own identity, and on the other hand, increases polarization. On the eve of the 2024 parliamentary elections, several completely new parties with new political leaders who enjoyed sympathy in society were formed. The fear that they would not be able to overcome the electoral barrier forced these new parties to unite in coalitions that were completely unacceptable to them. This causes mistrust of such parties not only among voters but also among those citizens who want to be involved in the work of new parties. For example, on the eve of the 2024 parliamentary elections, more than one case was recorded when members of new parties created in 2024 soon left their ranks after these parties entered into a single alliance with other parties to overcome the electoral barrier. The polarized political environment has prevented newly created parties from establishing themselves on the political scene in Georgia for many years, while both major players such as the ruling Georgian Dream and the largest and most established opposition party UNM, as some observers believe, were not interested in forming other centers of political gravity. Political polarization in the form of personal confrontation has alienated the population from politics. Moreover, according to the results of a public opinion poll, back in 2023 only 5% of the population considered political polarization as the main problem (although they did not deny the existence of such polarization). For the population, politics has gradually turned into a kind of spectacle. Political polarization was reflected within the political elite and did not spread to the wider society because the polarization agenda did not reflect the society's agenda.  At a time when, according to all surveys, the population was concerned about such topics as poverty, unemployment or high inflation - the political elites, antagonistic towards each other, maintained a high level of polarization with such topics that were unnecessary for the population as the next constitutional changes, the next change in electoral legislation, the fight for parliamentary mandates, the redistribution of various quotas or privileges, etc.

The polarization within the political elite alienated society from politics and undermined faith in such institutions as parliament, the institute presidency, or even elections. In the eyes of society, parliamentary sessions have become just a spectacle and not a place for making important political decisions or a place for healthy political competition between political parties. According to a public opinion poll, the Georgian Parliament among the 15 main political institutions of Georgia takes 13th place. 38% indicate that they trust the Parliament, while 56% of the population does not trust them. The most alarming fact is that politicians using national television as their weapon in political struggle have provoked a sharp decline in the level of trust in this very important (for a post-totalitarian society) democratic institution.  Every second Georgian (51 percent) says they don’t trust any of the Georgian TV channels,

Over the past three to four years, polarization from the elite has already spread to society. The mass polarization in Georgia has occurred around topics that were artificially provoked by the ruling elite to mobilize the masses around themselves.

Some observers have previously pointed out the existence of two dividing lines in Georgian society between conservative citizens and liberals. On the one hand, this can certainly be agreed with, but on the other hand, the fact that these two different worldviews have not caused any significant problems in the country's political process in many years and have not contributed to the strengthening of political polarization indicates that the natural value differences characteristic of any society are not the real cause of the current alarming polarization in Georgia.

The ruling elite manipulatively began to use the existing conservative views in society to maintain a bipolar political environment in Georgia. If at an early stage, the ruling elite used affective polarization to maintain power, then through indoctrination and propaganda, it was able to split society into two parts. The ruling elite declared itself the guardian of peace, and the entire opposition as a war party. This topic became relevant after Russia invaded Ukraine, the ruling elite began to claim that the entire opposition and NGOs, on instructions from the West, are seeking to open a second front against Russia. In addition, the ruling elite declared itself the protector of traditional and national values, and all other parties were impoverished under the name of "lying liberals", "agents of the West", "people without a homeland", "antichrists", "supporters of the LGBT lifestyle" etc.

If for many years de-ideologized polarization, noticeable only within the elite, demotivated the population from political participation, then it was precisely mass polarization focused on specific topics affecting society that pushed citizens to unprecedented political activity in Georgia. Especially after the initiation (2023) and approval of the Russian-style law on “transparency of foreign influence”  in 2024, it divided Georgian society into two antagonistic camps: Around the ruling elite has consolidated groups supporting authoritarian methods of government, ultra-right groups under the influence of the Kremlin, as well as a certain part of society with traditional, religious, conservative and quasi-conservative views. The majority of society, as well as opposition parties, civil society institutions and the media, found themselves in the other pro-Western camp supporting liberal values ​​and Georgia’s desire to integrate into the EU. 

If at the early stage, the polarization existing only at the level of the elites reduced trust in political institutions, then the polarization that has already been transferred to societies around existential issues contributes to a partial increase in trust in such institutions as political parties or elections. At least the population has become forced to entrust the political process to the parties. On the one hand, the ruling party, through polarization of society by manipulation and incorrectly interpreted conservative ideas, was able to ensure a certain amount of public support for itself, but at the same time, it inadvertently activated the opposing liberal camp.

 It was polarization focused on specific themes that pushed liberal-leaning anti-government voters to unprecedented activity during the 2024 parliamentary elections and to participate in mass demonstrations. More than 2 million voters took part in the 2024 parliamentary elections.  This was a notable increase from the two previous parliamentary elections of 2016 and 2020. In the conditions of mass polarization, the institution of the presidency has acquired a very important significance and in the eyes of the liberal part of society, trust in this institution has grown with incredible sharpness because President Salome Zourabichvili is the only one among all the country's elected political leaders to join the pro-Western camp. 

Accordingly, in the case of Georgia, the polarization of society focused on specific topical issues contributed to the consolidation of the population around institutions that had not previously enjoyed great popularity (parties, the institution of the presidency, or the election procedure). To reduce the extreme level of artificially inflated polarization in Georgia, the most effective way could be a change in the pro-Russian and quasi-conservative ruling elite of Georgia, which artificially maintains the level of polarization (stimulating ultra-conservative sentiments in society) hoping to retain power in this way. The change of power will return Georgia to the path of European integration and will undoubtedly reduce the atmosphere of antagonism in the country, since the majority of the country's population supports Georgia's accession to the EU and shares European values, while the current authorities of the country are artificially creating barriers for it.