Formation of the Presidential Institute in Georgia and the Republics of South Caucasus

Abstract

This abstract describes the formation of the presidential institute in Georgia. The article discusses the significant stages of the origin and development of a robust executive government in Georgia and the South Caucasus. The government's formation process is discussed within the framework of P. Bourdieu's theoretical viewpoints. The paper is prepared based on newspapers/periodicals, various research, and relevant legal documentation. The materials have been analyzed based on the approaches of description, content analysis, and critical media discourse analysis. This work was supported by the Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation of Georgia [grant number FR-18-8649, Title: "What wins the Elections in Georgia"]. The understanding of executive government in the South Caucasus was directly related to how the specific individuals were perceived by themselves and by society. The understanding of power was often reduced to introducing a position with broad rights. The presidential institute was formed parallel to establishment of state structures after the restoration of Georgia's independence. During Z. Gamsakhurdia, the presidential institute was understood as an individual with strict rule and power. He was first elected as a president by the Supreme Council (same as A. Mutalibov in Azerbaijan) and then by the people. He tried to control the forms of communication with the public. His desire to act and control several fields simultaneously triggered the unification of opponents, provoking extreme protests. The euphoria of independence soon turned into the chronicles of struggles for power and critical confrontations. This period was marked by the perceived truth of one's viewpoint, the impossibility of political compromise, controversies, and desired monopolistic control of the objectified power resources. Gamsakhurdia came to power because of his personality and leadership. He considered the electorate-granted mandate was enough to confront various groups and tried to establish a strict presidential rule. However, the process of establishing the presidential institute was not completed. In Armenia, L. Ter-Petrosyan came as a government leader, maintaining his power for the long term and gradually strengthening the presidential institute. Just like in Georgia, in Azerbaijan, the controversies led to the resignation of A. Mutalibov and his replacement by A. Elchibey, who later had to resign. After the overthrow of Gamsakhurdia's government, E. Shevardnadze was invited to overcome the governmental crisis in Georgia. Similarly, I. Aliyev was invited to Azerbaijan to overcome the crisis and save the country. Through interaction with various groups, Shevardnadze returned to the political field, strengthened his positions, and developed legal mechanisms applicable to him. He effectively used his capital, and his cooperation with influential groups helped him overcome resistance and make crises less dramatic. However, the issue of the organization and governance of the country turned out paradoxical. Those legal reasons causing the change of the previous political regime were "re-granted" relevance by the new regime. However, E. Shevardnadze's desire to influence different spheres simultaneously ultimately led to his weakening. He often delegated his authority, and the country was ruled ineffectively. Shevardnadze came to power because of the emerging necessity, his personality, and the expectation of a societal leader. Although he considered dialogue and cooperation needed, he firmly strengthened his powers. The processes were similarly developing in the neighboring countries. The establishment of a robust presidential institute was used to maintain powers. Shevardnadze's government ended with the Rose Revolution, while in neighboring countries, the existing regimes remained effective. In struggling for power in Georgia, M. Saakashvili twice changed the political field to retain exclusive power within the ruling hierarchy. The processes were much alike in Armenia. However, the ambition to act solely in the political field again pushed the country into a crisis. Only the name of the ruling form changed, and the strong presidential system changed with a strong prime minister. Saakashvili came to power with different approaches and the image of a leader. As a leader, he saw the necessity to achieve exclusivity in the political field via different means. In Georgia, leaders' coming to power was preceded by crisis and controversy. In an attempt to control the resources influencing the power in Georgia, every new leader came riding on the waves of euphoria and hope. In recent years, the changes were preconditioned by the need in the 90-s in Azerbaijan and Armenia. They effectively changed the political field. In general, achieving strong presidential power, overlapping different spheres, and a strong desire for control resulted in a crisis followed by a change of government. The presidential institute and all the related processes represented a tool for realizing personal interests and strengthening power, particularly in the context of impacting the elections.