Ideological Orientations, Selection Criteria, and “Rules of the Game” of Political Elites in Georgia

Abstract

This article examines the ethnopolitical national-dissident elite of Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the neo-nomenklatura elite of Eduard Shevardnadze, the pro-Western neoliberal-authoritarian elite under Mikheil Saakashvili, and the political elite of Bidzina Ivanishvili, which evolved from a moderate-liberal party into a right-wing conservative force. We compare the ideological values, selection criteria, foreign policy orientations, and the "rules of the political game" of these various elites. The article emphasizes that in the Georgian political process, ideology and action programs receive less attention. Instead, the electorate often bases its choices primarily on the leader. Alongside the personalisation of political parties, there is a significant loyalty to the leader at the highest levels of government. In the elite selection process, loyalty to the leader and the dominance of the principle of patrimonialism are the primary characteristics for recruiting the political elite, with variations only in the personalities of the leaders. In the absence of a democratic system for elite selection, professional qualifications rarely serve as criteria in Georgian political life. The study of elites in Georgia is only feasible through an altimetric method of research, which includes many individuals lacking managerial skills and elite values. This approach considers being in leadership positions as a defining feature of the political elite. Consequently, we can conclude that the failures in Georgia's modernization efforts are largely due to the ruling elite's low qualifications. The negative impact of counter-elites, whose goal is to discredit the ruling government and seize power by force, also contributes to this situation. The concept of constructive opposition, as seen in developed democracies, is not applicable in Georgia. The "rules of the political game" have fostered a culture of mutual animosity, and the communicative vocabulary characteristic of democratic discourse is nearly absent between opposing parties. Neither the authorities nor the opposition has a coherent economic development strategy; ideological alignment is primarily dictated by foreign policy orientation, and both conservatism and liberalism are often used pejoratively. Signs of a subordinate political culture are evident in the "rules of the political game." Neither side acknowledges any common national values. Disagreement exists regarding the country’s status, with the counter-elite advocating for European integration and liberal values, which often conflict with conservative Orthodox beliefs, traditional family values, and Georgian cultural heritage. The government, depending on its resources and aligning ideologically with the new U.S. administration (e.g., FARA, the ban on LGBT propaganda), hopes to gain support from Trump. In contrast, the opposition, yearning for a coalitional government, has also conceded that the country may need to relinquish part of its sovereignty and hold early parliamentary elections with significant EU involvement. The non-governmental sector, opposition parties, and international actors demand these early elections, backed by financial and political support. The findings from the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission are frequently ignored, and rhetoric surrounding "Russian law" and family values is removed from the agenda. Finally, despite the radical opposition present in the country, the "rules of the political game" indicate a trend towards the accumulation of democratic values. Over a hundred days of protests, neither side crossed a single red line, which contrasts sharply with the political processes that transpired under Gamsakhurdia and Saakashvili.