The democratic transformation of a state is never successful without a proper response to its repressive past. Contemporary observations of post-repressive states have unequivocally dispelled the notion that “historical amnesia” serves as a remedy for assuaging collective trauma and fostering a resilient democratic framework. Employing oblivion as a governance strategy proves inadequate in supplanting the public memory and constantly creates the risk of inciting conflicts and reinstating oppression.
The function of transitional justice is to restore justice and prevent repeating the past. It is based on the belief that society needs to overcome trauma in order to move forward; It is incumbent upon the state to erect democratic institutions that provide a judicious reckoning with history. This, in turn, engenders an environment conducive to an all-encompassing future, wherein parity of participation is extended to all segments of society. At the same time, it is essential to recognize that the objective of transitional justice does not encompass an exhaustive restitution for the ramifications of past injustices. While the inability to comprehensively redress the inflicted harm may at times seem insurmountable, such inherent complexities cannot serve as rationale for inertia or inaction.
When discussing restoration of justice, the question is often logically asked - why this mechanism? How does it differ from conventional paradigms of justice? In the context of transitional justice, the notion of justice surpasses its mere legal connotation. Its purview extends beyond the confines of a singular legislative precept, instead pivoting on a communal consensus concerning veracity. Its scope is wide, and the instruments are diverse. Therefore, it is a mechanism of both - imposing responsibility and transforming the society.
Why are we discussing this now? Could it be too late?
History contains plenty of examples of successful democratic transition in those post-repressive states that implemented transitional justice mechanisms. However, history also records the failures of democratic shifts in those states that opted for historical oblivion and refused to restore the justice. What happened in Georgia? Georgia's endeavor to extricate itself from repressive regimes has been a complex and arduous undertaking. The pursuit of autonomy and the establishment of a democratic framework have been accompanied by substantial hardships. These encompass not only armed conflicts but also the military coup, failed state-building and dysfunctionality of institutions rife with criminality, corruption, repression, and an oligarchic modus operandi.
Do we still have a chance to restore justice? Where should we start from? Did any government of Georgia try analyzing the past and establish a strong political position to respond to the repressive history? These inquiries are inherently rational. Equally valid is the fear of a missed opportunity. Delays in response, along with access to crucial information, damage people's emotional connection to the past. Nevertheless, the window to address the undemocratic past remains open, regardless of the passage of time. It gives the repressive past a steadfast position within the collective memory and transforms the fight against suppression into a societal tenet, its strength, and creates a chance to consolidate democracy.
Our comment
Our country's past requires analysis and response. Georgia still has a chance to consider implementing mechanisms of transitional justice and taking effective steps to response the repressive hisotry.
What should we know?
The first years of regaining independence were difficult for Georgia. The political team in office at that time could not appropirately determine the path for development. It failed to make a progressive, strongly democratic, and pluralistic choice for state-building. This was exacerbated by the military coup, its consequences, and the accompanying difficulties. Georgia has gone through several wars, and a futile fight against corruption, poverty, and criminal authoritarianism, which prevented state-building in the country. These factors collectively hindered the constructive maturation of state institutions, that resulted in alternative informal paradigm of governance. This was followed by the so-called “Rose Revolution” - the epoch that characterized with repressive governance tactics. The post-revolutionary administration sought to engender state-building through the prism of power consolidation, assertive institutionalization, a policy of zero tolerance towards criminality, a climate of elite impunity, and an economic framework deemed inimical to social welfare.
A change of elites
A consequential aftermath stemming from this mode of governance materialized in the populace's choice to endorse a fresh political entity in 2012. Even though this was indeed the first case of changing a ruling party through elections in the country, it should be noted that it was not the pure result of democratic processes. Rather it manifested as a response to the prevailing dynamics of post-revolutionary politics. Politics that put the people in front of the uncompromising choice of changing the government.
This was followed with logical consequences: the Georgian Dream came to power with a reliable political program but with personal interests. Personal interests gradually outweighed all the demands of the society, openly opposed its true interest, and turned the chance of democratic reforms into informal, oligarchic traps. The power was distributed to the members of the team trusted by the ruler. This political group established absolute control over state institutions and undermined the system of public accountability. Georgian Dream’s politics, whose original ambition was to confront post-revolutionary politics and create its antithesis, became too similar to its predecessor. This shift consequently engendered an illusory conflict with the National Movement regime, obscuring substantial divergences in the underlying approach.
The Georgian Dream government tried to respond to the past with inferior, fragmented mechanisms. Referring to the purpose of restoring justice, it developed a mass amnesty project; Created a temporary commission aimed at accounting, archiving, and/or destructing of illegal surveillance and covert records; Opened a memorial to the victims of repression; Established a special department in the prosecutor's office, which was given the mandate to investigate crimes committed in the course of legal proceedings. At first glance, this policy could create a chance to restore justice, but the process was not conducted in accordance with the procedure characteristic of transitional justice, it was not an inclusive process. The government chose formal mechanisms to respond to the past but did not create a special objective commission with the purpose of assessing the regime and restoring justice. It took particular steps but without widespread public involvement. As time progressed, the genuine impetus behind this approach became evident: it was not conceived as a deliberate strategy for justice restoration, but rather a regime’s calculated endeavor of self-legitimization.
Continuous renewal of trauma as a governance principle
What factors contributed to the lack of intent among successive governments to systematically engage in past analysis and justice restoration? The analysis suggests that one of the main reasons for rejecting this idea was to prevent the punishment of their own regime. Transitional justice builds strong and independent democratic institutions. However, such a trajectory poses a tangible threat to a ruling authority that is inherently antagonistic to democratic principles. The ruling entity is cognizant that setting judicial precedents and endowing independent institutions with the capacity to adjudicate upon past administrations may inevitably be turned against them in the future. Many expected from the Georgian Dream to employ mechanisms of restoring justice in a consecutive manner, but observation of the ten-year rule suggests that the current government deliberately missed this chance. It turned confrontation with the previous government into a governance principle and built its communication strategy with the public on the negative campaign of the National Movement. There is a well-known sayin among Georgians: “The Georgian dream does not have a well-functioning PR”- It implies that they are not diligent enough to provide the people with successful examples of their governance. However, upon observation, the current government showcases adeptness in communication, skillfully employing propaganda for their strategic objectives. What exactly is the underlying aim of this?
Georgian Dream is not willing to talk about achievements, it does not have a positive agenda on which it would base its information campaigns. Its goal is to keep the past wounds open, constantly actualizing and using them for electoral purposes. The government seems to manipulate our collective traumas, employing constant reminders of past repressions and endeavoring to galvanize voters through the revival of fears associated with a resurgence of the prior regime. This vicious circle should be broken through the implementation of transitional justice mechanisms.
The material was prepared within the framework of the project “Supporting an inclusive and consensus-based political environment in Georgia" financed by the Heinrich Boell Foundation Tbilisi Office - South Caucasus Region. The opinions expressed in the material belong to Komentari and may not reflect the views of the Foundation.
