Tiraana Bains, CC 2015

We began the fifth day of our foray into the Southern Caucasus on a relatively unhurried note. The tranquility of a lazy morning was, however, shattered with the onset of midday as the trip-leaders decided to do what Ambassador Norland in his blissful ignorance presumed we always did. Having prepared an extensive list of questions and talking-points for all whom we would meet, we departed upon what would no longer be a leisurely day. The first interview of the day was scheduled with Mr. Vakhtang Khmaladze, a member of the Georgian Republic Party and the Georgian Dream Coalition. Our curiosity had been whetted by the knowledge that Ivanishvili recommended his candidature for the Presidency in the wake of the 2012 parliamentary elections. In an effort to subdue our excitement, Mr. Khmaladze modestly disavowed any personal ambition to secure the post and instead waxed eloquent about his former vocation as a physicist. Our questions were nevertheless focused on the new role the President would play as Georgia made the transition from a Presidential system to a Parliamentary model. Relying on a pedantic rendition of introductory political science textbooks, he kindly explicated the distinctions between the two models with a grandfatherly air, and made the case for Georgia’s adoption of a Parliamentary system. He cited the need for greater co-ordination between the executive and legislature and in the course of doing so obliquely referred to the filibuster tactics oftentimes employed in the United States Congress. He did not, however, speak of the structural problems that often mar the functioning of multi-party parliamentary democracies. It is perhaps too early in the day for the difficulties of coalition politics to become apparent. Mr. Khmaladze though did state that the Georgian Dream coalition was, by no means, a permanent arrangement and would, as coalitions are wont to, splinter once their objective of saving Georgia from almost a decade of Sakaashvili’s rule was complete. Midway through our meeting, we lost one of our number. Finding himself in excruciating pain due to the foot injury he sustained while pirouetting among the ruins that line the hills of Tbilisi, Helder was compelled to leave in pursuit of medical aid. Fortunately enough, he returned before our time with Mr. Khmaladze was out, making an entrance that was distinctive to say the least.

Having thanked Mr. Khmaladze profusely for agreeing to meet with us, we rushed to our appointment with the State Minister for Reintegration, Mr. Paata Zakareishvili. Tasked with the difficult assignment of initiating a proactive dialog with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and by extension, Russia, Mr. Zakareishvili highlighted the intricacies of his ministry’s new policy. An advocate of renewing relations with Russia as a meaningful step forward, Mr. Zakareishvili was critical of Sakaashvili’s intransigent refusal to open channels of communication outside the Geneva Talks format. He responded to questions about parallels with the territorial disputes over Kosovo and Cyprus by emphasizing the distinct impossibility of irredentism in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. His pragmatic approach was evident from his focus on engaging with the breakaway provinces rather than isolating them. His arguments in favor of rapprochement with Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be thrown into sharp contrast by the polemical critique offered by two members of the United National Movement, whom we would interview later in the day. The dialog concluded with the recovery of a long lost relation and an exchange of information that may be described as being extraneous to our project of understanding separatism and territorial conflicts in the Southern Caucasus.

Our next meeting marked a deviation from the usual routine of stepping through security checkpoints and formal boardrooms. We found ourselves in a brightly colored space in the company of people of our own generation. The students at the media school of Radio Liberty gave us a rousing welcome. Luka, in particular, received presidential or rather, given the constitutional changes that shall be enforced in the coming months, prime-ministerial treatment. Once Luka had addressed the gathering of students and interns at the media school, we embarked upon a round of introductions. We graduated from the awkward pronouncement of names and majors to a statement that not only broke the ice but also subtly demarcated possession. We then disbanded into smaller groups so as to converse directly and informally about matters ranging from well-rehearsed political questions to literary tastes. This meeting provided a unique chance to hear from young people in Georgia and sample a broad span of opinion about some of our central areas of focus. In keeping with the precedent set by the last interview, this event also occasioned the exchange of all manner of information.

We skidded in a couple of minutes late for our final meeting of the day. Our belated arrival was caused, in part, by our failure to navigate the ramshackle building that has, since the recent election, become home to some offices of the United National Movement. The fact of electoral defeat was writ large. It was stamped on the façade of the crumbling building that we stepped into, and etched upon the faces of the party-members we interviewed. Young and English-speaking, with fingers that barely parted from iPhone screens, the two UNM members we interviewed inspired a degree of identification. The first instinctive sense of recognition, however, dissipated as the interview progressed. Citing external factors such as the staging of the prison scandal by opposition groups and the influence of the Church and its anti-UNM leanings, they were far from nonpartisan in their appraisal of the UNM’s election loss. It was only after persistent questioning that we were able to extract a somewhat more candid answer. They who shall not be named conceded that lack of timely prison reform and the human rights record of the UNM government had proved to be an Achilles’ heel. One of them also mused that the policy of zero toleration of crime and mass incarceration should have been phased out at an earlier stage. The meeting was most valuable in that it provided a counter-point to the arguments propounded by the Minister of Reintegration, renewing the challenge of wheedling out a modicum of objective truth from two radically different sets of assertions and justifications colored by partisan ties. Still recovering from a barrage of militantly pro-UNM rhetoric, we headed for dinner. Dinner was an enjoyable affair, with jokes of varying degrees of political incorrectness and relentless demands for salad from a minority party dominating the conversation. The evening did not end there, but that is another story and not mine to tell. Perhaps, as another one of our number learnt in another former Soviet state, “you can never know.”