Latest news with #GeorgianDreamparty
Euronews
3 days ago
- Politics
- Euronews
Polish presidential candidates hold their final campaign rallies
Poland's two presidential candidates held their last election campaigns on Friday ahead of a runoff vote on Sunday. It will follow a first round on May 18, in which Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski won more than 31% of the vote and Karol Nawrocki, a conservative historian, earned nearly 30%. Eleven other candidates were eliminated. In the seaside city of Gdansk, Trzaskowski referenced the city's role in the Solidarity movement while addressing supporters. 'We all remember the shipyard workers who said, 'enough fear, enough lies, enough contempt.' Today, once again, we must stand together,' he said. 'For you, it will be just a few steps to the polling station, but together we can make a milestone towards realising our dreams and aspirations.' In his closing address, Nawrocki presented himself as a candidate who is 'simply one of you.' He described himself as 'a citizen of the Polish state who has come a long way to compete with a man created by a political laboratory.' Under Polish law, all campaigning and political advertising must cease at midnight. No public comment is allowed until polls close on Sunday. Police in Georgia have detained a second opposition leader within days as protests against the ruling Georgian Dream party and its perceived Russia-friendly stance continue in the South Caucasus country. Lawyers for Nika Melia, one of the figureheads for Georgia's pro-Western Coalition for Change, said his car was stopped by police on Thursday. Soon after, he was bundled away by a large group of people in civilian clothing. According to the interior ministry, Melia has been detained on charges of verbally insulting a law enforcement officer. A court placed Melia in pre-trial detention but the length of that period of imprisonment has not been made clear. The arrest comes a week after that of Zurab Japaridze, another leader of the pro-Western, liberal coalition of parties that support European Union integration and want a restoration of democratic norms. Japaridze, who heads the New Political Centre (Girchi) party, was detained on 22 May after refusing to appear before a parliamentary commission investigating alleged wrongdoings by the government of former president Mikheil Saakashvili. Opposition politicians have declined to attend the commission hearings, saying they are politically motivated by Georgian Dream to damage the opposition, particularly Saakashvili's United National Movement party. Melia, of the Ahali party and former chairman of Saakashvili's United National Movement party, was detained on the eve of a scheduled court hearing for failing to testify. Japaridze and seven other opposition politicians who did not attend the commission are expected to appear before a court in coming days. If found guilty of failing to comply with a parliamentary investigative commission, they face up to a year in prison. Meanwhile, demonstrators have continued to gather in the capital Tbilisi, demanding new elections and the release of dissidents. Nightly protests began on 28 November, when Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze halted the country's EU integration process. Georgia has seen widespread political unrest since the country's last parliamentary election in October, which was won by Georgian Dream. Protestors and the country's opposition declared the result as illegitimate amid allegations of vote-rigging helped by Russia, sparking weeks of protests across the country. At the time, opposition leaders vowed to boycott sessions of parliament until a new parliamentary election was held under international supervision and alleged ballot irregularities were investigated. Georgian Dream has seen widespread condemnation by European leaders and international rights groups over its rough handling of protestors and perceived democratic backsliding.
Al Bawaba
01-04-2025
- Business
- Al Bawaba
The Pragmatic Approach of Bidzina Ivanishvili in Georgian Politics: small state in a complex neighbourhood
Dr. Gil Feiler Bidzina Ivanishvili's political career in Georgia has been characterized by a distinctly pragmatic approach to governance that recognizes the practical limitations and opportunities facing the small Caucasian nation. As the founder of the Georgian Dream party and a significant political figure in Georgia, Ivanishvili has consistently prioritized economic development and stability while navigating the complex geopolitical realities that confront a country positioned between major regional powers. His approach reflects a clear-eyed assessment of Georgia's size, resources, and strategic position rather than ideologically-driven policies. His background as a successful businessman has informed his governance philosophy, emphasizing: 1. Investment in infrastructure: Recognizing that economic growth requires fundamental infrastructure improvements, Ivanishvili's policy direction has supported significant investments in transportation networks, energy systems, and urban development projects that create both immediate employment and long-term economic benefits. 2. Promotion of tourism: Understanding Georgia's natural and cultural assets, Ivanishvili has championed the development of the tourism sector as a source of foreign currency and employment. This has included restoration of historic sites, simplification of visa requirements, and international marketing campaigns that have substantially increased visitor numbers. 3. Agricultural modernization: Acknowledging Georgia's agricultural heritage and potential, policies under Ivanishvili have supported the modernization of the agricultural sector through technology transfer, access to international markets, and development of high-value products such as wine that leverage Georgia's comparative advantages. 4. Business-friendly reforms: Ivanishvili has advocated for regulatory reforms, tax simplifications, and reduction of bureaucratic obstacles to business formation and operation. Geopolitical Realism: Navigating Complex Regional Dynamics Perhaps the most notable aspect of Ivanishvili's pragmatic approach has been his handling of Georgia's challenging geopolitical position. Situated at the crossroads between Europe, Russia, and the Middle East, Georgia faces significant security and diplomatic challenges that require careful navigation. Contrary to characterizations by critics, Ivanishvili's approach to Russia has been guided by pragmatic assessment rather than alignment or subservience: Ivanishvili's policies acknowledge the unavoidable reality that Georgia shares a border with Russia and cannot simply ignore its powerful neighbour. This geographical fact necessitates maintaining functional relations where possible while preserving Georgian sovereignty. Following the disastrous 2008 war, Ivanishvili has pursued policies aimed at reducing immediate tensions with Russia while not compromising on core sovereignty issues. This approach recognizes that renewed military conflict would be devastating for Georgia's development prospects and security. While maintaining dialogue with Russia, Ivanishvili's government has simultaneously pursued some integration with European institutions and strengthened partnerships with other regional powers. This balanced approach reflects recognition of Georgia's need to maintain multiple international relationships rather than exclusive alignment. Despite pursuing normalized relations with Russia where possible, Ivanishvili's policies have maintained firm positions on issues of territorial integrity and sovereignty. The pragmatic approach does not entail abandonment of core national interests, but rather pursuit of these interests through viable means. This nuanced approach to foreign policy demonstrates not alignment with Russian interests, but rather a realistic assessment of Georgia's position as a small state in a complex neighbourhood. Rather than pursuing policies that might be emotionally satisfying but practically counterproductive, Ivanishvili has advocated for approaches that maximize Georgia's limited leverage and protect its long-term interests. Domestic Governance: Stability and Incremental Reform Ivanishvili's pragmatism extends to his approach to domestic governance, where he has generally favoured stability and incremental progress over rapid, disruptive change: Recognizing that democratic institutions require time and stability to develop, Ivanishvili's approach has focused on gradual strengthening of governance structures rather than constant reorganization. Understanding the importance of social cohesion for development, policies under Ivanishvili have aimed to address immediate social needs while building foundations for longer-term prosperity. In a society with strong traditional values, Ivanishvili's pragmatic approach has sought to balance respect for Georgian traditions with necessary modernization and international integration. This approach reflects recognition that Georgia's development requires stability and continuity as well as reform—a pragmatic assessment that governance must be adapted to specific national conditions rather than imported wholesale from other contexts. Fundamental to Ivanishvili's pragmatic approach is a clear recognition of Georgia's limitations as a small state with approximately 3.7 million citizens. This acknowledgment informs policies that: Rather than attempting to compete across all domains simultaneously, Ivanishvili's approach has emphasized focusing Georgia's limited resources on strategic priorities with realistic potential for success. Policies have sought to identify and develop areas where Georgia can successfully compete despite its size limitations, such as tourism, specialized agriculture, and transit infrastructure. Unlike some previous approaches that committed Georgia to obligations beyond its realistic capacity, Ivanishvili's policies have generally aimed to match commitments to actual resources and capabilities. To Conclude, Bidzina Ivanishvili's approach to Georgian politics and development represents a fundamentally pragmatic vision that recognizes both the country's potential and its limitations. By focusing on economic development, managing complex international relationships realistically, and pursuing governance adapted to Georgia's specific conditions, this approach offers a pathway toward sustainable progress that is neither subservient to external powers nor detached from practical realities. The characterization of this approach as Russian-aligned misunderstands its essential nature. Rather than serving Russian interests, Ivanishvili's policies reflect a pragmatic assessment of how best to serve Georgian interests given the realities of the country's size, location, and resources. This pragmatism—focusing on what can actually be accomplished rather than what might be ideally desired—provides Georgia with a foundation for sustainable development and increased prosperity while navigating the complex challenges of its geopolitical environment. In a region where ideological rigidity and unrealistic ambitions have often led to instability and conflict, Ivanishvili's pragmatic approach offers an alternative path focused on gradual, sustainable progress grounded in realistic assessment of national capacities and limitations.
Yahoo
10-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
While the world is distracted by Trump, here's how Putin and Musk are weakening European democracies
In an unprecedented decision on December 6 2024, the Romanian constitutional court annulled the November 25 presidential elections after it received credible intelligence of large-scale external interference rigging the results of the first round in favour of a hardly-known far-right candidate, Calin Georgescu. Georgescu's massive last-minute surge was largely blamed on the creation of thousands of paid-for Russian-controlled bots on TikTok and illegal campaign financing. This may seem like last year's news, but with elections coming up in Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and possibly even Ukraine, there's plenty to worry about – apart from a new US president who is disrupting Washington (and the world) with a flurry of executive orders and foreign policy initiatives that feel more like real estate sales pitches. Concerns about Russian election interference are nothing new, but so far the picture of Moscow's success is rather mixed. Back in January 2017, the US intelligence community was confident that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential elections to get Donald Trump elected. The following year, similar accusations arose in the context of presidential elections in France. But in France, the Kremlin failed to prevent the victory of Emmanuel Macron. More recently, in Georgia, the incumbent government of the Georgian Dream party won the parliamentary elections in October 2024 after alleged Russian interference. This sparked widespread protests and a government crackdown on media and civil society. By contrast, despite alleged Russian interference in Moldova, the country's pro-western president won a second term in November 2024. A referendum on a constitutional commitment to EU membership was supported by a razor-thin majority of voters. Read more: Opinion polls on perceptions of Russia and Vladimir Putin across western democracies also offer some solace. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center in 2024, positive views of Russia and its leader remain very low across EU and Nato member countries. At the same time, approval ratings of the EU and Nato remained high among member countries' citizens. But these relatively comforting headline figures mask important, and somewhat worrying, trends. In Germany, which holds early parliamentary elections on February 23, positive views of Putin more than doubled from 8% in 2023 to 17% in 2024. This is still a far cry from the 76% who approved of Putin in 2003 or even the 36% who did so in 2019, according to the same survey. The German increase is an outlier among the 13 EU members, but in only one of them – Italy – did support for Putin drop, compared with the previous year. Read more: The same goes for support for the EU and Nato. The median level of support for the EU across nine member states surveyed stands at 63%, with 36% of participants holding unfavourable views. Germany, with 63% favourable views, however, recorded the second consecutive decline, down from 78% in 2022 and 71% in 2023. And Germany is less of an outlier here – favourable views of the EU among member states have generally declined somewhat over the past two years. When it comes to Nato, 63% of survey participants in 13 member countries thought more positively of the alliance, while 33% had more negative views. But again, with the exception of Hungary and Canada (where favourability went up), the share of those with favourable views had declined by between two and eight percentage points since last year. Does this mean that Putin is winning? No, at least not yet. Attitude surveys are less important than election results. Russia appears to have had some recent success in changing election outcomes, for instance in Romania where Romanian intelligance services discovered evidence of voter manipulation. But the Romanian example (in annulling the election) is also illustrative of how important it is for democracies to fight back – and even more importantly to take preventive action. And this is a lesson that seems to have sunk in. On January 30, the foreign ministers of 12 EU member states sent a joint letter to Brussels urging the European Commission to make more aggressive use of its powers under the Digital Services Act to protect the integrity of democratic elections in the bloc. Article 25 of that act, crucially, establishes an obligation on online platforms to design their services free from deception and manipulation and ensure that users can make informed decisions. While the commission has yet to demonstrate its resolve under the Digital Services Act, a Berlin court on February 7 2025, ordered that X must hand over data needed to track disinformation to two civil society groups who had requested it. If Putin is winning, he is not winning on his own. Democracies are not only under threat from Russia. Musk – an unelected billionaire wielding unprecedented influence under Donald Trump – has repeatedly been accused of interfering in European debates and election campaigns. Of his comments on the German election, Musk has argued that as he has significant investments in Germany he has the right to comment on its politics and that the AfD 'resonates with many Germans who feel their concerns are ignored by the establishment'. What Musk and Putin have in common is their deep dislike of open liberal democracies and a cunning ability to employ technology to further their goals by promoting political parties and movements that share their illiberal views. Where they differ is that Musk focuses on the far right – Germany's AfD or the UK's Tommy Robinson. But Putin tends to back whoever he sees as serving Russian interests in weakening western unity and influence. This leads to the Kremlin lending support to leaders on both the far right and far left. But often Putin's and Musk's proteges are the same. In the case of the German AfD, it was no accident that Putin echoed comments from a speech Musk gave at an AfD election rally, saying that Germans should move beyond their war guilt. Both were keen to remove the stain of being too close to Germany's Nazi past from the AfD and make it not just electable but also respectable enough to bring into a coalition, much like Austria's far-right Freedom Party which has a long history of friendly relations with Putin. And what Musk can do openly on X, Putin tries to achieve with a campaign of his bot army on the platform. Perhaps the most significant similarity between Musk and Putin – and others who have been accused of election interference – is that they tap into a growing reservoir of discontent with liberal democracy. According to a 2024 survey of 31 democracies worldwide, 54% of participants were dissatisfied with how they saw democracy working. In 12 high-income countries – Canada, US, and 10 EU member states – dissatisfaction was even higher with 64% and has been increasing for the fourth consecutive year. Pushing back against the kind of blatant election interference by the likes of Putin and Musk is clearly important. But it will not be enough to reverse persistent trends of decline in the support for democracy and its standard bearers including the EU and Nato. It is right to resist and prosecute election rigging. But it is also crucial to ask why people are dissatisfied with democracy – and to do something about it. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU's Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
