“…This causes unequivocal astonishment in the West: how can a small, three-million-person country in such a crisis have five delegations traveling separately in a single month? This has been said to different delegation members, and to me as well: ‘If you don’t intend to come together, don’t come at all,’” says political activist and pro-European resistance member Davit Jincharadze.
We spoke with him about the possibility of opposition unity before Ivanishvili’s faction strengthens authoritarianism in the country and suppresses protests.
“It’s more effective when many people confront propaganda with roughly the same coordinated message than when everyone fights separately on different platforms. Otherwise, it creates the impression that we are the majority, but the feeling of a majority isn’t there.
What’s better? Not liking each other but having free elections where voters decide who they support, or being forced into exile and still criticizing each other in podcasts?” asks Davit Jincharadze.
Batumelebi conducted the interview with Jincharadze, a political activist and researcher of political technologies at the British organization Newspeak House.
Batumelebi: Mr. Davit, despite public demand, the opposition remains fragmented. In your observation, is there a resource for opposition parties to create a unified platform in the fight to save the country?
Jincharadze: There has always been, and still is, a demand for a certain type of unity. Especially now, as it is not an election period and the focus is not on unified lists, there is more room to talk about unity. One solution that could help in the fight against Georgian Dream’s propaganda would be substantive unity. For instance, education has emerged as a topic, and there are always international and new social issues. Georgian Dream is waging an information war.
Unity and forming a platform around certain issues is very important. It’s more effective when many people confront propaganda with roughly the same message rather than fighting separately on different platforms. Otherwise, it creates the impression that we are the majority, but the majority feeling doesn’t exist.
We also saw that previous platforms didn’t succeed. For example, Salome Zurabishvili’s platform quickly disbanded.
Batumelebi: What specifically happened, and why didn’t that platform work?
Jincharadze: It’s a complex issue. One factor is party interests and personal rivalries ideologically, much of the opposition shares similar principles. Yet, parties have very different management styles, which complicates cooperation.
Personal conflicts dominated debates and discussions. That has always been a problem. Because I am no longer in any party, I can speak freely: it seems that everyone wants to be the number one opposition party, but not everyone has the substance to convince people of that.
Being in the opposition under authoritarianism is not easy, but other countries have found solutions.
For instance, in Venezuela, the opposition held a primary to select a common candidate, and it was decided that one person would enjoy the majority’s support and have decision-making power. In Georgia, we currently lack a clearly leading party whose rating significantly exceeds the others.
There is a strong demand for change. I believe it’s necessary to reach agreements on issues where consensus is possible.
Batumelebi: How does the West perceive a fragmented opposition? How does this look to our international partners?
Jincharadze: This causes unequivocal astonishment in the West: how can a small, three-million-person country in crisis have five delegations traveling separately in a single month? Different delegation members have been told this, and I’ve heard it myself: “If you’re not coming together, don’t come at all.”
Five delegations arriving with five different messages, criticizing each other instead of focusing on what Georgian Dream has done, is simply not taken seriously and is exhausting for the West.
No opposition party particularly enjoys my sympathy. Some gain antipathy, but I believe every party has at least one or two people worthy of respect.
Not liking someone shouldn’t prevent coordination or unity.
It is difficult to show the West how the country’s sovereignty is genuinely threatened if, at the same time, you’re discussing what each party likes or dislikes. Criticism of opposition mistakes is necessary, but much of international visits’ time was spent negotiating the agenda between parties rather than the country’s agenda.
Often, even today, three groups opposition parties and civil society organizations may work on the same issue independently, without coordination.
Batumelebi: Why does the opposition fail to see this? How did Ivanishvili weaken the opposition so that a country facing threats to sovereignty cannot unite around fundamental issues?
Jincharadze: Personal ego is very strong, though these ambitions aren’t backed by electoral support. Coordination is also a problem. Often, one or two people want to be first, but no one becomes first, and the whole country suffers.
Another issue is that someone always disrupts unity.
Not everyone needs to agree on everything. A democratic “weight center” should be created not only from political parties but also from activists and civil society groups. This weight center often becomes a point of attraction for political actors.
We need to strengthen resistance and alternative visions. Today, most parties don’t project themselves as a real alternative. We hear a lot of talk and see documents and presentations, which is good in a democracy, but substance is required people need to see this content, including in regions, towns, and villages.
If one or two parties lack the financial resources to work in the regions, combining resources would be very important.
Unfortunately, we repeat scenarios seen elsewhere—for example, Belarus. In the end, three female opposition leaders remained; one refused to leave Belarus and became a political prisoner, Maria Kolesnikova. She was released recently, while the other two left. Even as two, they couldn’t agree on who the legitimate representative was.
I see the same danger in Georgia. What’s better? Not liking each other but having free elections where voters decide, or being forced into exile and still criticizing each other in podcasts?
The threat to the country is clear. Before authoritarianism is fully consolidated and while there is strong public protest, when can politicians properly see their function?
International experience shows that simply gathering old variables doesn’t change the picture. People have histories and prior conflicts. Forming one label from the existing spectrum does not solve the problem. Legitimacy must be gained and new energy injected.
A united strategy must show that the government is illegitimate but the opposition is legitimate. Legitimacy is proven only by speaking with people, convincing them, and creating a new political process.
This has never happened in Georgia where the opposition tried to prove its legitimacy to undecided or passively supportive voters. Therefore, unity didn’t work.
A democratic weight center should be established to decide how decisions are made and in what format. Without this, voters may not see an alternative between Georgian Dream and the opposition.
If unity is based on a democratic agenda with clear rules for decision-making, then an alternative can emerge.
Unfortunately, ego problems are so deep that everyone wants to be the future prime minister, the first opposition leader, holding a position that doesn’t exist. Zero-sum thinking is impossible.
This exists even in small parties: everyone believes they are the best.
Batumelebi: Regarding newer political forces, such as Freedom Square, of which you were a leader, what was the main reason for its formation?
Jincharadze: Being new doesn’t automatically mean being better. Newness is needed primarily to break old patterns of behavior. Legitimacy depends on voter support.
There is demand for new parties, but simply creating new names doesn’t change anything. Skepticism already exists around new movements. Many new initiatives have been planned, but something is missing: the ability to work consistently and systematically.
Looking at successful resistance movements elsewhere, beyond unity, strategic planning is crucial: knowing what we do next, not waiting for Georgian Dream to set the agenda. Discipline is also lacking in most opposition parties new and old alike. New movements often inherit old patterns. People entering politics must ask themselves if they’re ready to act differently, speak differently to voters, and break from the urban elite.
The West expects outreach: don’t just speak in Brussels or Berlin, speak to people in Batumi, Samtredia, Ozurgeti. Simply creating a new logo or initiative is not enough; consistent work is essential.
Existential Stakes
Everyone must understand: this is an existential struggle, not just another crisis. Recognizing this is the first step toward acting correctly. Without consistency, unity is meaningless.
Batumelebi: Can we expect a new platform initiated primarily by activists and civil society groups, with politicians participating? Is there preparation underway?
Jincharadze: At the idea level, many feel this is needed. Everyone I speak to in this protest sees the necessity. A form may not yet exist, but the need is widely recognized.
Citizen initiatives are critical. New movements should not be seen as competitors but collaborators. Often, old players view new initiatives with distrust and fear of competition, as our country lacks experience with healthy competition and a free market.