Over the past decades, it has become quite “standard” to credit the organization and execution of revolutions to transnational powers abroad, in particular to George Soros. The events that took place in both Armenia and Georgia were not exempt from similar “accusations.”
The suspicions in Armenia were dispelled when Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan published the financial resources spent by his movement during the revolution, down to the last penny. In Georgia’s case however, even to this day, there is speculation concerning Western funding, which the revolutionaries still repudiate. Western-backed financing of the Georgian revolution is a subject matter that is denied both by the potential financial investors, and those who theoretically received it. In spite of this, the post-revolutionary financial period in Georgia is even more noteworthy.
The “inheritance” that Shevardnadze left behind was certainly not propitious. The new government was forced to wage war against criminal groups while attempting to resolve fundamental economic and security issues. Naturally, all of this required financing.
In 2005, the founder of Open Society Foundation, billionaire George Soros, visited Georgia for three days. He had various meetings with the country’s political elite and, when it came time to summarize his experience, announced that, “Much has changed in Georgia after the Rose Revolution.” Soros paid special attention to the government’s anti-corruption campaign, as well as the reforms taking place within the Ministry of Internal Affairs. His interest in these subject matters, however, was rooted in a time before the revolution. During Shevardnadze’s presidency, George Soros had engaged in anti-corruption campaigns with the authorities in power alongside the Minister of Justice at the time, Mikheil Saakashvili, and Speaker of Parliament, Zurab Zhvania. In 2007, during an interview with Prague’s RFE/RL broadcasting center, Soros said, “Shevardnadze could not deliver on his promises or his commitments because the main source of corruption in Georgia was the Ministry of the Interior -- the police, and he was completely dependent on the police.”
What’s remarkable is that Saakashvili expressed a similar idea when he left office claiming that he did not receive support from Shevardnadze in his fight against corruption. Later, Soros’s Open Society Foundation provided funds to Georgia for anti-corruption initiatives, reforms, and increasing wages for state workers. This story might have ended there had it not been for the Russian Forbe’s interview with Georgia’s former prime minister, billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili. In the interview, Ivanishvili revealed that he had provided the majority of funding through Soros’s foundation: “We used the Soros Foundation; but Soros’ investment, if it even existed, was insignificant. All the money that went to increasing wages was mine. For more than two and a half years, officials received a higher salary thanks to this fund. At the same time, no one knew or showed interest in knowing where that money was coming from.” Ivanishvili stopped short of mentioning a specific figure. He also claimed to have helped the army and police force.
In Armenia, transcripts of the revolution’s financial records were made public. These reports clearly showed money that every individual had contributed. Furthermore, any doubts and suspicions concerning foreign forces or Western involvement soon vanished when it became apparent that the Republic of Armenia was not changing its foreign policy vector. Russia remains the Republic of Armenia’s strategic ally. Previously, the very force that had called for a parliamentary discussion about Armenia’s possible withdrawal from the Eurasian Economic Union, the same force that came to power after the revolution, declared time and again that there will be “no geopolitical reverses” after they assume power. As Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan’s first order of business took him to Sochi, Russia, where he attended the session of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council. It is interesting to note that Mikheil Saakashvili’s first official visit once in power was also to Russia.
Elections
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. On Dec. 10, 1948, the UN General Assembly approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Article 21 states, “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives...The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”
Elections are the fundamental mechanism of democracy; ultimately, those who are elected to state and political positions are accountable to those who voted for them. According to law, elections are required to be held in free and equal conditions. This means that candidates running for office must be of equal position, and voters must be free to make their own decisions. In many countries, including Armenia and Georgia, there were many questions concerning elections, which still remain. In both of these post-Soviet countries, elections were almost always followed by demonstrations protesting inequality and an absence of freedom. In Armenia, the most tragic example of such demonstrations happened on March 1, 2008. Ten people were killed and the criminal case is still open to this day. This is yet another essential difference between the Armenian and Georgian revolutions.
The revolution in Armenia did not take place in the form of demonstrations following an election, but rather because Serzh Sargsyan attempted to seize power and prolong his rule. Using the constitutional amendments, he increased the powers of the prime minister and reduced those of the president. According to the previous Constitution of the Republic of Armenia that set term limits, he would not have been able to seek a third term as president. During the process of amending the Constitution - which fundamentally included switching the country from a presidential to a parliamentary system - Serzh Sargsyan announced that he would not be seeking a third term in office.
On the other hand, the revolution in Georgia was the post-election demonstrations. Following the elections, a three week struggle in the streets resulted in the resignation of President Eduard Shevardnadze. He announced his resignation on Nov. 23. Then, on Jan. 4, for the first time in Georgian history, snap presidential elections were held. Saakashvili received 96.27 percent of the vote (about 1,890,000 votes).
On March 28, 2003, 84 days after the presidential elections, and 42 days after Eduard Shevardnadze’s resignation, parliamentary elections were held in Georgia. The elections were implemented without electoral reform, which deeply concerned the Council of Europe. The Council had concerns regarding the formation of the Central Electoral Commission and the precinct election commissions and also called for lowering the electoral threshold from seven percent to four or five percent. It is significant to note that the Supreme Court of Georgia annulled only the proportional part of the vote, but the results of the majoritarian elections were left unchanged. This meant that, in the 235-member parliament, 85 majoritarian deputies were elected in 2003, and on March 28, 2004, 150 deputies were elected to the proportional component of the parliament. From the results of the proportional election, two political parties gained standing in parliament: the National Movement-Democrats with 135 mandates, and the Right Opposition with 15 mandates.
In Armenia, almost four months have passed since the change in government, but it is still unclear when snap parliamentary elections will be held or how the current parliament will be dissolved. The current ruling team, along with the opposition and civil society, is still working on reforming the Electoral Code. The government has suggested lowering the threshold needed for political parties to enter parliament to four percent from the current five percent; and six percent for political alliances from the current seven percent. Certain political forces are talking of lowering the threshold even more.
The differences between the revolutions in Georgia and Armenia do not end here. For example, in Georgia, there is a region called Ajaria, where the revolution took a little bit longer to reach than all of Georgia (not counting the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia). Furthermore, everything in Georgia was organized by the leaders, whereas the principle of self-organization was present from the beginning in Armenia, and so on. At the same time, there were also similarities: peaceful protests and civil disobedience, one throwing roses, and the other, love and tolerance.
