Georgia’s (Anti)Gender Democracy and The Promise of Authoritarianism

Governance Logic of “Georgian Dream”: A Short Trajectory 
Tamta Mikeladze, Equality Program Director at Social Justice Center

In 2012, the "Georgian Dream" came into power as a coalition, an amalgamation of conservative, liberal, and socio-democratic political forces. However, at a certain juncture, it experienced a complete ideological homogenization, resulting in its transformation into a largely sterile and unbalanced political entity by 2021. Initially, the "Georgian Dream" demonstrated a formal interest in social-democratic ideology and engaged with European political actors. However, as various political forces that were part of the coalition departed from the political body of the original union, it largely shifted toward conservative ideology. A significant transformation in the political orientation of the "Georgian Dream" occurred following the onset of Russia's full-scale war in Ukraine. During this time shifts in foreign policy, coupled with the escalation of autocratization and the erosion of democratic governance, accelerated and became increasingly noticeable.

Despite this, we cannot claim that Georgia was a democratic country that has only now turned into an autocracy. Democratization is a process characterized by constant upheaval. Georgia's political development has always been marked by the opposition between authoritarian and democratic tendencies and modes. As is often the case, political parties tend to create a democratic climate at the beginning of their tenure; however, they soon begin consolidating power and disempowering, even eradicating groups outside of their political control. "Georgian Dream" has also turned to autocracy in the final phase of its rule, now that its legitimacy is shaken, necessitating more rigid and severe tools for amassing or sustaining power. Today, repression, the shrinking of democratic spaces, and propaganda represent those tools.

However, in my opinion, it is impossible to understand this dramatic turn only through the interest of sustaining political power. I think, after the war against Ukraine, in light of Russia’s global sanctions, the “Georgian Dream” realized that Georgia’s geography provided resources for establishing new types of market relations with eastern markets isolated from the West. Bidzina Ivanishvili, who has the consciousness of a merchant, realized that an era is dawning during which he can break into completely new markets and use this country as a corridor. This coincides with the adoption of the so-called "offshore law” , which allows completely invisible, untaxed, unlimited capital to move within our country’s borders. Thus, in my opinion, when analyzing the policy change and sudden turn in Georgian politics, the new context created after the war in Ukraine and new economic opportunities, which the oligarchic system of the "Georgian Dream" saw, become decisive. In principle, ultimately, this is also a question of power. Especially since those who hold political power always control resources in our political system, and vice versa.

It is evident that, on one hand, the "Georgian Dream" is isolating Georgia from the West, while on the other hand, it is fostering new relationships with Russia and China. In its political language, the government places greater emphasis on the importance of aligning with China and its economic potential, while largely neglecting any focus on Russia. The ruling party even refrains from characterizing Russia as a significant threat. Still, we are aware that the "Georgian Dream" is increasing the dependence of our national economy on Russia; it actively employs the discursive apparatus of Russian neo-imperial policy in its propaganda while simultaneously undermining the country's security sustainability.

There was an attempt by the government to justify these radical external political changes by using security arguments in light of Russia's war on Ukraine. The explanations suggested that a careful distancing from the West and Ukraine aimed to guard against the risks of war, necessitating a pragmatic politics of balance. However, this reasoning was revealed as false, as it is clear that the "Georgian Dream" does not pursue a balanced politics today. Instead, it actively follows an anti-European agenda and has disrupted the geopolitical balance to the detriment of the West.

After the war in Ukraine, the European Union made a strategic geopolitical decision to prioritize its expansion. In this context, the Europeanization process in Georgia (as well as in other countries) accelerated, presenting new historical opportunities for us. However, this process requires reforms from Georgia, which entail balancing and redistribution of power. The "Georgian Dream" government is resistant to this change. They understand that ceding even a small amount of control over the institutions of power could create a crack in the system, leading to a complete loss of power (something they were already in real danger of in 2020, with the electoral system being the only factor that allowed them to remain in power).

It is noteworthy to analyze the strategies and tactics the "Georgian Dream" government employs to maintain its hold on power. Among various mechanisms, the party actively exploits social and economic vulnerabilities. Currently, 1,200,000 individuals have applied for social assistance (with up to 700,000 receiving benefits. Many of these individuals have been in the program for years and yet, remain unable to overcome poverty). This not only highlights that a significant portion of our population lives in extreme poverty, but it also demonstrates how these programs have become a powerful tool for the government in terms of population demobilization and societal control.

Among the tools for consolidating power are our traumas and fears, primarily related to war and conflict. This is why the main axis of propaganda is based on cultivating fears of war. The government also actively leverages conservative sentiments and cultural fears present in our society. Unfortunately, our elites have yet to propose a project of nationalism grounded in citizenship and equality. Consequently, this discursive void, along with weak social unity within our society, has been effectively exploited to mobilize conservative sentiments.

The “Georgian Dream”, akin to other autocratic regimes, can be perceived as a force that exploits the vulnerabilities, voids, or energies present within these societies and systems. This perspective is supported by the theoretical framework put forth by certain gender theorists, under which the above-mentioned forces are compared to parasitic fungi that invade trees in forests and use the vital energy of the forest microcosm. Similarly, the "Georgian Dream" capitalizes on the traumas, weaknesses, and fears embedded within our social structures and psyches, ultimately turning them against us. In this process of manipulation, reality is frequently distorted and perverted. For instance, while the government frequently espouses the concept of sovereignty, it is the "Georgian Dream" administration that undermines this sovereignty by rendering the nation dependent on the Russian market or by facilitating problematic Chinese investments (not to mention, that the notion of sovereign democracy serves as a main axis of Russian propaganda). With the state effectively co-opted, all institutional power follows an oligarch’s set of interests.

Therefore, those voids and vulnerabilities, our traumas are what the system has captured well. This is where civil society and academia must play their role in rationalizing the past and addressing these traumas. They can facilitate a critical examination of the systemic issues that impede genuine democracy and peace within our nation. We must engage in honest discourse regarding truth and illuminate realities that persist.

The Past and Present of Anti-gender Narratives 
Eka Aghdghomelashvili, Gender and Sexuality Scholar

The process of transforming homophobia and homosexuality into a political ideology dates back to the 1930s, preceded by the sexual revolution and counter-revolution of the 1920s. The Bolshevik Revolution initially brought freedom regarding sexuality, family, and homosexuality. However, this newfound freedom was quickly replaced by the control characteristic of totalitarian regimes in the 1930s. Homosexual individuals soon became not only victims of repression, but sexuality itself acquired an entirely new dimension. In this context, the Stalin era holds significant importance, as it was during this time that homosexuality became ideologically linked to the bourgeois West. This connection is further evidenced by the fact that, during this period, it was not the police [Georgian: მილიცია/Militsia] but the "Cheka"  (the predecessor of the KGB ) that prosecuted these offenses, typically focusing on ideological crimes.

Consequently, as a former part of the Soviet Union, Georgia followed this legacy for a long time, and until the end of the 1990s, homosexuality remained an ideological crime. Since the 2000s, this process has resurfaced; homophobic hate speech, aesthetics, and even posters bear similarities to those of the 30s and 40s, serving to revive this ideology. This shift, in turn, alters the prevailing paradigm, reframing the discourse as a conflict between Russia, perceived as the "defender of traditions," and the "perverted" West. This moral framework enables Russia to position itself strategically for geopolitical advantages, rendering these issues central to its anti-Western narrative.

These central issues, which were later united under the term "gender ideology" in the 90s, form, in fact, an empty signifier that allows various actors to ascribe their meanings and coordinate their efforts in this struggle. Consequently, the existing interpretations of "gender ideology" vary significantly between the West and Russia. In the West, it addresses the changing role of women, issues of sexuality, and the decriminalization and normalization of relationships between queer individuals, which are often seen as a threat to hegemonic masculinity. This discourse is predominantly rooted in a Catholic framework. In contrast, Russia draws upon a distinct “tradition” informed by Slavophilism, Eurasianism, and Orthodoxy, which shapes its understanding of “gender ideology” in a fundamentally different way. If we examine Georgia, it’s clear that the Russian interpretation of "gender ideology" dominates the local production of anti-LGBTQ narratives.

Anti-LGBTQ propaganda and discourse in Georgia have gone through different stages. Its politicization began not in 2013, but in 1999, when the then pseudo-opposition party "Revival"  began to address these issues, particularly the so-called "conspiracy of the gays" [Georgian: ცისფერები/tsisperebi]. This was a time when a faction of "reformers" separated from the Union of Citizens of Georgia [the ruling political party]. The introduction of liberal values sparked speculation on these matters, albeit in an inconsistent manner. Even though this discourse diminished following the "Rose Revolution," it re-emerged between 2007 and 2013 and has since resurfaced as the current government faces a political crisis.

If we look back to the period of the "United National Movement," we see that starting in 2007, there was the invention of non-existent "gay parades," which the media reported extensively. This again indicates that homophobia in Georgia has a distinctly political basis, as organized anti-gay demonstrations have a much longer history than the public demand for rights articulated by members of the LGBTQ community. The government today seeks to exploit these existing sentiments to further polarize society. In the 1990s, ethnic minorities were utilized to instigate division and confrontation within our society; in the 2000s, it was religious minorities. Now, the LGBTQ community has become the main embodiment of the "enemy." Despite this history, we still do not fully realize how phobias against ethnic, religious, or LGBTQ groups (by local authorities and Russia) have been used to create lesions of constant tension and conflict.

The purpose of using such rhetoric and propaganda is similar to the process of adopting an anti-discrimination law [adopted in 2014]: this law aimed to harmonize with the European Union, while the new anti-democratic laws are being adopted for harmonization with the Russian space. On the other hand, the authoritarian government's interest in initiating these laws is primarily to mobilize conservative voters, label political opponents, and influence geopolitical choices to draw people toward Russia. Clearly, these laws also create new mechanisms of repression that serve to exert control over a broad segment of society, ultimately leading to the usurpation of power.

European Union’s Political Conditionality
Tamar Tskhadadze, Philosopher, Associate Professor at Ilia State University

The neoconservative turn and anti-gender rhetoric have emerged as global trends over the past decade, clearly not a unique challenge to Georgia or the region. However, there are different causes, goals, and outcomes behind these challenges. Additionally, today, there is a global crisis of democracy – a natural consequence of states' dependence on global capital. This crisis engenders skepticism towards democracy, and the "Georgian Dream" uses this very effectively. It is particularly striking in this context that anti-emancipatory and anti-equality policies are being enacted under the name of democracy and in appeals to democratic values. This is a cynical move on the part of the Georgian, or any other government drifting towards autocracy.

This crisis has long been debated in Western Europe by left-wing critics who emphasize the direct consequences of neoliberalism. On one hand, there is an erosion of the welfare state's social protection networks. On the other hand, as a result of the globalization of financial capital, the interests of European states are subordinated to those of global financial capital. This latter development directly leads to a reduction in democratic control over governmental actions.

If since the ‘90s, many critics discussing the crisis of liberal democracy have had these challenges to democratic structures in mind, namely the threats posed by liberalism (economic liberalism); in the past decade, we have observed a significant reversal of this trend, where democracy (again, understood in a specific, narrowly defined manner) seems to be undermining liberalism. This dialectical relationship warrants careful examination; while a certain interpretation of liberalism may have previously depleted democratic principles, contemporary manifestations of a mutated democracy appear to be eroding the foundations of liberalism.

In my view, what we are observing now is proof that democracy, liberalism, and socialism or the welfare state are three closely related aspects of equality that must manage each other. The unfolding world events, which resonate directly with the situation in Georgia, demonstrate that without mutual oversight, each of these three components, when taken separately, first undermines the other two and then begins to consume itself.

Left-wing critics have identified warning signs in these processes since the 1990s, noting that in numerous states, particularly in the United States, neoliberalism is closely intertwined with neoconservatism. Currently, there is an intensified concern regarding what is evidently an organized effort to seize and consolidate power by anti-liberal and anti-democratic forces, all ostensibly in the name of democracy.

In this context, it is a well-established fact that "gender," understood in a broad sense, is one of the central contentious issues effectively exploited by political groups oriented toward autocracy. The pertinent question then becomes: what analytical framework is useful for understanding these processes? The concept of "backlash" is often employed, which can be roughly defined as the idea that steps taken toward the emancipation of various oppressed and marginalized groups naturally provoke a reaction of resistance from privileged groups. However, I align with those scholars who argue that contemporary anti-gender movements represent not only a "backlash" but also a proactive politics.

The terms "political homophobia" and "anti-genderism" are frequently utilized to characterize these politics. "Gender" serves as a critical connecting thread that runs through the strategies and rhetoric of anti-democratic governments and politically ambitious groups. These strategies are not merely manifestations of backlash; they involve the deliberate construction and fabrication of threats – exemplified by the discourse surrounding "gender ideology," which effectively cultivates and capitalizes on gender-related anxieties. These strategies can be observed, with local variations, in both Western contexts and Russia, and they have also gained significant traction in our region. In recent years, various right-wing conservative groups in Georgia and its government have often directly copied both Western and Russian narratives of anti-genderism. Nevertheless, framing anti-genderism within a geopolitical context and employing it to demonize the West aligns our rhetoric more closely with Russian anti-genderism.

In my observation, political homophobia has been increasingly enacted since 2013. Furthermore, in recent years, we have not only witnessed the empowerment of anti-gender groups but also the emergence of state-sponsored homophobia. Its distinct contours were observable prior to Russia's war on Ukraine; however, the war has created a broader environment for its proliferation.

The discussion around the politicization of LGBTQ issues requires clarification on what we mean by "politicization," as it can take various forms and does not inherently convey only positive or negative meanings. Politicization involves the incorporation of these issues into the political agenda and represents part of the struggle for the rights of LGBTQ people. In this context, the West's "political conditionality" has played an important role in the politicization of LGBTQ issues. The role of Western partners and donors in protecting LGBTQ rights and gender equality in Georgia is both essential and significant. Their policy in Georgia has indeed led to certain changes in the approach to protecting the interests of these groups. Although a definitive political will for equality was absent from the "Georgian Dream" political agenda, it nonetheless influenced the lives of individuals. Since 2010, these developments have been a direct consequence of the European Union's political conditionality. Nevertheless, throughout the process of implementing these changes, the "Georgian Dream" party has maintained that it accepted them in conjunction with the EU association process – effectively enacting changes with one hand, while simultaneously distancing itself with the other.

Moreover, this political conditionality cemented the connection between Georgia's EU aspirations and LGBTQ issues. For a certain period, it served as an important tool for human rights defenders and specialists working with women's and queer groups. Through it, they were able to secure a minimum level of protection for these vulnerable groups. However, there is now a significant risk that this cemented relationship will "backfire." This threat is real because the Georgian government is actively using anti-genderism to consolidate its power while simultaneously demonizing the West. Consequently, it presents a difficult choice for our civil society and for all those who care about equality and democracy in this country. We are currently witnessing individuals facing the dilemma of whether to speak out against injustice and the government's failed policies or to remain silent for fear of contributing to the discrediting of the European Union and Western integration. This, in itself, is a tragic choice. It is anyone’s guess whether Georgian society's aspiration toward the European Union will overcome the artificially nurtured homophobia within the community, thwarting the government’s attempt at cultivating anti-European sentiments among the population.

The Promise of Authoritarianism
Shota Kincha, Journalist

The EU's political conditionality – a call for legislative changes and policy reforms with the promise of joining the civilized world – is a reality for both Georgia and many post-Soviet countries. However, this conditionality has been arbitrarily extended to us and will likely continue so in the future, given that current power asymmetry renders any notion of balance implausible. However, it is noteworthy that this political conditionality has, to some extent, hindered the evolution of democratic culture during the initial years of Georgia's independence. The imposition of top-down changes often impedes the process of collective rethinking and development. Fostering collective discussion and consensus regarding the necessity for change may only prove advantageous for advancing democratic culture within society.

The development of democratic culture is somewhat a victim of political conditionality. I am unsure how this can be overcome, but we are currently at a stage where political conditionality, which has previously supported democratization and reforms, is increasingly being challenged by capital outside of Europe that seeks to establish a form of autarky in this country. This essentially presents a new challenge. We tend to avoid addressing this challenge – discussing the influence of money in politics – especially during elections when the significance of capital is center-stage. Under these circumstances, we must ask a question of paramount importance: Is it even possible to achieve democratic changes in the country through elections?!

Accordingly, issues related to gender and sexuality should be understood through this remaining challenge – what has to be done about this large capital in politics?!

I used to look at it this way – theoretically, a kind of rift happens among liberal elites, then some part of the liberal elite turns to conservatism, becomes reactionary, manipulates the anti-liberal sentiments of the economically oppressed, impoverished people and turns these anti-liberal sentiments into an illiberal autocracy. However, the observation of this also led to the conclusion that such type of demagogues, populists, who are themselves representatives of the liberal elite yet now present themselves as conservatives, may have promised the population some form of social security or even partially delivered on it, while traditional liberal elites typically do not make such promises. Instead, they tend to rely on the inertia of the "fading" anti-social state.

The dangerous aspect is that capital, under the guise of conservatism and sovereignty, assures people with statements such as "I am with you," "Be hungry, I will provide you with social assistance," and "I am one of you." This mechanism has been activated and it works in many post-Soviet countries. Consequently, when a significant number of socially vulnerable people exist in a country, poverty becomes a natural ally of large capital. This poses a serious challenge. Similar to the "free money" that Bidzina Ivanishvili promised – though never delivered –  to the people of Georgia, we can still observe the emergence of guarantees and a type of contract that can be characterized as both chauvinist and social, especially with the reduction of political conditionality. And this has already become a dead end.

On the other hand, in the absence of a social state or a political voice capable of providing meaningful support to those marginalized from political and economic life (who always exist in capitalism), there arises a necessity for alternative mechanisms. Discontent stemming from exclusion must be channeled in a different direction. At this juncture, what authoritarian-leaning conservatives offer to the alienated and impoverished populace is a promise of revenge. This sentiment serves as a powerful force that fuels modern ultraconservative movements.

In Georgia, while we may be suspicious of linking everything to the Soviet Union and its heritage, we must acknowledge that the Soviet experience, marked by a non-democratic way of life, encompassed the regulation of sexuality. When examining political homophobia, there remains a notable lack of articulation regarding the fact that we are potentially addressing tens of thousands of Georgians who are either subjected to blackmail or at risk of such coercion – a preferred mechanism employed by the undemocratic police state to exert control over individuals. Therefore, issues of gender and sexuality should not be relegated solely to left-wing politics; instead, we should identify the connective threads between control, poverty, lack of perspective, and exclusion from the mobile and progressive class. These are not freedoms afforded to “you”, but only to “them”.

Therefore, if the external mechanisms to prevent authoritarianism are undermined, the only viable solution is for local democratic forces to take the initiative, a responsibility they should have undertaken a long time ago. Otherwise, political conditionality will slip through our fingers, already nearly gone.