A SECOND CHANCE FOR POST-SOVIET DEMOCRACY?
Levan Ramishvili and Giorgi Meladze 9/06/05
EurasiaNet, NY
Sept 6 2005
The revolutions in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine underscore that the
opening for genuine democratization — an opportunity missed throughout
parts of the former Soviet bloc in the late 1980s and early 1990s —
has reappeared. There exists a great opportunity for the post-Soviet
world to free itself finally from its totalitarian heritage.
Who might be the next dictator to fall? The answer to that question
lies in all countries where citizens’ rights have been neglected.
Belarus is among them.
Giorgi Kandelaki and Luka Tsuladze, two members of the pro-democracy
Georgian youth movement Kmara (Enough), were arrested by Belarussian
police in Minsk on August 24, and incarcerated in a police station for
nine days. [Giorgi Kandelaki formerly worked as an editorial assistant
for and, later, as an occasional contributor to EurasiaNet]. They were
charged with hooliganism and violation of border rules. In an August
25 television broadcast, a Belarussian security official claimed
that the pair had “made contacts with representatives of radical,
politicized, unregistered structures, such as Zubr, Youth Front, and
Limon, and held a number of training seminars on organizing acts of
civil disobedience, similar to those that occurred during the [2003]
colored revolution in Georgia.”
Responding to the announcement, Amnesty International declared
Kandelaki and Tsuladze prisoners of conscience who should be
immediately and unconditionally released. After an outcry from civil
society groups, a court on September 2 finally ordered their release.
Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko is no different from
other dictators. The arrest of these two Georgian activists was a
clear demonstration of the brute force that dictatorial regimes use
to suppress civil society initiatives. By putting the Kmara activists
in jail, Lukashenko tried to demonstrate his resolve. What he proved
instead was his own weakness in the face of the values of freedom.
The fight for freedom can assume various forms. We have witnessed
both successful, non-violent campaigns, like the ones in Poland,
the Czech Republic, Georgia, Ukraine, Serbia, and Lebanon. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. There have also been
chaotic and bloody clashes like those in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan.
[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The successful
examples have had an impact on many countries where dictatorship
and poor governance are still in place. They can play the role of a
catalyst in initiating democratic changes.
The peaceful revolution in Serbia in 2000, resulting in the ouster of
former President Slobodan Milosevic, set an inspiring precedent and
drew international attention. Still, it was not enough to convince the
international community that the method of non-violent resistance to
dictatorial regimes was really working. The Georgian case, in November
2003, was next. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Even though various influential political figures from the US had
visited Georgia prior to the Rose Revolution, and the international
community had expressed interest in political developments there, it
would be fair to say that this uprising was home grown. At the time,
the international community believed that the parliamentary elections
in Georgia in November 2003 would largely follow the precedent set by
earlier presidential elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan, which were
both marred by international criticism over voting irregularities.
[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. But the non-violent
revolutions in Tbilisi and, in 2004, the Georgian autonomous region
of Ajara made the opposing argument. Hence, when Ukraine’s campaign
for democratic change bore fruit in December 2004, the country and
its Orange Revolution received much more international attention
and assistance.
Successful change is impossible without sharing experiences and
learning about the process of democratic reform. Georgia’s experience
can thus serve as an example for other countries in the post-Soviet
world.
In their struggle for democracy, civil society movements here met
a battery of obstacles, from nihilistic attitudes to the lack of an
established political and civic culture in society. The disengagement
of youth from political life prompted many to doubt the vision of the
Liberty Institute and others who advocated that young people should
serve as agents of change. These were the barriers that Kmara had to
overcome to be successful in its quest for democracy.
Civil society movements and the changes they strive to bring about
are often associated with disturbances, anarchy, civil war and human
loss. When the student movement Kmara first became active in Georgia,
it was regarded as a destabilizing force, guided by external actors
who hoped to unleash chaos in the country. Only the activists’
hard work made it possible for Kmara to gain popularity and break
these stereotypes.
Badly prepared action on the part of the civil society activists
can be dangerous and cause failure, as happened in Azerbaijan. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Non-violence is crucial
for democratic change. We are firm believers in peaceful resistance and
the practice shows that with proper preparation – strong opposition,
mass mobilization, a strong and clear message with youth in the
vanguard, and coordinated international support – a non-violent
approach can be extremely effective.
Unfortunately, nowadays, the situation in the post-Soviet region
remains unprepared for coordinated action, and the debate on the role
of the international community is dominated by mixed messages. Some
claim that changes are imposed by external forces and do not match
the will of the people. According to this position, only citizens
of Western countries are able to understand democracy and bring
about peaceful change. We consider this position to be racist. These
arguments do not even consider that people in those countries long
for change and for protection of their rights.
Others support the position that external actors should not intervene
in the affairs of another state. Many prefer to remain on the
sidelines and simply observe those suffering under a given regime.
Both of these arguments are dangerous and hinder the role of the
international community.
A refusal to promote human rights by those who enjoy them, and who
live their daily lives without thinking that many people are not given
the same opportunities, is immoral. Such an isolationist position is
also dangerous. This is the case in Belarus, where every day people
become victims of their own government.
Overcoming these problems is sometimes impossible without international
support. Practice shows that coordination is possible and can be
very effective.
At the same time, the voices of civil society from different parts
of the world are becoming louder. All people deserve the right to
live in a democracy. If we are giving others hope and inspiration by
our examples of successful change, we should also provide them with
practical assistance. Successful examples can be followed not only
by civil society groups, but also by oppressive regimes.
Without activists speaking out and providing these examples, such
regimes will only become more violent and further endanger the dignity,
safety and rights of their citizens. It should be the duty of the
democratic part of the world to avoid such a scenario.
Editor’s Note: Levan Ramishvili is the chairman of the Liberty
Institute, a Georgian non-governmental organization that works to
promote civil liberties, and has been instrumental in support for
Kmara. Giorgi Meladze is a program director at the Liberty Institute.