Masaryk University Faculty of Social Studies

MASARYK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF SOCIAL STUDIES

Department of International Relations and European Studies

Centralization V.S Democratization and the role of foreign aid. The case of Georgia

Master„s Thesis

Enri Akhvlediani

Supervisor: PhDr. Pavel Pseja. PH.D.

UČO: 344849 Study Field: European Politics Year of Enrollment: 2014 Brno 2016

I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own independent scholarly work. All references contained within it have been correctly cited and the original authors acknowledged. No material other than that listed has been used.

Brno, 2016 Enri Ahvlediani …………………….

Annotation

The following paper examines an influence of foreign aid on democratization process of Georgia during 2004-2013. The research question is the following: What are the main factors which stipulated the establishment of one-party system and strong centralization of power in Georgia in the period of Saakashvili (who was considered the successful democratic leader by the West)?

According to the hypothesis, “Western democracy promotion“, unconditional support and Georgian ruling party, which tried to expand its political power, caused the strong centralisation of power, and the establishment of the one-party system rather than the democratization of Georgia.

In order to check the hypothesis, the paper uses research methods such as case study, process tracing, and analytical discussion. I used the theory of Democratic transition to explain the validity of my hypothesis. Despite the fact that the research mainly focuses on the period of Saakashvili‟s presidency, it also discusses some important characteristics of Shevardnadze‟s period to get the general democratic situation of Georgia. The following survey is an attempt to represent and analyze the materials which show how foreign aid helped Georgian government to centralize all sectors of political life under its power and to establish one party system.

Key terms: Democratization, Foreign Aid, Political Elite, Centralisation

Table Introduction ...... 5 Georgia – Interesting Case to research ...... 7 Theoretical Framework ...... 8 Research Methodology ...... 8 Definition of independent and dependent variables ...... 10 Theory ...... 12 Democracy, Democratization and Democratic Transition ...... 12 Foreign Aid and Democratization ...... 15 Centralisation of power and ruling elite ...... 19 Competitive Authoritarianism ...... 21 Democratization Indicators ...... 23 Shevardnadze‟s Regime ...... 24 The Rose Revolution ...... 25 Western support ...... 27 USAID and Georgia ...... 29 George Soros and his fond – Open Society Georgian Foundation ...... 32 Georgian – Russian war and Western Aid ...... 34 Unconditional Support ...... 35 Steps towards Democracy ...... 37 Centralization of the power and building of dominant party...... 40 Exclusive right of corruption ...... 43 Government and crime ...... 47 Assassination of Former Prime Minister - Zhvania ...... 47 Sandro Girgvliani murder case ...... 49 Scandal of Prisoners ...... 50 Weak civil society ...... 52 Political Crisis of Georgia and the events of November 2007 ...... 54 Police raid of Imedi –elimination of freedom of speech ...... 56 New dimension of the problem: people are losing faith ...... 59 Conclusion ...... 62 Bibliography ...... 67

Introduction After the Rose Revolution (2003) and the presidential and parliamentary elections (2004) in Georgia, power became concentrated in the hands of Mikhail Saakashvili and his young team, who apparently took a course towards the West. The new government launched drastic and painful reforms on the way of democratization and was fully supported by the USA and Europe. According to the president of Georgia, the primary goals of his team were fully democratization of Georgia and membership of the NATO and the EU. Despite the fact that new government could achieve success in some fields, the overall situation became very far from democracy. The interesting factor, which deserves our attention, is that West continued support of Georgia almost until the end of Saakashvili‟s presidency.

The research aims to analyze the democratization process of Georgia and its shortcomings during the presidency of Mikhail Saakashvili. Despite the fact that nowadays Georgia is the example of developmental and democratic success, it is clear that the state faces serious problems. If we take into the account the huge amount of aid which was transferred by West to promote democracy in Georgia, it will be very interesting to discover the reality, which tells us that west practically aided the authoritarian regime.

The main aim of my research is to answer the question: What are the main factors which stipulated the establishment of one-party system and strong centralization of power in Georgia in the period of Saakashvili (who was considered the successful democratic leader by the West)?

I will try to check the relevance of my hypothesis: “Western democracy promotion“, unconditional support and Georgian ruling party, which tried to expand its political power, caused the strong centralisation of power, and the establishment of the one-party system rather than the democratization of Georgia.

The independent variables are “Western democracy promotion“, unconditional support and the Georgian ruling party, which tries to expand its power.

Dependent variables of the research are strong centralization of power and establishment of the one-party system in Georgia.

As we can see from my hypothesis, I will focus on several things to find the reasons of the problems: Western politics towards Georgia, unconditional support and the actions taken by the ruling party. I will try to connect independent variables with each other and show to the

readers how they affected on democratization process of Georgia. First of all, I will try to review the aid and the support which was given by the West to Georgia. After that, I will try to describe and analyze the form and character of the relations between Georgia and Western world. The next part will be concentrated on the political elite of Georgia and its domestic and international policy. Finally, I will try to estimate the democratic situation in Georgia during the presidency of Saakashvili. To do that, I will try to analyze several important indicators of democratization: electoral process and political parties, independence of media, civil society, judicial framework, and corruption. By the analyzing of abovementioned indicators of democratization, I will try to show how this fields (which are so crucial for the democratic development of the country) were controlled by the small group of elite, while this small group was successfully using the money and support which were given by the West. In the part of my hypotheses, where I am speaking about the centralisation of power, I mean the concentration of power in the hands of the government in every field of Georgian life.

I will try to review and analyze the facts and main events which stipulated the strong participation of Western aid in the establishment of fake democracy. We will be able to see the clear proof of serious defects of Georgian democracy. One of the most important considerations, which are developed in my work, is that Georgia, which was described by the West and Georgian government, is very far from Georgia, which could be seen by the citizens. The overall situation was so far from democracy that people just started to lose the faith. As I do not want my research to be one sided, I will also analyze the success which was reached by Georgia during the presidency of Saakashvili. The main focus of my research will be the period of Saakashvili, as for many people the Rose Revolution was the starting point of Georgian Democracy, but I also will analyze the presidency of Shevardnadze to see overall situation.

The short formulation of my research is Centralisation VS Democratization and the role of foreign aid. I will use the theory of democratic transition to explain the shortcoming in Georgian democracy which was directly or indirectly promoted by the foreign assistance and the result of this process became strengthened elite with stronger centralisation tendencies. The research is qualitative, and I prove the hypothesis with studying specific case. I use research methods, such Process Tracing, and Analytical Discussion.

Georgia – Interesting Case to research Before I start my research, I want to highlight several points and answer to the question: why Georgia is the proper case for research? The post-soviet state, which tried to become independent for a very long time and which has had pro-western orientation, is attractive because of several reasons.

Georgia was one of the first from the Soviet republics, which declared independence and established multiparty system in 1990. Despite this fact, Georgia has faced numerous serious problems in the way of democratization (Aprasidze, 2012, p. 220). The fact that West (and especially the USA) has its geopolitical interests in the South Caucasus can be seen from the very beginning. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, diplomatic relations were established immediately with all three states of the South Caucasus. According to the political scientist, Zbigniew Bzhezinsi Eurasia is a very significant region for the USA. Also, Georgia is the most important state between these three because of its location. Abovementioned consideration can be confirmed if we highlight 2004 NATO summit, where alliance declared that the South Caucasus is the “important region”. Georgia, as the part of the South Caucasus, is the air corridor for the USA military forces between Europe and Afghanistan. The significance of the region increases if we take into the account proximity to Iran. (Sanadze, 2013)

The potential of democratization is greater in Georgia than in other post-soviet countries because of some positive characteristics. These positive features are for example high literacy rate, proximate democratic neighbours, the revolution which ended Shevardnadze‟s regime and was supported by the Western world, etc. Many authors say that “A lack of progress in Georgia suggests even less hope for a breakthrough anywhere else in the former Soviet Union” (Lazarus, 2010).

Despite abovementioned positive things, there are several negative factors about Georgia, which makes it very problematic for the country to become democratic. The short list of these problems is the existence of formal political institutions, manipulative ruling party, who tries to expand political power, band opposition parties, election manipulation, abuse of state resources, unfair media access, varying degrees of harassment and violence.

If we take into the account these positive and negative characteristics of Georgia, it will be very interesting to analyze this case in the context of democratic transition. One more thing which makes Georgian case more interesting is the amount of Western support (financial

support, technical assistance, support of reforms). In fact, the role of Western countries is visible not only from the period of Saakashvili but also, from the period of Shevardnadze. The strong interest from the West can be seen since the 1990s (Lazarus, 2010). The existence of political elite, which had the strong tendency to control every sphere of Georgian political, economic and social spheres, is one more dimension of the case. Finally, we can conclude that to get objective truth many factors have to be taken into the account.

To sum, Georgia is an independent country with a very interesting geopolitical location and pro-Western propensity, which faces many problems in a way of democratic transition. The political elites are still the most significant players in this country. The strong support of Western world (especially support of the USA), unconditional support and the existence of political elite stipulate the special interests of researchers, so I will try to analyze the consequences, which are conditioned by simultaneous existence of independent variables.

Theoretical Framework

Research Methodology The purpose of the study is to research the role of foreign aid and analyze the effects on democratization process of recipient country in the reality, where strong ruling party exists. I want to review and analyze the democratization process of Georgia and its shortcomings in the period of Mikhail Saakashvili (2004-2013). The primary goal of my research is to check the validity of my hypothesis.

First of all, it is necessary to review the research methods, which played the crucial role in the formation of the logical chain of my research, to show the readers the logic of hypothesis. Scientists often do empirical research to verify theoretical assumptions. The result of the research can be strengthening of the old theory, rejection of the old theory or creation of a new theory. In order to test particular theory using the concrete case, we have to go though several stages:

1) We have to specify the theory to test it; 2) We have to make conceptual conclusions;

3) These conclusions should be operationalised, because in this way it becomes possible to check the theoretical empirical findings; 4) Obtain relevant information 5) Information analysis 6) Estimation of Theory (Tsuladze, 2008, გვ. 8-13)

My research is deductive; because of abovementioned stages, I analyze my case using the theory of democratic transition, set the hypothesis and try to strengthen it using the relevant facts. During the research, I use primary, as well as secondary and tertiary data and exert their analysis.

The most suitable for my research is a qualitative methodology. Although Fred Kerlinger once said “there is no such thing as qualitative data, everything is either one or zero”, in our case we still have to conduct qualitative research. One of the advantages of these methods is that they will allow us to see and describe the world through the eyes of research object (Zurabishvili, 2006, pp. 6-7). Case Study Design is the most appropriate for my research. In my work, I will use several types of research methodologies, namely Process Tracing and analytical discussion. They will help me to show to readers the main reasons that led to my perception of the problem. Case selection method will give me the opportunity to be focused on one particular case. Process tracing is an intensive method of the case study, which represents detective discussion and can review the history from the different perspective (George & Bennett., 2005, p. 6). It is also necessary to recognize that there are some methodological challenges when you research the issue, which is hard to observe. First of all, it should be noted that it is extremely difficult to analyze speeches, newspaper interviews or interpretations of words of leaders and representatives of the political elite. We also have to be very careful and take into the account the audience to whom the representatives of political elites make their speech – the internal community or its citizens.

As I mentioned above, the main goal of my paper is to connect independent variables (foreign aid, unconditional support, and Georgian ruling part) together and show their influence on the democratic situation in Georgia. To achieve this, I decided to review the support of West and key features of Georgian ruling party and after that analyze several important indicators of democratization: electoral process and political parties, independence of media, judicial framework and independence and corruption. After analyzing the abovementioned indicators I tried to get the realistic picture about the democratic situation in Georgia. One more thing

which has to be highlighted is that despite the fact that in West I imply Europe and the USA; the main accent will be on the USA.

I need to get a realistic insight and understand considerations of both Georgian and Western politicians and experts to shape the objective truth. The reason, why I decided to use considerations of Georgian scholars in my theoretical part, is that they developed a very interesting chain of logic, as they were witnesses of the problem which is analyzed in my paper. Of course, some these authors are unknown to readers, but it does not decrease the scientific value of their considerations. Despite the fact that the main focus of my research is on Saakashvili‟s period I will try to describe and analyze shortly the situation during Shevardnadze‟s presidency. This will help me to make some comparison and show to the reader the overall situation. After the reviewing of theoretical framework, I will start the process of reviewing and analyzing of the case. It will be better for my research to make analytical part of the research with case (and not separately). It will give me the chance to review the case and simultaneously show to the readers the consequences which were stipulated by the independent variables.

Definition of independent and dependent variables In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I want to define and explain the meanings of my independent and dependent variables as they are used in my thesis. The goal of this chapter is not to find official definitions of the abovementioned terms. I will try to make my definitions and short explanations of them to show to the readers the direct sense of each of them. If we take into the account the fact that each term can be defined by the authors differently, I think it will be very useful to make a short chapter of definitions of terms. In addition, I want to highlight that they will be defined and analyzed in more details in the following sections. It means that the primary goal of this chapter is to create the first impression about the variables before we start analyzing them.

“Western democracy promotion“ – The term of Western democracy promotion, is one of the most vague from my independent and dependent variables. As you can see I used quotation marks in order to show to the readers that the term must not be perceived with its direct meaning. While speaking about the democracy promotion we have to take into the account the several significant dimensions: Western financial, technical and ideological support to

Georgia; strategic interests of the West; personal ties between Saakashvili and Western leaders (especially with President Bush) etc. The reason why I try to develop the critical considerations towards Western support to Georgia, is stipulated by the fact that despite huge amount of money which was transferred to Georgia and despite the fact that according to the West Georgia was the successful example of democracy development, the results showed that Georgian reality was much closer with competitive authoritarianism rather than with democracy. Of course it does not mean that the West is not interested in the promotion of democracy in Georgia, but on the other hand, it has many other strategic goals towards this country, which are more important.

Unconditional support - the term, unconditional support, is not used in my paper with the classical meaning. It does not mean that the West supports Georgia without any condition. When I use this term, I mean that there was not set the clear conditions to Georgia for the support which this country got from the USA. The only condition, which can be shortly formulized, was: help me, and I will help you. Georgia got financial and technical support from the USA. On the other hand, Saakashvili implemented the reforms which were acceptable for Bush administration and supported the policy of the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan. Relations between two countries have depended mostly on personal relations of their leaders. Unconditional support and ignore of shortcomings in democratization give us doubt how serious is the USA about democracy promotion in this country.

Georgian ruling party – United National Movement was the dominant party in Georgia during 2004-2012, which was founded by the 3rd president of Georgia – Mikhail Saakashvili. National Movement is a right-centre political party. From the very beginning, it started the process of propaganda of patriotism. Domestic policy priorities of the party are radical reform of state institutions, restoration of territorial integrity, reform of armed forces, the modernization of the country, etc. Foreign policy priorities of the party are: integration to NATO and strong strategic relationships with the Unites States. UNM was very often described as the ruling party, which is an example of tyrannical rule and autocracy, without any participatory opportunities offered to Georgian citizens. During the presidency of Saakashvili, United National Movement was getting special benefits from the government. The list of benefits includes everything from financial support to strong influence on the decision-making process.

Centralization of power – while I am speaking about centralization of power I mean that power is consolidated into one person or a small group of people, rather than shared out among the people. I will explain this phenomenon in details in the following chapters. The thing, which has to be highlighted here, is that centralization is not necessarily negative phenomenon, but in the hand of authoritarian leader it can be very dangerous and stipulate undemocratic situation in the country. In government, which is centralised, responsibility and authority of governing rests with a small group at the highest level of government. Of course majority of governments have at least some centralized functions, but some of them are entirely centralized. In these cases, all authority is placed in the hands of a single dictator of a political party. In my research Georgia is described and analyzed as a country in which power was concentrated in the hands of Saakashvili and his political party. The country was standing closer to competitive authoritarianism, rather than the democratic regime.

One-party system – can be defined as a political system in which only one party is allowed. In my research, when I am speaking about one-party system, I mean that despite the fact that there were some opposition parties, they were so week that they had almost no influence on the political processes of Georgia. Members of opposition parties were all time attacked or arrested by the representatives of governments. Parliament was completed by one ruling party which was able to make final decision about every field of Georgian life. In this case a single party system, which was characterization of Saakashvili‟s presidency, was not better than a monarchy or autocracy. This system can be defined as harmful, oppressive and not citizen friendly regime. Formal existence of other week parties does not mean that Georgia had multi-party system. Despite the fact that Saakashvili tried to create the image of multi-party system, everyone knew that only one party was able to operate. The leaders of other parties were forced to leave Georgia. In case of resistance they were arrested.

Theory

Democracy, Democratization and Democratic Transition

In order to understand the problems which Georgia faces becoming democratic country, there is a need to define what democracy is and what is not? How is it possible for a country to be democratic? And what is the role of political elites and foreign involvement in this process?

There is tremendous academic work, which tries to answer these questions, but results are not the same. In fact, there is no one common definition which will explain the phenomenon of democracy. If we define democracy from the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights states perspective we will see that: "Democracy is based on the freely-expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives." But on the other hand, we need to take into the account the Boutros-Ghali report to the UN General Assembly in 1995, in which he stated: "Democracy is not a model to be copied from certain states, but a goal to be attained by all peoples and assimilated by all cultures. It may take many forms, depending upon the characteristics and circumstances of societies." (Bassiouni, et al., 1998)

The simplest definition of democracy is - state ruled by the people. According to Dahl democracy must provide with opportunities for understanding for society. Citizens have to be allowed to have control over the matters which reach the decision-making agenda. Here the main accent is made on intrinsic equality of all persons. They should be given equal consideration in making collective decisions (Dahl, 1889, pp. 1662-1663). If we define democracy from Hobbesian perspective, we will see that “democracy is a politically organized society, a state, with a clear distinction between ruling positions and non-ruling positions. Its main characteristic is the presence of the position of an Absolute Sovereign, the occupants of which are elected by a substantial part of the subject population and legally empowered to impose any rules and policies they decide to make” (Dun, 2005) According to the Montesquieu political virtue is the principal of democracy. This political virtue can be explained as the love of laws and one‟s country (Manicas, 1981 ). Schumpeter‟s definition is more focused on electoral competition among political elites and parties, rather on other things (Schumpeter, 1950)

While speaking about the modern political democracy, we mean “a system of governance in which rulers are accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly though the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives” (Schmitter & Karl, 1991)

Abovementioned definitions are enough to conclude that the meaning of democracy and the conditions of its realization varies and depends on the proponents‟ philosophical, political, cultural, social, ideological and economic perspectives. Contemporary commentators try to focus on three basic paradigms:

●The universality or relativity of democracy

●Democracy as a process or a condition

●Democracy as methods and modalities or as substance outcomes

Power is still the most important phenomenon. So, it has crucial importance to concentrate on the allocation of powers, control mechanism, balances, etc. There are three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. It will be enough to make a very short review of historical experience to see that democracy cannot be attained without the system in which power is divided among three co-equal branches (Bassiouni, et al., 1998)

The closely connected term with democracy is democratization. This term was used to describe the process of democracy, but it also refers to the transitional stage of government from non-democratic state and public accountability in new regimes. The common thing between abovementioned interpretations is that, in both cases, democratization is a process- oriented phenomenon and focuses on evolutionary developments of democracy. To conclude: “Democratization is a process which leads to a more open, more participatory, less authoritarian society. Democracy is a system of government which embodies, in a variety of institutions and mechanisms, the ideal of political based on the will of the people”. (Bassiouni, et al., 1998, pp. 17-22)

According to some scholars, transition paradigm is outdated. They highlight that regimes should be treated as they are in reality, and it is a mistake to see them at some conditional point in streaming towards democratic consolidation. Others support transitionism. (Markozashvili, 2014, p. 186) The “transitions” School is mainly concentrated to answer the question “how” rather than to answer the question “why.” According to the representatives of this school, a successful democratization is more likely to take place if both elite groups and the opposition are mostly moderates and can an agreement on pacts. In the state where elite dominates in every sphere of political, social and economic spheres and the opposition is ignored (despite the fact if the opposition is radical or moderate) it is almost impossible to make a democratic transition. Of course, democratic transition is a sphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, but it is possible to make some general conclusions about it (Nodia, 2014, p. 143). According to Terry Karl transitions to democracy can be realized in two ways: by mass ascendance or by elite ascendance (Ormeci, 2014)

Foreign Aid and Democratization

Before we start to review and analyze the theoretical framework how foreign aid and the existence of ruling elites influence the development of democracy, it is necessary to mention the name of Immanuel Kant and his famous Democratic Peace Theory. In his work, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, which was written in 1795, Kant writes that “democratic states do not wage war against each other.” The later modification of Kant‟s consideration is: “democracies are less likely to fight wars with each other” (Szayna, et al., 2001) Abovementioned consideration became one of the most significant reasons from many others, which was used by the democratic world to spread democracy everywhere.

When we are speaking about the process of democratization, many factors must be taken into the account. International democratization efforts sometimes stipulate the difficulties to establish democracy, especially if there is an elite ruling party in the recipient country, with strong tendencies of centralisation. It is a paradox but sometimes the result of promotion of a rapid transition to democracy, by the donors, is the reality in which democratization is impeded. According to a very influential opinion, competing for strategic, economic and commercial interests of donors stipulates difficulties for developing countries to reach democratization.

The new tendency which can be seen from the most of the literature on foreign aid effectiveness is that if in the past they were more focused on economic growth, recently the attention is focused on the effect of aid on democratization. Some scholars argue that aid controls the development of “bad” institutions, and hence, it follows that the likelihood of democratization is significantly decreased. The other negative dimension is connected with the fact that elites become more powerful, and they are allowed to exclude others from power, which gives the enormous influence. The result of the abovementioned situation is the decreased representativeness. (Wright, 2009, p. 552)

Despite the fact that scholars try to find objective truth about the effectiveness of foreign aid, in fact, results have been mixed. More and more scholars are starting to think that foreign assistance does not benefit its recipient and serves for the strategic goals of donors. According to them, aid-typing conditionality and practices have redirected aid to help the developed world. The tendency which can be seen from the modern academic works is that authors try to find answers by focusing on bilateral and multilateral aids separately. They try to figure out which type of foreign aid is more helpful for the recipient countries to develop democracy:

Bilateral aid – is the type of aid which is transferred from one single country to another. The huge majority of academic papers state that bilateral aid reaps gains for the benefactor, and it is not concentrated on humanitarian purposes.

Multilateral aid - is the type of aid which is transferred by alliances of multiple states. Scholars stress the fact that this type of aid is more effective in the developmental process of democracy of recipient state (Ehrenfeld, 2004)

Despite the abovementioned consideration about the efficiency of bilateral and multilateral aids, we have to highlight that it is impossible to make one universal conclusion. Results vary from case to case, and there are many factors which must be taken into the account. For example strategic goals of donors; political culture of recipient country; a level of democracy in recipient country; type of ruling elite; a level of corruption; the existence of democratic institutions etc. These factors work together. In the case, if even one of these factors fails it means that democratic transition of a country will face many difficulties.

Critics of multilateral aid often criticize multilateral flows. While reading their considerations about this issue, we will meet the strong criticism of the institutions such as World Bank. One of the most popular arguments is that these institutions are under the influence of developed countries, or they are influenced even by one country – the USA. Nicholas Brady, who was former, US Treasure Secretary notes that: “for every dollar provided to these [multilateral] banks, the U.S. economy gets back $9 in U.S. procurements”.

One more dimension of the issue is that according to critics, institutions like the World Bank aid developing countries with the mask of democracy promotion but the only thing they do to these countries is that they undertake environmentally, economically and socially detrimental projects at the expense of the poorest nations. (Ehrenfeld, 2004)

Kersting and Kilby try to analyze the effect of foreign aid on democracy as well. According to them, major donors like the USA try to develop and support democracy both in principle and with material resources. But it is not always easy to define the aim of a donor as there are many competing objectives. One of these goals can be the strong desire to gain allies (despite the fact that recipient country can be not very strong). The fact that those allies are not always democracies stipulates that it is not always obvious what the actual impact of foreign aid on democracy is.

It will be very interesting to review and analyze the work of Stephen Knack, who was World Bank economist. He tried to do research and examine aid and changes in Freedom House democracy ratings during the 1970s and 2000s. After research, Knack concluded that there is no evidence that aid promotes democracy. He wrote: “countries that received more aid did not experience greater democratization than countries receiving less aid.”

One more interesting question, which requires the attention of researchers, is: When are donor‟s decisions based on democracy? Kersting and Kilby highlight two points:

● Unconditional donors – who always consider democracy when allocating aid; for this type of donors and also for countries that are not considered to be strategically important donor threats withhold aid if it decides that democratization does not occur.

● Conditional donors – who disregard democracy when the recipient country is strategically important; here donor‟s strategic considerations can override governance issues

Different researches proved that aid can promote democracy, and impact on democracy can be large when citizens of the recipient country believe the donor is committed to promote democracy (Kersting, 2014). But if citizens do not believe in donor‟s intentions situation is very complicated.

Of course generally, we can say that aid may plant the seeds for democracy if it promotes social and economic development. The participation of aid in building democracy can be clearly seen in the cases where it supports institutional development within government and civil society. Also, aid has to promote social media, election administration empowerment of oppressed groups.

Despite the fact that Stephen Brown, in his article Foreign Aid and Democracy Promotion: Lessons from Africa concentrates on African countries, we can read very interesting general consideration that one of the most common mistakes by the researchers is the fact that they minimize international influence and aid and consider these cases as an endogenous affair. (Brown, 2005, pp. 179-180). The tendency which can be seen from academic literature is that in the majority of cases authors mostly concentrating on domestic aspects despite the fact that international dimension is very important. My consideration is that we have to take into account both dimensions as if we concentrate only on one of them our research will be one sided.

When we are speaking about the role of foreign aid on democratization, it is enough to do a small literature review to understand that the starting point of stirring up of foreign aids can be found during the cold war period. The main reason of the aiding was the prevention of developing countries to fall into communism. In fact, the promotion of democracy was not the main reason for involvement of Western developed democracies. This is a good case to see that democracy promotion can be just masked to achieve other, more important goals of West. In fact, after the disappearance of communism, donors become more involved in the domestic affairs of these week states, as they found other valuable reason for them to spread their influence. First of all unstable regions can become more stable in case of democratization. Democracy as universal aspiration can promote the stability.

Donors use different tactics. Their political conditionality can be the driving force of the processes inside the state. They use carrot or stick policy in relation with old authoritarian regimes or new regimes. If we take into the account the fact that recipient country becomes highly dependent on donor, it will not be surprising that donor gains the enormous influence on the domestic policy of the recipient state (Paing, 2015).

One group of scholars, which are known as pessimists, consider that foreign aid has zero or even a detrimental effect on institutions. According to them:

●Aid dependence can harm to institutional quality

●Foment conflict over the control and internal distribution of aid funds

●Weaken accountability

● Alleviate pressure to reform inefficient policies and institutions

● Aid can increase corruption

●Aid can undermine the rule of law

●Aid can create moral hazard problems (especially if aid recipient governments engage in riskier fiscal behaviour)

●Unconditional support can deteriorate the level of democracy

●Aid can increase political instability

●Aid can support non-democratic government to strengthen their positions

On the other hand, there are optimists, who think that aid can make a serious contribution to institutional improvements of recipient countries. We can find the names of Goldsmith, Tavares, Dunning, Knack, Chauvet, Collier Coviello and others. The list of the positive effects of aid contains following points:

●A positive impact in the forms of knowledge and experience provided by experts and advisers from donor countries

●Improved functioning of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government by the technical assistance

●Technical assistance can also promote adoption of the institutions of civil society (including a free press).

●Institutional quality can be improved though aid conditionality

●Aid can have a positive impact in institutions if it improves education and increases per capita incomes. (Askarov & Doucouliagos, 2013, p. 603)

When we are speaking about aid, we mean not only financial support. Sometimes aid takes the form of programs. This program can include strengthening of the legal system, public management, and other responsibilities of the public sector. We can see the active participation of World Bank, IMF or bilateral donors, for example, USAID. They made governance reforms as their responsibility.

The successful cases of democracy are considered to be the USA and developed European countries. Non-democratic countries, which try to become democratic, are taking the examples from them. Democratic countries try to support democratic principles in international relations, and they are providing all possible assistance to them. Here, we have to mention that the result of this help is not always successful. We have the cases of failed democracies. Reasons can be varied from the non-accurate plan and bad time management to the strategic goals of developed democracies.

Centralisation of power and ruling elite

The term which can be strongly connected with the external support in recipient country is political centralization. We can find different definitions of this term. The general definition

of centralization is: “a process where the concentration of decision making is in a few hands. All the important decision and actions at the lower level, all subjects, and actions at the lower level are subject to the approval of top management” (Ramprabha, 2015). Political centralization mainly is the result of the actions of ruling party, which tries to take whole power and control every field of the life of the state. Some ruling elites do it directly, some of them try to use a mask.

If we need more specific definition, we can use: “A centralized government is one in which the authority and responsibility of governing rests with a small group at the highest level of government. Most governments have at least some centralized functions. Some governments are entirely centralized, placing all authority in the hands of a single dictator or political party” (Markey, 2016)

Here we have to highlight that centralisation is not necessarily bad or good phenomenon. In the hands of the good government, centralisation can be a very useful for the development of the country, but the thing is that in the politics there is never guarantee if political power will be taken by the good or bad government.

The main advantage of the centralisation is that highly centralized government can be more efficient at a accomplishing its goals. This is mainly stipulated by the fact that in this case government holds direct control over the processes. One more advantage is the cohesion in government planning.

On the other hand, strong centralization can stipulate the huge raw of problems in the country, especially if power is in the hands of the dictator. If we compare centralized and less centralized governments, we will see that centralized government tends to lack the checks and balances. Also “Centralized governments also tend to develop "one size fits all" programs that address the needs of the nation as a whole but may fail to meet the needs of distinct cultural groups within the country”. (Markey, 2016)

The question which must be answered is how democratization and centralization of power correlated? According to Benjamin Zeeb in the majority of the cases, centralization had taken place before democratization, but we can see different cases as well. He highlights that democratization and centralization would more effectively take place simultaneously than after each other. In the cases, in which these two processes occurred simultaneously democratization can give more legitimacy to the process of centralization (Zeeb, 2013)

In reality, when we have a country, which is far from democracy it is always better to be decentralized. It will be insurance for the people not to fall under the control of non- democratic leaders (who may pretend that they are democratic). Centralization of power is more effective in the union which already reached some degree of democracy. In the case of countries which do not have democratic experience and still face the huge problems in the transitional period, strong centralization can be very dangerous.

No one argues that centralization is very effective in developed countries because these countries already reached the degree of democracy. On the other hand, decentralized power can avoid the problems which can be stipulated by the concentration of power in the hands of a small elite.

Competitive Authoritarianism

Sometimes the result of the support from the Western donors is strengthening of not democratic regimes but creation or strengthening of competitive authoritarian regimes. According to Levitsky: Competitive authoritarian regimes are civilian regimes in which formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the primary means of gaining power, but in which fraud, civil liberties violations, and abuse of state and media resources so skew the playing field that the regime cannot be labelled democratic (Levitsky & Way, 2010, p. 4)

Here we have to highlight that these types of regimes are not democracies. Despite the fact that democratic institutions are respected on some level, they are violated as competition is unfair. In competitive authoritarian regimes, opposition parties are seriously handicapped in their effort to challenge ruling party in elections, the courts, the legislature, etc. According to the Levitsky, these types of regimes fall on at least one of these attributes of democracy:

1) Free elections 2) Broad protection of civil liberties 3) A Reasonably even playing field. (Levitsky & Way, 2010, pp. 6-7)

Regimes, where all institutions (legislative, judicial, electoral, media, etc.) are under the control of power holders, cannot be characterized as democratic. When we are speaking about the legitimization of regime we are taking into the account the both political and economic legitimacy (Lazarus, 2010)

Independent judges, human-right activists, opposition politicians, journalists and other government critics are subject to harassment, violent attacks, and arrest. Independent media is not allowed to operate freely. They are threatened or in some cases closed. Sometimes there are examples of killing of opposition leaders. Civil liberties are very frequently violated. Elections are always unfair and very often non-free (Levitsky & Way, 2010, pp. 11-13)

According to the Levitsky, we have to take into the account three independent factors which determine authoritarian regime will become fully democratic or not. These factors are:

●States linkage with Western states - which means economic, diplomatic, social, organizational and political ties and cross-border flows

●Western leverage on the state

●Organizational capacity of the regime

The author highlights that the first factor is the most significant one. According to them the type of the linkage to the west determines the chances of the state if it becomes democratic or no (Laborin, 2011, pp. 254-256).

In order to see the difference between democracy and competitive authoritarianism, I will briefly compare them with each other. In a democratic country, Status of core democratic institutions such as election and civil liberties, are systematically respected. In competitive authoritarianism, the abovementioned institutions exist and are more or less meaningful, but they are systematically violated in favour of the incumbent. Also, in democratic regimes, the status of opposition competes on more or less equal footing with an incumbent. The situation is very different in competitive authoritarianism. Here opposition is significantly disadvantaged by incumbent abuse. The last thing which has to be higlighted is that in democratic county the level of uncertainty is significantly high while in competitive authoritarianism the level of uncertainty is lower than democracy but higher than full authoritarianism (Levitsky & Way, 2010, p. 13)

If the type of the linkage to the West is so significant, it means that the state can fail to achieve democracy if western countries have hidden strategic goals and their primary goal is not the democratization of recipient country.

Democratization Indicators

One of the most important things which must be mentioned is that democratic governance is very difficult to measure as democracy means different things to different people. Democratic governance is politically, ideologically culturally charged determination (UNDP, 2010). If we take into the account that last time international assistance to develop democracy became stronger, it is not surprising that scholars reinforced their attempt to define, measure, and compare democracy. Social scientists have adopted some strategies to measure democracy. Todd Landman offers several options how to measure the democracy: democracy scales, objective measures of democracy, hybrid measures of democracy, perceptions of democracy and trust in institutions, international IDEA and democracy assessment (Landman, 2007, pp. 4-17)

In order to estimate democracy development in Georgia, I decided to concentrate and analyze on democracy indicators. Freedom House gives us several indicators which must be observed if we need to measure the democracy achieved by the country which is in the process of democratization. The list includes the following indicators:

1) Electoral Process and Parties 2) Civil Society 3) Independent Media 4) Judicial Framework and Independence 5) Corruption 6) Governance (Aprasidze, 2012)

According to the Freedom House if we review and analyze abovementioned indicators it will be possible to understand if the country made or not democratic development.

In sum, as we can see from the abovementioned theoretical framework foreign involvement and the existence of the elite in the country can stipulate the strong centralisation of power and establishment of the one-party system instead of democratization.

The goal of my paper is not criticizing the role of foreign aid. I will try to avoid one-sided arguments and hence, the reader will be able to see negative and positive effects of this phenomenon. In order to fully understand the situation, it will be better to analyze things from both donors and recipients point of view. It will be good to take into the account both the

developmental and strategic aspects of giving aid. If aid in the 1960s was focused more on development, resent aid is more focused on strategic consideration.

Shevardnadze’s Regime Before we start analyzing of Saakashvili‟s period, there is a need to create the picture of Georgia during Shevardnadze‟s presidency. It will help us to better understand the situation and connect facts with each other.

Georgia declared its independence from the Soviet Union in April 1991. The fist president of Georgia became Nationalist leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia. But very soon he was replaced by the former head of Georgian Communist Party Eduard Shevardnadze (House, 2003)

According to the Giorgi Kandelaki, Shevardnadze‟s regime was somewhere between Authoritarian and “post-totalitarian”. The main argument was that, in Georgia economic pluralism was greater than in a classic autocratic regime. On the other hand, political leadership was oligarchic. We also have to mention Ghia Nodia, who thinks that this system could be characterized as “liberal oligarchy” or “liberal autocracy.” On the other hand, we have to highlight that Shevardnadze‟s government owned freedom of media, freedom of political parties and also freedom of some associations. The reason for this was that Shevardnadze was trying to increase his democratic image abroad.

Despite the fact of abovementioned freedoms, real power was remained within small political elites. Shevardnadze allowed some liberal reforms because of political calculations, but in reality, it was not a commitment to an open society. The main characterizations of the Georgia‟s political and social life were nepotism, favouritism and the spoils system. State‟s ability to carry out some essential functions was simply destroyed by the budgetary shortfalls. The tax base was shrunk by rampant corruption. Bribery and the illegal income become the main sources of living for public servants because salaries were no longer paid. We can meet with the term “blackmail state”, while reading the sources about Shevardnadze‟s presidency, because of systemic corruption (Kandelaki, 2006, p. 3)

As in the majority of post-soviet countries, leadership in Georgia was highly personalized. Shevardnadze was granted his influence by the constitution. He enjoyed a great deal of

informal power. People who were close to President occupied key positions in every sphere (Lincoln, 2012)

Georgians could formally elect their government democratically. In reality, every field of Georgian life was nondemocratic. Despite the fact that Georgian Independent press often published critical political analyses we have to mention that the circulation of the most newspapers was limited because of economic difficulties. We also have to highlight restricted freedom of assembly by the national and local governments. One of the most problematic spheres was the judiciary which was not independent. Courts were directly influenced by the executive branch. The existence of strong clan-based tradition significantly deteriorated the situation. As we will see from following chapters corruption existed in all levels of Georgian society (House, Georgia, 2003). Because of abovementioned problems, it became just impossible for Shevardnadze to maintain his image as a democratic leader. We have to mention suspension of the International Monetary Fund programs in Georgia in 2003 because of government‟s inability to deal with corruption (Kandelaki, 2006, pp. 3-4). Georgian Economy continued to suffer from problems which originated from different fields. The economy was affected by the high degree of unemployment, energy shortages, sporadic payment of government pensions, widespread corruption, etc. Another dimension of Georgian reality was sexual discrimination and harassment in the workplace which was never investigated. These kinds of problems have never been reported because of social taboos (House, Georgia, 2003).

Abovementioned problems make it clear why Georgian society started the series of protest. The Rose revolution which will be analyzed in the next chapter was the logical answer to the problems which existed in every sphere of Georgian reality.

The Rose Revolution The question about the reasons which stipulated the Rose Revolution in Georgia is still very urgent but different scholars have different answers on it. According to the part of scientists, the reasons of the revolution were government‟s rampant corruption and gloomy economy. Others point to the lack of democratic environment etc. But on the other hand, if we take into account that Georgia had the same problems as other post-Soviet countries, it will be very interesting to understand why revolution occurred in Georgia and not in other post-Soviet

countries. With the other words, why Georgia was the particular case, and why did revolution occurred first in Georgia? And what is the role of Western assistance in this revolution? (Kandelaki, 2006, p. 2)

The Rose Revolution is connected with November 2003 parliamentary elections. When we are speaking about this event, we have to take into the account the enormous role of local Western aid donors, NGOs, and embassies. The establishment of the network of Georgian NGOs was the product of the support of Western governments and NGOs. We have to highlight the role of Hungarian billionaire George Soros and his organization Open Society Foundation (OSGF). It financed the most active and radical NGOs and Georgian television station Rustavi 2 (which played the huge role in revolution). NDI was successful to build anti- Shevardnadze opposition parties by financing a Parallel Vote Tabulation, with USAID money. In fact, USAID spent a total of $2.7m on the election campaign. Also, election mission was dispatched by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Despite the international and domestic pressure, the government continued to play with old Soviet style and sought to falsify elections. Opposition leaders tried to mobilize people though Rustavi 2. (Lazarus, 2010) According to Ghia Nodia, “One can confidently say that there would have been no revolution without the media”. Rustavi 2 was California-based TV channel which was backed by USAID. Western media development aid enabled opposition of Shevardnadze‟s government to mobilize people against the non-democratic government. The charismatic leader, Mikhail Saakashvili openly declared: “Americans helped us most by channelling support to free Georgian media...That was more powerful than 5,000 Marines”. (Anable, 2006)

Mikhail Saakashvili, with other leaders Zurab Zhvania and Nino Burjanadze, had the huge influence on the events. Protesters took the building of parliament, holding red roses. They interrupted the inaugural speech of Shevardnadze. The president resigned.

This was the starting point of the new era in the history of Georgia. They key worlds which can be connected with this period are the new charismatic leader, revolutionary spirit, the hope moving towards democracy and the increased influence of West.

Barbara Christophe in her research “Understanding Politics in Georgia” writes that Shevardnadze‟s destitute was not accidental. The author highlights two reasons:

1) Shevardnadze was ousted by his crown prince Mikhail Saakashvili, who was supported by the USA. 2) Shevardnadze‟s resignation took place just a few months before construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Geyhan pipeline was scheduled to start. This was the project which would increase the inflow of international money to Georgia. In this case, West needed more trustful ally (Chirstophe, 2004, p. 28)

If we do small literature research, we will see that the main attitude of Western leaders towards Rose Revolution was “a glorious victory for Georgian democracy.” During his speech, President Bush said that Georgia was a “Beacon of Liberty”. Shevardnadze loose all his supporters from the West. Western leaders, who once supported him, now abandoned him. According to the Joel Lazarus, the Rose Revolution was perceived as “democratic” because it reflected the will of Georgian people. But author writes that: “this „democratic revolution‟ was an unconstitutional bloodless coup executed by a trio of former Shevardnadze protégés”. (Lazarus, 2010)

Western support In fact, nowadays European countries and the USA are the most developed democracies. They went through the process of democratization successfully, and now they are the primary drivers of democracy around the word. If we do the little historical research, we will see that since 1990 West has aided the democracy in many countries. According to the Stephen Brown the result of tying of foreign aid to political reform is not always successful but, on the other hand, it can be very efficient for moving from one-party system to multi-party system. In my thesis, I will try to show that abovementioned consideration is not always correct, as Georgian case shows us different reality (Brown, 2005)

We do not have to think that external support started only from the presidency of Mikhail Saakashvili. In fact, this phenomenon had taken place a long time ago before Saakashvili became president.

The Country was the second largest per capita recipient of American money during 1992- 2000. During this period, Georgia received total $778 million. If we check data for 2001 and 2003, we will see that the U.S. allocated $268.8 million for democracy promotion. This

money is more per capita than any other post-Soviet nation. Also, Georgia received €420 million from the European Union during1992-2004. As it is indicated, the main aim of the majority of these projects was to improve democracy and government outcomes. Money which was transferred from the EU was used to develop NGOs and also to make reforms in the fields of local government, electoral institutions and the judiciary system. The fact which also must be stressed is that Georgia was the recipient of more European money during 1994- 2003 than other post-Soviet states (Lazarus, 2010)

The series of Western support also continued after the Rose Revolution. And the thing which must be highlighted here is that now Western leaders were able to have the better connection with Georgia, as the young leaders were pro-west and also they had the western education.

●Georgia was incorporated into new Millennium Challenge Fund. Bush administration transferred almost $300 million.

●EU‟s European Neighbourhood Programme (ENP) became the significant source of support by the EU. European Commission doubled the total aid budget for Georgia to €125 million for the period 2004-2006. (Youngs, 2006, p. 74)

●Western donors were able to extend over $1 billion in loans and grants to Georgia. (Papava, Tbilisi, p. 662)

According to the Hobsbawm, to analyze the abovementioned huge amount of money which was transferred to Georgia we have to take into the account many things. First of all, the logic and methods of state actions are not included on it. In fact, the state always tries to put its interests first. Hobsbawm highlights that Western democracy promotion is not the exclusion. It is characterized worldwide by its unprincipled and inconsistent implementation. Also, the foreign policy of West, aid interventions and diplomatic support are shaped by a desire for stability to strengthen Western strategic and commercial interests. There are a lot of scholars who describe the situation in Georgian government as autocrats who are portrayed as democrats. To sum, the political approach of USA towards the country highly depends on US relationship with the government of that country. The short formulation of the situation is: “the more positive the overall relationship, the more developmental the approach usually is; the more negative the relationship, the more political the approach” (Lazarus, 2010). If we analyze Georgian case and the relations of the USA toward Shevardnadze and Saakashvili we will notice several interesting factors:

1) Shevardnadze was characterized as a democratic leader for many years by Americans. They continued this political fantasy until it became impossible to sustain this image any longer. 2) The next step was the Western attack on Shevardnadze personally. They started to highlight all the shortcomings and democratic failures which were stipulated by Shevardnadze and its wrong policy. (Despite the fact that before the main accent was on country‟s development). 3) As there was a need to find a new solution, west started the process of personalisation of democracy. The primary objective of western support became “the new democrats of Georgia.” 4) The Rose revolution which was fully supported by the West developed the candidate, who would share the burden with his team to build democracy in the country which had good potential but many problems for this. Lazarus focuses on European side as well. He tries to focus on European technocratic democracy promoters, who were able to find the cooperative element with the radical liberal modernisers of Georgia. Their approach to develop democracy and human rights has always been negligible. European technocratic democracy promoters are unwilling to cross from the technical side and to start to work on the political side of the democracy promotion line (Lazarus, 2010). Democracy promotion in Georgia involves significant numbers of projects and programs. The main activities focus on the political, electoral and party sphere.

USAID and Georgia

While speaking about Georgia‟s democratic development and the role of West we have to review and analyze the role of The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which is U.S. government agency that works to develop democratic societies and realize their potential and also fights against extreme global poverty. It was created by President Kennedy in 1961.

The primary purposes of foreign assistance are:

●Furthering America‟s Interests

●Improving lives in the developing world.

In other words, USAID has the twofold purpose. Abovementioned purposes are working together with mutual assent. USAID works in over 100 countries. It concentrates on following sectors: Economic prosperity; Strengthening democracy and good government; global health; human right; food security and agriculture; education; environmental sustainability; humanitarian assistance; prevent and recover from conflicts. (USAID, Who We are, 2015) Despite the fact that all abovementioned sectors are connected with each other, the main focus of my thesis will be paid on the area of democratization and governance.

USAID started operating in Georgia from 1992. If we check the data, we will see that over the last twenty year, Georgia received over $1.5 billion from the American people. The list of the program includes the development of democratic institutions, enhancement of energy security m improvement of health and education and stimulation of economic growth. (USAID, 2015) In fact, Georgia has become able to develop above-mentioned sectors, but I will try to pay attention to some shortcomings which were the result of Georgian-American special relations.

Table 1 gives us general information about the aid which Georgia was provided by the American people from 2003 to 2013.

Table 1 General Aid summary of Georgia 2003-2013

Years Total Aid $ Total aid Rank Total Activities Total activities Rank 2003 96,086,858 6/37 126 5/37 2004 123,802,981 3/42 182 5/42 2005 108,894,607 4/42 164 5/42 2006 410,743,861 2/41 194 5/41 2007 99,692,798 4/43 243 3/43 2008 119,100,987 5/46 298 2/46 2009 621,903,420 1/49 305 1/49 2010 229,424,640 5/48 260 3/48 2011 210,275,675 3/49 219 3/49 2012 213,062,153 3/48 263 1/48 2013 155,107,513 3/46 247 1/46

As we can see from Table 1, Georgia is one of the most active recipients of American aid. If we check the amount of total aid, we will see that Georgia always has been one of the

headmost countries which participate in USAID programs. The same can be said if we check the rank of total activities.

To check which sectors were aided most by the USAID, we can check Table 2, which gives us information about the three most financed sectors by the USAID from 2003 to 2013. Table 2 will gives us a chance to see which sectors were prioritized by the American side and hence we will be able to make a conclusion about the purposes of the USA.

Table 2 Aid details of Georgia by sectors 2003-2013

Years Three most financed sectors (money in $ millions) 1 $ 2 $ 3 $ 2003 Governance 36 Other 19 Economic Growth 15 2004 Governance 35 Commodity 29 Infrastructure 15 assistance 2005 Governance 35 Infrastructure 26 Economic Growth 15 2006 Infrastructure 173 Health and 71 Other 56 Population 2007 Governance 36 Infrastructure 22 Other 12 2008 Infrastructure 37 Governance 36 Humanitarian 33 2009 Governance 422 Infrastructure 78 Humanitarian 51 2010 Governance 107 Infrastructure 38 Economic Growth 29 2011 Governance 111 Humanitarian 48 Infrastructure 20 2012 Governance 116 Infrastructure 62 Other 14 2013 Other 57 Governance 48 Infrastructure 20

As we can see the sector which received the most aid was governance. In fact, the sector of governance has always been prioritized by the USAID. It must be highlighted that the aid which was allocated for this sector is disproportionately higher than the money which was allocated for other sectors. Of course, the fact that governance sector received the higher amount of aid do not assert directly that the shortcomings of the Georgian democracy are the primary result of USAIDs aid. I am just trying to show that the sector which was prioritized by USAID was the main stipulator of centralisation and establishment of competitive

authoritarianism in Georgia. The abovementioned statement will be reviewed and analyzed in details in following chapters.

The conclusion which can be imposed from abovementioned data highly depends on the viewpoint of different scholars and also depends on approaches. According to the politicians and scholars who share the pro-western view, the governance sector was prioritized to help to Georgia to build democratic institutions and develop democracy. On the other hand, some opposition parties and scholars who mainly share the pessimistic view, states that the aid which was transferred to Georgia was used for the strengthening the power of the small elite and the centralisation of power. According to them government used aid to build the system in which every sector was controlled and if we take into the account the close relations of the leaders of Georgia and the USA, we can conclude that the government of USA helped to the government of Georgia to take full control in country, while Saakashvili took the responsibility to be the direct executor of American interests not only in the region but also in the world (fight against terrorism, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq).

When we are speaking about USAID programs in Georgia, we are taking into the account not only the money which was allocated for sectors but also the models of institutions which were supported by the USA. Under these programs, USAID took the responsibility to reform some institutions. We will analyze these changes in the following chapters (for instance media sector).

George Soros and his fond – Open Society Georgian Foundation

As it was mentioned in the previous chapters, a significant role was played by the NGOs to change Shevardnadze‟s regime. We have to say the name of American billionaire George Soros, who donated several million to organize protests. He provided over 42 million dollars towards the overthrow (Weeks, 2008)

The thing which is highlighted in the priorities of Open Society Georgian Foundation is that a key element of building a democratic society, ensuring the government‟s greater accountability and promoting civil participation is democratization. The crucial actions which must be taken by the country are:

●Civil involvement in decision-making process

●Independence of municipal units

●The Corruption free local administration

To get democratic society there is a need to reach two primary goals:

1) There is a need to draw line between the powers of central and local authorities and also improve institutional and financial independence of self-governance 2) Civil society must participate in local decision-making process, and local government has to be transparent and accountable (OSGF, 2014)

There is a very popular consideration among the scholars and analysts that Soros is a high- level operative of the US state department. Some of them speak about his connection with intelligence services using his private foundations as cover. (Engdahl, 2008) According to the critics, Soros have strong ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. Despite the fact that Soros became the enemy of Saakashvili later, we have to say that the role which he played in the Rose Revolution was enormous.

According to the critics of Western policy towards Georgia, Georgian leaders were supported by the international organizations and Western governments to build competitive authoritarian regime - democratic in appearance but authoritarian in nature. In Georgia democratic institutions existed in form but not in substance. We have to take into the account two dimensions:

Political legitimacy – International organizations took the responsibility to monitor democracy. We have to highlight OECD election monitoring missions. Georgian government stressed the fact that according to the report of OECD the elections in Georgia were held without serious difficulties. In the other words, Saakashvili used the reports of OECD as the proof that all democratic standards were protected during the elections. According to the Georgian opposition claimed that results of the elections in Georgia have always been foreseeable as Georgian government had good support from the outside of the country. They highlighted that this help was mutual. West helped Saakashvili to legitimate its actions internationally. On the other hand, Georgian leaders made their main aim to assist the international community.

Economic legitimacy – League tables, which were made by Western International Organizations, were used by the Saakashvili to show everyone Georgian economic

development. The number of very influential organizations, such are Forbes‟ Tax Misery & Reform Index and World Banks‟ Ease of Doing Business Index stated that the government of Saakashvili was able to create equal opportunities and chances for everyone. (Lazarus, 2010)

Abovementioned cases of the western support are just a few of many others. As we were able to see, Georgia got significant support from West (not only financial). In the following I will try to show that these supports were not used for properly to develop democracy. Despite the fact that Georgia made some steps towards democracy, the overall situation stayed very undemocratic.

Georgian – Russian war and Western Aid

Despite the fact that the goal of my paper is not to analyze the events of the August war, I want to focus on the support which was given by the West to Georgia and shortly review its significance.

The 2008 Russo-Georgian war started in South Ossetia and stipulated a deep change in the region. According to the scholars, it was a direct challenge to the Western monopoly on military intervention and state building (Casula, 2015). Despite the fact that West did not involve directly in the conflict, Western leaders started to express their indignation because of the aggression by the Russian side. The majority of states declared their support to Georgia, but no direct military support was taken from their side. On the other hand, Georgia got a significant amount of aid from the USA and the EU.

In October, Georgia got $4.5 billion aid from a group of 38 countries and 15 international organizations. The larger single donor was the USA, which pledged $1 billion. The direct budget support, which Georgian government got from the Bush administration, was $250 million. For “security assistance” the USA transferred additional $50 million. The list of support includes also includes, €500 million from the European Commission, $750 million from IMF, etc. (Lazarus, 2010).

To sum up, West transferred a significant amount of money to Georgia. Despite the fact that there were some different opinions about the reasons of war, the majority of Western countries declared that Russo-Georgian war was the example of an attack on independent, democratic state.

Unconditional Support The most active supporter of Saakashvili‟s regime was President Bush and his administration. The USA started the process of attribution of its democracy promotion policies from the very beginning to support Saakashvili and his team. The relations between two countries became based on personal relations of two leaders. Both sides have their benefits from the bilateral relation. Saakashvili administration was directly supported with financial and technical assistance by the USA. Also, Saakashvili started to be characterized as successful democratic leader of Western media sources. From Georgian side, the USA got the implementation of the reforms that was wanted by the Bush administration. According to the Cooley, Georgia became one of the Washington‟s most supportive allies. Saakashvili and his circle of reformers expressed unequal support for the US-led global war on terror. Georgian supported to the USA in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The highway which was linking the airport to Tbilisi was renamed after the American President. Georgian side was stressing the fact that Georgians and Americans were sharing the same “democratic values.” (Cooley, 2008, p. 342)

If we take into the account unconditional support for Georgia and also the USA‟s indifferent attitude towards Georgian government‟s shortcomings in the area of democratization, the logical question arises: how serious is the USA desire to promote democracy, particularly in countries that have a semi-democratic but pro-American orientation. (Mitchell L. A., 2006, p. 669)

Here we have to highlight, that it was not difficult to combine Georgian and Western interests together as Georgia is strongly pro-Western country. Both the people and the leaders of Georgia see the chance of political development only in West. One of the most memorable characterizations of the Rose Revolution was demonstrators with American flags. After Shevardnadze‟s resignation, billboards were erected in the Georgian capital, which thanked the USA for help. Georgian way to see democracy is always associated with the USA and Europe. Georgian people almost do not have negative sentiments towards the Western model of democracy. There is no competing ideology. (Mitchell L. A., 2006, p. 671)

Despite the fact that European attitude towards Georgia was not so unanimous, we have to mention that the regime change in Georgia was the opportunity for the European Union to start the long process of institutional harmonization. The less supportive European countries were France and Germany because of energy interests with Russia. (Cooley, 2008, p. 343)

According to very influential consideration, strong, unequivocal support of the USA to Georgia, with almost no public statement in shortcomings in democratic development, stipulate the fact that Georgian government simply started ignoring shortcomings of Georgian democracy. The conclusion which can be made from this situation is that the USA was pleased with the level of Georgian democracy. Hence, Georgia did not use all its potential to reach the possible higher degree of democracy. Saakashvili‟s government very often used American support as an argument that his policy was correct. So, American support was the defender of Georgian government from the criticism. (Mitchel A., 2009, pp. 131-132)

While speaking about American support for Georgia we have to concentrate on both before and after revolution periods. The facts of democracy assistance and different forms of aid can be seen from the 1990s. Mikhail Saakashvili graduated Columbia University in the USA and according to many scholars he was trained with other leaders from the beginning. As we already mentioned above Georgian civil society was largely funded by democracy assistance money from the USA, the EU, and individual European countries. We have to mention again the strong role of George Soros‟s Open Society Institute (OSI).

Despite the fact that Georgia became a major recipient of democracy assistance from the 1990s, by 2003 many scholars viewed Georgia as an example of the failure of democracy assistance. High level of corruption and fraudulent elections were the main characterizations of Shevardnadze‟s Georgia. Shevardnadze was abandoned by the future leaders: Saakashvili and Zhvania. So The Rose Revolution for many observers was the answer on disappeared millions of dollars of democracy assistance and the democratic breakdown of late 2003. (Mitchell L. , 2008, pp. 5-6)

While speaking about the USA‟s unconditional support to Georgia we have to highlight the significance of one of the most important projects – “Support to the New Government of Georgia” (2004). This project can be described as the representative of the Bush administration approach to democracy assistance to Georgia after the Rose Revolution. The program included very crucial tasks:

●More effective management of executive offices

●Working with State Minister for Reforms Coordination in Comprehensively reviewing and identifying ways to improve the Government of Georgia‟s inter-ministerial process

●Improving intra-governmental consultation and information flow, both vertically and horizontally.

●Money for upgrading computer and communications technology in government offices

According to Mitchell, the abovementioned program was a very important work but was a very different approach to democracy assistance. It did not seek to build a strong independent civil society and also it did not help to the development of the multi-party system.

Chief of party for the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX), Bob Evans tried to describe the existing change of USA approach to democracy assistance:

“We were told many times to fully support the new regime and not point out the shortcomings of the new government. Watchdog” became “bad dog” in anticipation of some sort of counter- revolution. USAID seemed to almost simultaneously announce that we run the best media program that they have ever seen and they had no intention of offering the media program again. We were publicly told that we had done such a great job that media development was no longer necessary but behind the scenes we were hearing that they did not need a media program because Georgia had already had its revolution”. (Mitchel A., 2009, pp. 129-131)

Many politicians and scholars thought that Obama administration would not continue the policy of President Bush. They had the expectation that Obama was going to reset Georgian- American relations and finally, institutions could be able to be more important than individuals. But in reality, the policy of Obama was almost similar to that if Bush. Critics highlight that that there is no a clear distinction between “democracy” and “friend” in relations between two countries. This factor stipulates the serious difficulties for Georgia to efficiently use the resources which are provided by the West, as unconditional support is not a good friend of democracy promotion (Lazarus, 2010).

Steps towards Democracy As I mentioned above, I do not want my research to be one sided. So, before I start to examine the shortcomings of Georgian democracy, I will try to briefly review and analyze the successful steps which were made by Georgian government and were supported by the West. In each section I will also try to show the support of West to see that Western support is not

only connected with negative results. I want to highlight that the sections which will be analyzed will be directly or indirectly linked to the democratic development of the country.

Educational System - Education is one of the most significant designators of democracy. Societies with low level of education face many problems in a democratic transition period. During the presidency of Shevardnadze Georgian educational system was unjust and corrupt. People, who could pay, were able to enrol themselves without passing entrance exams at university. After the Rose Revolution situation was dramatically changed. New government started rebuilding process of the educational system. Nationwide, standardized exams became obligatory for the students who wanted to enter in Georgian high educational institutions. According to the UNICEF, Georgia has been a leader in education in the region. We have to mention a Consolidated Education Strategy and Action Plan (2007-2011), which took the place with the strong participation of the Word Bank and UNICEF, which were supported to Georgian government. Also, we have to mention the new scheme, which was introduced by the government in 2006. Schools started to receive a direct transfer of funds from the Ministry of Education and Science (UNISEF, 2009). One more institution which must be noticed here is USAID, which has helped Georgia to rebuild educational system over the past 22 years. The overall result for Georgia was a high level educational system without any corruption.

The level of corruption – Despite the fact that this field will be analyzed in details in the following chapters, here we have to mention several significant factors. Elite corruption became stronger during Saakashvili‟s presidency but on the other hand the overall level of corruption was significantly reduced. Of course, the abovementioned situation can be described as partial success but at least we can say that Georgia made serious steps. Corruption was eliminated on the lower levels (educational, judiciary, economic systems). Despite this success, we do not have to forget that elite corruption was so strong in Georgia that every citizen was adapted with the fact that there was no sense to fight for justice if case was somehow connected with the government‟s interests.

National police reform - One of the most successful reforms which were made by Saakashvili‟s government was National police reform. We have to highlight the strong connection between Georgian police during Shevardnadze‟s presidency and corruption level. In fact, Georgia had one of the most corrupted police. The level of criminal was very high because of the ineffective work of police system. The first target of the new president Saakashvili was Georgian police. He fired all the traffic police in the country (approximately

30 000) (Siegel, 2005). This was the starting point of the radical transformation of police system. From 2005 year, patrol was introduced by the Georgian government. According to the reports of every region of Georgia Patrol was trusted by the public. The level of the criminal was reduced significantly and the stereotype which existed in Georgian that police officer must never be trusted just had gone. (Shelley, Scott, & Latta, 2007, p. 101) Successful reform of police structures became the main preference which was used by the West (in particularly by the USA) to declare Georgia as one of the most successful countries which could reduce the level of criminal in a very short time (which is so crucial for democratic country).

Moving towards West - After the Rose Revolution, Georgia started to be governed by the people with Western education and strong pro-Western feelings. The main guarantee of stability for the new government became the membership of NATO and the EU. Despite the fact that everyone realized how far was Georgia from the memberships of abovementioned organizations we have to highlight that huge steps were made. The starting point of the relations between Georgia and the European Union was 1996, but in fact, Action plan started to be implemented in the context of European Neighbour Policy (ENP) in 2006. Saakashvili expressed his strong desire for Georgia to become a future member of the EU in 2011. In fact, despite serious shortcomings, Georgia became to be closer to West if we compare the situation with previous years.

Georgia became more famous in the world - Saakashvili and his group became able to increase awareness of Georgia in the world. If few years ago the only information about Georgia was; the small post-Soviet state or state which is part of Russia”, now world started to know more about Georgia. International conferences, diplomatic meetings, international preconference and visits became very usual thing during Saakashvili‟s presidency. President Bush personally visited Georgia and the small country became the centre of attention of the world. Saakashvili highlighted that it was “a great political victory” for Georgia (Corso, 2005).

Georgia as European state and development of Tourism - Georgia started to be known as safe country with very beautiful touristic cities. The advertisements about Georgian cities became very popular in Europe. Millions of tourist started to visit Georgia and European people started to understand that despite the fact of some cultural differences Georgia stands very close to them.

Abovementioned fields are just the small list which shows us that despite the fact of serious shortcomings in the democratic transition, Georgia made some significant steps which cannot be ignored. Of course not all of abovementioned achievements are directly connected with the democracy but on the other hand it helps Georgia indirectly to make developments in different fields. For example, development of tourism is not crucial element for democracy, but on the other hand the direct contact with foreigners had positive influence on Georgian people to try better to achieve the success which was reached by European countries. This has been particularly necessary for the old generation who was still attracted by Russian grandeur. They started to understand that Europe was not unreachable phenomenon. Although we have to mention, that shortcomings were so severe that they just darkened the positive achievements.

Centralization of the power and building of dominant party If we review the political history of the independent Georgia, we will see that there is not much to say about the democratic struggles between established political units. Georgian politician, Tarkhan Mouravi argues that: “political parties in Georgia are weak organizations.” (Markozashvili, 2014, p. 187) So in this situation, it was not difficult for Saakashvili to eliminate other parties.

Very soon, all formal and informal political power became strictly centralized, and Saakashvili was able to concentrate power in his hands. Constitution became the primary tool to strengthen the position of the elite. It took only two weeks after the election and Saakashvili started the process of constitutional changes to increase executive power. All constitutional changes which have been done by the government during the presidency of Mikhail Saakashvili served the interests of incumbents. Only during 2004-2007 years the Georgian Constitution was amended four times. Significantly was changed the electoral code (Lazarus, 2010). Abovementioned constitutional amendments with the other changes such were the 2004 Law on the status of Adjara and the Law on self-governance stipulated the creation of the legal framework, in which the vertical and the horizontal distribution of powers were undermined. After the deaths of Zurab Zhvania (which will be analyzed in details in the following chapters) were was not the serious political candidate who would create the significant competitor party. (Muskhelishvili & Jorjoliani, 2009, p. 693)

Mikhail Saakashvili started the process of building of one dominant party from the first days of his presidency. Everything began with the very strong symbolic message which was sent by new the leader. He adapted a new Georgian flag which was also the flag of his party – United National Movement (UNM). The intension of this action was to build a new dominant party in Georgia. The UNM already had a very strong support of Georgian population. The party had already won a huge parliamentary majority and now was trying to strengthen its positions and the main goal became to weaken and eliminate the opposition. The party started the serious preparing process to influence almost all civil society institutions: sports organizations, universities, etc. (Lazarus, 2010, p. 11)

As the UNM already had a large parliamentary majority, it started attacks on weakened opposition parties, especially who abandoned the ruling coalition or opposed the Rose Revolution. The new terms which became very popular from the very first days of the new government were: “traitors”, “counterrevolutionaries”, “enemies of the state” etc. The UNM adapted several different ways to attack against political opposition.

●The accusation of treason (usually connected with Russian opposition)

●Threat and sanctions to deter businesses from donating to opposition parties

●Businessmen had to donate to the ruling party in return for political protection

●In 2008, legislation was used by the government to withhold funding from opposition parties boycotting the parliament in protest at the results of the 2008 parliamentary election.

From the very beginning of his presidency, Saakashvili started to use the strict control mechanism to accumulate power in his hands. In the early years the control mechanisms were relatively weak, but step by step they became very strict. Like other authoritarian countries, the result of 2008 parliamentary election was that parliament was completed by the National Movement party and its satellite quasi-opposition parties. The main goal of this political game was the creation of multiparty system image to show to the world how democratic country Georgia was. The most important task for government became the control of political space. In order to increase its domestic and international prestige government used the information sources to show everyone that Georgia was a democratic country with many different political parties. Despite the fact that we will analyze media freedom situation in Georgia in following chapters in details, here we have to mention that according to the critics and opposition Georgian reality had nothing to do with democracy. They highlighted that Georgia was the

totalitarian regime with authoritarian elements. Critics say that the main proof of the abovementioned statement is that generally in authoritarian regimes opposition media sources have little but still a certain degree of freedom. In the case of Georgia, the government wanted to show the world the successful example of the existence of multiparty system and to do so they just started to take the full control of media sources (Ubilava, 2012).

In modern democracies, the political competition is largely dependent on the ability of parties to gather and express the diversity of interest of citizens and offer voters a reasonable choice. Georgian political parties are not able to fulfil this function. As usual political parties during Saakashvili period were ignored. The parties which existed were concentrated around the financial resources of the leaders, without clearly defined programs. It is not surprising that such a party system is extremely fragmented and unstable. The weakened opposition was not able to propose concrete alternatives to solve the problems of the society, and they were mostly limited to negative messages.

In the reality where party system is so undeveloped, the configuration of power can be formulized: controversy between elite party, which is almost merged with the state apparatus and irresponsible opposition. But the ruling party‟s strength is illusory. It entirely depends on the presence is the government. It means that if political party which is dominant for today will lose power for tomorrow, it will be extremely difficult for this party to preserve unity, organizational structure and to keep the majority of supporters. If we do small research about the Georgian ruling parties, we will see that it was not only the style of Mikhail Saakashvili‟s dominant party. The same situation was for the Communist Party of Georgia, the “Round Table”, the Union of Citizens of Georgia, the Georgian Revival party, etc. (Nodia, 2012)

To sum, during the period of SaakaSvili political parties which existed is Georgia were far from their primary role to be representatives of Georgian society. The decision-making process was strongly centralized in the hands of the Georgian government. In the majority of situations personalization became the main characterization of political parties. We can see the strong ties between the state and political parties.

Exclusive right of corruption Corruption is one of the most incompatible phenomenons with democracy. It can come in various faces, which can include the wide range of forms: bribery, nepotism, theft, falsification of records, campaign contributions, embezzlement, extortion, etc. (Balboa & Medalla, 2006, p. 1). Georgian case is very special. To understand its particularity, it is necessary to mention that Georgia was one of the most corrupted countries in the world. High degree of corruption practically covered all field of Georgian life. One of the first goals which were set by Saakashvili and its team was to find effective ways and fight against corruption (Jalaghania, 2010)

If we review the level of corruption from Shevardnadze‟s presidency, we will see that one the first promise, which was given by Shevardnadze to Georgian citizens, was the elimination of corruption. Despite the abovementioned promise, corruption was largely tolerated during Shevardnadze‟s tenure. The political elite which existed in this period allowed employs to take illegal money for their continued loyalty to the regime. In order to clearly see the situation, we can make small analysis. If we take, for example, 2001 year to estimate the level of corruption, we will see that the state budget revenues for this year were USD 499 million. The amount paid in bribes to political elite members the same year was estimated between USAD 75 and 105 million. High level of corruption and bribery was not surprising if we take into the account law living standards and the salaries which were delayed for months. Every level of state apparatus was corrupted. Critics highlight that during this period business activities were fully controlled by the ministers. If we take into the account the fact that Georgia is not rich country with natural resources, it will not be surprising that international aid became a major source of illicit income for political elite. According to the experts, more than 50% of foreign aid was pocketed by corrupt government members in the 1990s (Fawn, 2014). High level of corruption became such a normal phenomenon in Georgia that once Shevardnadze publicly declared that situation was not as bad as Georgian citizens thought. According to him corruption was needed to be dealt very carefully, as it was the main livelihood for many Georgian families.

Before analyzing the level of Saakashvili‟s period, I want to review and analyze Table 3, which gives us information about the index of corruption during 2003-2011 years.

Table 3 Corruption Perceptions Index results 2003-2011

Years World Ranking CPI Score 2003 124 1.8 2004 133 2.0 2005 130 2.3 2006 99 2.8 2007 79 3.4 2008 67 3.9 2009 6.6 4.1 2010 68 3.8 2011 64 4.1

As we see from the Table 3, the degree of corruption was seriously decreased in Georgia during Saakashvili‟s presidency. Georgia made serious steps and from 124th place (2003) moved to 64th place (2011). It must also be mentioned that Georgia improved its positions next two years as well. It got 51st place in 2012 and 55th place in 2013. (International, 2003- 2013)

Despite the fact that this improvement is very impressive it must be mentioned that situation was more complicated than can be seen from the Table 3. The truth was that Saakashvili eliminated corruption generally but on the other hand the only type of corruption which existed in Georgia was elite corruption. Saakashvili and his dominant party created the strong circle in which they were able to act freely.

There are different opinions about the level of corruption in Georgia. If for some experts the rose revolution was the starting point of reduction the level of corruption, other authors highlight that the face of corruption simply changed its form and its scope. One part of the expert considers that corruption remains a serious problem in the country. “The corruption has changed its structure. It was transformed. Now faces are more concealed” – declared the expert Gia Khukhashvili. Corruption in the part of budget revenue significantly decreased, but on the higher level, it still exists. The term, which is very popular in Georgia was “restructuration of corruption”. Experts highlight that the new authorities did not ask for money, they were more interested in business “shares” to have more profit. During the last period, we were able to see a sharp increase of dynamics of re-registration of shares. Also, we were the witnesses of the alternation of budgetary corruption. Despite the fact that in revenue

part corruption was significantly reduced, we can say that in the expenditure part of budget the level of corruption remained very high (Matsaberidze, 2003)

The government never recognizes that there is an elite corruption in the country. Elite corruption means that political elite is involved in this process. Despite the fact that Georgian government denied the existence of elite corruption, we have to highlight the active debates in the domestic and international arena about this issue. For example, it is well known that the major expression of elite corruption is embezzlement of public funds and abuse of power by the people who are employed in the public sector. Elite corruption leads to the favouritism and internal deals from the state. For example, this can be monopolies and unequal attitude with the business representatives. Protectionism in the fields of employment and tenders is the example of elite corruption as well. (EPRC, 2013)

After several years, Ex-president Saakashvili was accused to embezzlement of state-owned 8 837 461 GEL (approximately 3 367 852 Euro). He was accused, along with the former head of the State Security Service – Teimuraz Janashia. According to the investigation, the ex- president spent abovementioned money for his personal, as well as „National Movement“leisure and entertainment. Everyone started to speak about the fact, which was known before as well - Elite corruption.

One of the most interesting things is that till 2009 the costs of the president were managed publicly by the Presidential Administration and The State Security Agency. But after 2009, because of the decision of Mikhail Saakashvili this responsibility was assigned to the Special State Security Service and this service was secret now. As a result of the investigation, during 2009-2013 Saakashvili squandered almost 9 million GEL for him, family members and guests of the president.

According to the materials, for example, the cost of cosmetic procedures was 673 GEL. President paid 15 989 GEL for the painting of Meredith Ostrom. Also, the rental of helicopters, cars, yachts or bicycles at different times was more than 2 million GEL. The cost of Saakashvili‟s new jackets and cashmere coat in the UK was 49 499 GEL. Also, we have to mention 191 643 GEL, which was paid to Presidents Spanish cook and his translator. 75 181 Gel was paid for personal stylist and hotel services.

Ugulava‟s hotel services and therapeutic procedures in the Austrian city of Innsbruck- slimming wellness canter was 26 388 GEL; Koba Nakopia, Environmental Minister, Nugzar

Tsiklauri, George Gabashvili, Sergo Ratiani, Petre Tsiskarishvili, Levan Varshalomidze, Giorgi Arveladze overseas service in hotels was 88 919 GEL; David Bakradze and Levan Varshalomidze, car service, food and air ticket in Thailand cost 127 858 GEL. Abovementioned expenses are just a small part of the huge list.

If we do not take into account these secret costs, we also have to mention the costs for president‟s expenses which were paid by the president‟s administration of the state budget.

Table 4 Costs for president‟s expenses (secret costs are not included)

Years Expenses (GEL) Expenses (EURO) approximately 2009 6 213 015 2 371 673 2010 3 340 728 1 275 426 2011 4 654 100 1 776 888 2011 5 809 808 2 218 126 Total 20 007 651 7 638 451

According to the expert Eka Gigauri, this was the classical example of elite corruption. She highlighted that corruption is not only bribery. The situation, in which elected officials use the situation for personal gains, is also the example of corruption. Also, the fact that Georgia has for years suffered from the lack of information on costs and also the fact that the Chamber of Control had not properly examined the costs means that the system was directed to facilitate the elite corruption. (Kunchulia, 2014). One of the most striking examples of elite corruption was so-called Amnesty of televisions: Georgian government charged off approximately 36 million GEL to the Rustavi 2, Imedi and Public Channel in 2010 and 2012. (EPRC, 2013)

To conclude, this indicator can be estimated as partly successful. Georgian government could significantly reduce the level of corruption. If we compare the periods of Shevardnadze and Saakashvili, we will see that many things have been done to fight against corruption. Finally, Georgian students became able to a get high education without paying extra money to officials. Police officers have not taken money from drivers to let them freely relocate. But on the other hand elite corruption became stronger and practically legalized. Georgian government created the system in which they were able to take illegal money, from ordinary people, businessmen, politicians, etc. Because of the abovementioned double standard, there are mixed assessments in international community towards the corruption level in Georgia.

Government and crime To understand the level of democratization of the country which was backed by the West (in particular by the USA), it is necessary to analyze the cases which are connected with the crime of government in the connection with the work of the judicial system. Many scholars tried to define the connection between abovementioned two things from the different perspectives for different systems, but the thing in which everyone agrees is that court must be free from any influence and must make impartial decisions.

In democratic countries “An independent judiciary assures people that court decisions will be based on the nation's laws and constitution, not on shifting political power or the pressures of a temporary majority. Endowed with this independence, the judicial system in a democracy serves as a safeguard of the people's rights and freedoms”.

The principle which was the mostly violated in Georgia was “In democracies, independence from political pressures of elected officials and legislatures guarantees the impartiality of judges. Judicial rulings should be impartial, based on the facts of a case, individual merits and legal arguments, and relevant laws, without any restrictions or improper influence by interested parties” (DOS, 2005).

According to the surveys which were conducted by the Caucasus Resource Centres in 2012 and 2014, the trust in the institutions of criminal justice has remained minimal. The courts, prosecutors, and judges were not trusted in Georgia. On the question if innocent people are imprisoned in Georgian reality around 55% answered that “often” or “occasionally” prisons are full of innocent people (Slade & Kupatadze, 2014)

The crimes, which were executed by the government never ended with an impartial decision. There were lots of cases like that. I will analyze only the most well-known cases, which will give a chance to see the work of the unfair court, and also, we will be able to see how the USA backed the Georgian government to avoid responsibility.

Assassination of Former Prime Minister - Zhvania

One of the most rumored events in Georgia was the death of one of the leaders of the Rose Revolution. The bodies of the former Premier Minister Zurab Zhvania and his friend Raul Yusupov were found in the locked flat. The official version of the death of Zhvania was that

he was killed by a faulty Iranian-made gas heated. Very few people in Georgia have believed this version.

Later, the former Defense Minister Irakli Okruashvili said that Zhvania was killed in the presence of Saakashvili himself. Okruashvili was jailed immediately. He was beaten and forced to retract his statement. We also have to mention the name of Bryan Paarmann, who was sent from the USA to Georgia to investigate the death of Zhvania. He covered up the evidence in cahoots with Saakashvili, as he was still seen as the USA intelligence asset at the time.

According to opposition, Zhvania was killed. It is even possible to see several injuries on both bodies from the photos. These injuries can‟t be made by a faulty gas heater. In fact, no one believed to the official version, as everyone knew that Saakashvili and Zhvania had disagreement last time. Zhvania was very popular among Georgian people. Saakashvili felt the danger as Zhvania was the only real candidate who could shake his positions. Of course, the aim of my paper is not to blame someone in the assassination of a person. I am just trying to summarize the facts and highlight the obvious evidence of the crime which was hidden by the government.

The reaction of Georgian people was so strong that Government had to make something. Very soon two people were arrested. One of them was the former expertise of the National Forensics Bureau and the second one was the personal bodyguard of Zhvania. They were accused of neglecting of their official duties. According to the experts, it was just impossible to not to see the injuries which were on Zhvania and Yusupov‟s bodies. These injuries could be noticed even from the photos which were published on the internet. Someone obviously wanted to hinder the investigation. If we take into the account that every sphere of Georgian life, especially judicial system and police was controlled by the government, it will not be surprising that everyone thought that the assassination of Zhvania had political motives. Saakashvili declared:

“I do not know what Zhvania‟s family members are thinking, but the investigation into his death is of no less importance for me. Some try to adopt the term “murder”. Zurab Zhvania‟s death was an accident, and it‟s good that after two or three days the FBI representatives came and put everything in its place”. (Kamens, 2014)

In fact, American side did it best to help Saakashvili to “investigate” this case. According to Paarmann, they could not see any evidence to consider that certain forces were involved in former Prime Minister‟s death. Famous Georgian politician and producer, Eldar Shengelaia is stating: „It was clear from the beginning that ex-Premier Zurab Zhvania was killed. They concealed it, but these reckless people don‟t know that nothing can be hidden in this world! (Politics, 2013)

In fact the assassination of the famous politician in the democratic county stipulated the huge responses from the Georgian population. They openly started to criticize the government and demanded to investigate the crime. The problem was the fact that the assassination of Zhvania was broadcasted by the government controlled media sources. So information was always under the frames.

Sandro Girgvliani murder case

When we are speaking about the most notorious criminal cases of “democratic Georgia” we have to take into account Sandro Girgvlini‟s case. This case will help us to understand how far went Western aid recipient democracy and how strong and uncontrolled became the Georgian elite. This case is also good instance to see the level of judicial independence of Georgia.

To describe situation shortly, Girgvliani became the victim of a very simple fact. He had a small dispute with the members of Georgian elite in the bar (Inspector General of Ministry of Internal Affairs – Vasil Sanodze, the wife of the Interior minister and Prime Minister – Tako Salakaia, etc.) Girgvliani and his friend- Bukhaidze were kidnapped immediately after the leaving the restaurant. Bukhaidze could escape but Girgvliani‟s body was found on January 28, 2006 with multiple injuries.

Sandro Girgvliani‟ mother publicly announced that her son was murdered by the officials from the Interior Ministry. Opposition parties – Georgian Conservative party and rightist opposition party demanded the investigation of the crime. The man who kidnapped Girgvliani and Bukhaidze was identified by the eyewitness – Bukhaidze. He was the staff-member of an Interior Ministry.

The response of the interior Minister of Georgia on this accusation was that investigation has not revealed any fact of connection of government members with this crime. According to him, this accusation was the attempt of the opposition to weaken the prestige of government in Georgian population. If we take into account that Georgian population just started to be very active and sensitive toward the case of Girgvliani, it was not surprising that Georgian Government had to arrest someone. So, they arrested four members of Interior Minister, but responsibility was fully avoided by the higher echelon. The people who were arrested were executors. According to the opposition, it was time now to arrest the people who ordered this assassination.

Despite the fact that several hundred of Georgians started the serious demonstrations with the demand of resignation of the Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili, President Saakashvili declared that this request was funny. Finally protesters were simply dispersed by Georgian police and several of them were arrested for hooliganism.

The situation was so deteriorated that Giorgi Khaindrava, the State Minister for the Conflict Resolution Issues, declared: “I think upon the arrival from the United States, President Saakashvili should consider the issue and take relevant conclusions and decisions, because what we are now seeing here in the court is a sign of a crisis”.

According to the mother of Girgvliani, she was offered the plenty of money for her silent. Otherwise, she was threaded to silence by force. Finally she was deceased in a very strange condition (Georgia, 2006)

Scandal of Prisoners

The scandal, which decisively shook the position of “the most democratic regime” in Georgian history, was connected with prisoners. Georgia became the centre of attention of everyone before the parliamentary elections.

The slogans of the government were “Zero tolerance” and “Everybody to prisons” from the beginning. And despite the insolent demonstration of sadism, European and American politicians have always noted that Georgia reached a big success in the building of Democracy. (Mdzinarishvili, 2012)

Before we analyze the scandal of prisoners, it will be better to concentrate on the roots of the problem. According to the president, the main aim of the police was to “clean our streets of the rubbish”. In result, the sacrifice of president‟s broom was thousands of Georgians. If we check statistics, we will see that during 2003-2010, the prison population in Georgia soared by 300%. The most impressive data shows that by 2012, there were more prisoners in Georgia per capita than any other major country with the exception of the USA and Rwanda.

The short formulation of Georgian government‟s attitude towards these people was: “bad people exist, the government can‟t change them” the solution is to “warehouse them and keep them out of sight. These invisible people became visible back into view on 18 September 2012 as powerless victims. (Slade, Georgia's prisons: roots of scandal, 2012)

Georgian state prison guard, who‟d fled to Belgium, gave to the Georgian opposition the videos in which were shown how guards and their superiors were torturing, taunting and sexually assaulting prisoner after prisoner. The most shocking part of these videos was that guards were sodomizing them with bloom handless. (Fairbanks, 2012)

President Saakashvili and his United National Movement did their best to get all this off from the TV screens but it was too late. Georgian opposition could mobilize the people against non-democratic government. The most important role was played by the university students. Despite the fact that Georgian opposition tried to connect its power with students, they simply rejected this offer. Students paralyzed all main streets in Georgia with the main demand to resign Saakashvili and his government.

The ombudsman of Georgia highlighted the fact that torture and abuse have continued in Georgian prisons for years, and not enough has been done to counter it. The question, which has arisen, was: How did the prison come to host of such facts. (Slade, 2012)

Abovementioned cases are only several examples of numerous crimes by the Saakashvili‟s government, in which everything was done by the court to make decisions which were profitable for Georgian government. We can see the strong involvement of the USA, especially in the case of Zurab Zhvania. As we see the criteria of the free judiciary system which is so significant for democratic country, failed.

Weak civil society Despite the fact that Georgia made numerous successful democratic openings, one of the deepest problems was failing to consolidate its democratic institutions. As we mentioned above the first transition took the places in 1990, when nationalist and anti-communist coalition won the first multiparty elections. The second transition took place in 1992, when Shevardnadze came to the power. In fact, 1992-2003 was the period of creation of unstable political institutions. Civil society practically did not exist. Despite the fact that the Rose Revolutions (2003) made significant achievements in modernizing state institutions, fundamental reforms which were achieved during this period contributed to democratic imbalances though the concentration of power in the executive. Week civil society which had many frames from the government was unable to have effect on Georgian reality (Pokleba, 2016, p. 235)

One of the most significant factors to achieve the high level of democracy is strong civil society. The existence of civil society is crucial for state accountability. The only accountable state can offer its citizens freedoms of speech, association and assembly. Civil society supports rule of the law and also provides an opportunity for communities to the common platform and work together (Uprety, 2011). One of the deepest problems, which faced Georgian democracy during the presidency of Mikhail Saakashvili was the absence of societal forces and institutions, which would be able to balance the government. Policy formulation and implementation was not influenced by the civil society in Georgia. The influence of civil society can be estimated as weak. Sources for local funding remained limited. Georgia‟s civil society rating remained unchanged for many years (Aprasidze, 2012, p. 221)

If we review the history of Western Europe, we will see that democracy grew out of a series of conflicts over centuries. These conflicts were between monarchs and parliaments, trade unions and entrepreneurs, etc. In Georgia, everything was very fast and dictated from outside of the country. Here civil-society organizations are mainly elite groups that follow the vagaries of international funding (Nodia, 2011). Saakashvili‟s government was not balanced by the pluralism of interests and institutions. In fact, Saakashvili was controlling every sphere of Georgian life.

To start from the beginning, the Rose Revolution has demonstrated that Georgians had a strong will to defend democratic values in their country. But on the other hand, it can be seen that Georgians were very passive to take part in public affairs. This problem was stipulated by

the not existence of strong civil society. The party system was extremely unstable. The reason for instability is a low level of institutionalization. Political parties were weakly linked to social groups. They served to the interests of relatively small groups (Pokleba, 2016, p. 240)

The tendency which can be seen after the Rose Revolution is that Western donors started to move resources away from media and civil society towards aiding Saakashvili‟s government. Despite the fact that the new government was the “embodiment of democracy” for USAID, in fact, the situation was dramatically different. If we take a close look at the facts, we will see some examples of support of non-state organizations by USAID, but all these programs worked with branches of the government.

According to Muskhelishvili and Jorjoliani, democracy promotion is an activity which

●Aims at democratic development

●is provided globally, by foreign actors

●is channelled though civil society organizations.

But according to them, there was no need any more civil society to be the mediation source between Western donors and Georgian government, as last two were closely connected with each other. One of the best descriptions of the situation was that: “Good governance seemed to become more urgent than democracy”. Georgia became the host of a new type of social organizations, which characterized with bottom-up emerging tendencies. Their nature was extremely elitist, and they were very far from representativeness of the expectations of the wider society. In fact, the establishment of such kind of organizations had a long-lasting effect on the democratic transformation of Georgia. (Muskhelishvili & Jorjoliani, 2009, pp. 685 - 694)

According to the Freedom House, the field of civil society is the sphere where the democratic development of Georgia deteriorated during the presidency of Saakashvili. The thing which is stressed in the report of Freedom House is that the major concern of civil society of Georgia remained financial instability. We can read the detailed review of the scarcity of local funding. Despite the fact that International partnering and funding were available, they were monopolized by the most successful and established groups of Georgia. To see the overall situation we have to highlight: the huge influence of Georgian Catholic Church on politics and society; low protected labor rights; the marginal role of trade unions; reluctance of public

institutions to engage in systemic public debates with civil society actors; the limited role of NGOs to watchdog activities etc. If we make some observation on Civil Society development in Georgia, we will be able to see that country made steps backward. For the country which was estimated as a successful example of democratic development these shortcomings are not impressive (Aprasidze, 2012, p. 227)

Political Crisis of Georgia and the events of November 2007 In order to understand the ways, how crisis and protest of people were handled by the “Democratic” government of Georgia, it is necessary to review and analyze the political crisis of Georgia of 2007. The starting point of the events started in September and was connected with the resignation of several officials, who were protesting the arrest of other officials with the accusation of corruption. Irakli Oqruashvili, who was the former Defense Minister of Georgia, decided to establish a new opposition political party – Movement of United Georgia. He accused Saakashvili of anti-state actions and also stated that the oligarch Badri Patarkacishvili was murdered because of the order of the president. Oqruashvili was arrested immediately after the making of abovementioned accusation because of extortion, money laundering and abuse of the power. This event was followed by the demonstrations in front of parliament. Several thousands of people were demanding early elections, freedom of Oqruashvili and cancellation of the institute of the president in Georgia. Saakashvili stated that he is not going to satisfy the demands of demonstrates and stressed that Okruashvili was criminal. Just after several days, Okruashvili was forced to deny his accusations towards Saakashvili and his government. He stated that his allegations were stipulated because of the fact that he wanted to gain political dividends. He also recognized the crimes of money laundering and negligence. Later he was released as someone paid 10 million Gel for it.

After these events, the famous Georgian Businessmen Badri Patarkacishvili announced the Georgian population that he made the decision to go into politics to help Georgians to deal with difficult the situation. According to the supporters of Okruashvili, the former Defense Minister just decided to go from the politics. On the other hand, Georgian reality witnessed the unification of ten different opposition parties, which demanded early elections and announced its priorities in the 12-point manifesto.

The opposition was able to organize the demonstration of several thousand of people in Kutaisi and planned the series of demonstrations in Tbilisi from 2nd of November. They were supported by the other important cities of Georgia. The country was practically paralyzed.

The leaders of the opposition parties Salome Zurabishvili, Konstantine Gamsakhurdia and David Usufashvili met with the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana. This was the part of the desire of opposition parties to show to international community their desire to be moderate and less radical.

Badri Patarkatsishvili declared that he would finance the opposition to help them to reach their common goal using the civilized ways. Simultaneously, the members of governments were stating that they were not going to make any compromise. The situation was deteriorated, when the thousands of people arrived from the regions to join with the demonstrators in the capital. Thousands of Georgians paralyzed the Rustaveli Avenue in front of the parliament. Despite the fact of the extremely strained political situation in Georgia, the head of the Parliament, Nino Burjanadze declared that the demands of the demonstrators were not just, so the government was not going to satisfy them. After that, opposition changed their main demand and made a statement that the main demand from this moment was the resignation of President Saakashvili.

The culmination of the events started to take place from 7th of November. Police used tear gas, batons, rubber bullets, water cannon and acoustic guns in order to disperse the demonstration in front of the parliament. According to the Human Rights Watch, Georgian government failed to implement a measured escalation in its response to the protesters. Abovementioned actions stipulated serious concerns. Rubber bullets must be treated only for practical purposes as firearms. In the report we can read that: “They should be used strictly in accordance with the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officers, which state that “law enforcement officials must not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury”.

According to the witnesses of this event, police started to use the tear gas and shoot without any announcement. Demonstrators highlighted the fact that the use of abovementioned tools was completely unexpected. Accordingly, after use of these violent methods many people panicked and started to run in all directions. The atmosphere was totally chaotic. Many of the

demonstrators had serious injuries, and they were suffering burning eyes and throats and other effects of the teargas. (Watch, 2007)

Police raid of Imedi –elimination of freedom of speech In order to understand the consequences of Western promotion of “freedom of Speech” in Georgia, we have to review one of the most obvious instances of failure of democracy. The policy of “bacon of democracy” towards independent media shows us the reality in which Georgian community lived in the period of Saakashvli‟s presidency.

After the Rose Revolution, almost all media sources were under the direct or indirect control of the government. The only independent channel was TV Imedi, which became able to mobilize public opinion and was spreading critical information. Rustavi 2 which was pro- governmental lost the trust among the Georgian population. To simplify the situation, there were two influential TV channels in Georgia: strongly pro-governmental Rustavi 2 and oppositional Imedi TV. Society was divided into proponents and opponents of the authorities. Opposition leaders boycotted Rustavi 2, while National Movement‟s leadership refused to participate in Imedi‟s programs. Imedi TV became the only channel which was broadcasting the serious shortcomings of the government. Saakashvili‟s government was not able to adequately respond to criticism and was stressing only the achievements which were reached during their time.

On 7th of November, the government decided that it was time to take violent methods in order to deal with the problem. Police used unprecedented force. Imedi TV was attacked, technical equipment was destroyed, and the state became under informational vacuum. The next step was the declaration of a state of emergency in the entire country. Opposition leaders were arrested step by step. The only source of information was Rustavi 2 which broadcasted only non-political information. (Muskhelishvili & Jorjoliani, 2009, pp. 696-699)

Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli made the statement on November 7 that according to the decision of the President Saakashvili Georgia was declared a state of emergency. This decision restricted assemblies and imposed some media restrictions in Tbilisi. Next day, the government added that the state of emergency would last for 15 days. Because of the situation, the articles of the Georgian constitution of freedom of Speech, freedom of assembly

and the right to strike were suspended. Private television stations were not allowed to broadcast news programs. We also have to mention that Georgian people were not able to watch CNN or BBC for several days, as a local cable company suspended foreign news broadcasts. The only station, which was allowed to broadcast new programs, was publicly- funded Georgian Public Broadcaster. The decision of the president was confirmed by Georgian parliament on November 9. Television stations were allowed to resume news broadcast only after 16th of November.

If we follow the European Convention on Human Rights, we will see that according to the Article 10 the right of the freedom of expression must be guaranteed. We have to take into the account that: “Restrictions on freedom of expression are the same as those permitted on freedom of assembly, that is they must be “prescribed by law,” “necessary in a democratic society,” and justified by reference to a legitimate aim such as the “interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals.” According to Human Rights Watch the closure of the independent television channel in Georgia did not fall within the abovementioned scope of restrictions. The fact is that the Imedi‟s broadcasting license was officially suspended for three months by the Georgian National Communications Commission, which of course was under the influence of government.

Georgian government tried to stress that Imedi TV was the direct threat to Georgian security and public safety as it broadcasted some sensitive events for Georgia. According to them, the news that police was about to storm to main Orthodox Cathedral in Tbilisi would call hundreds of thousands of Georgians to the street to defend the Church. The General Prosecutor‟s office declared that media has to avoid to broadcast such a sensitive issues, especially in the country with an overwhelming majority of Christians. So according to them, it was just necessary for democratic society to close Imedi in order to avoid an urgent threat. (Watch, 2007, p. 81)

If we take Press Freedom Score as an indicator, we will be able to see not only press condition in Georgia but also rise and decline of Saakashvili‟s power.

Table 5 Freedom of Press 2003-2013

Years Press Freedom Score Position in the world 2003 54 114

2004 54 114 2005 56 116 2006 57 118 2007 57 120 2008 60 128 2009 60 128 2010 59 126 2011 55 118 2012 52 111 2013 49 96 Press Freedom Score (0 – Best, 100 – Worst) (House, Georgia - Freedom of the Press, 2003- 2013)

As we see from the Table 5, the press freedom was deteriorating from 2003-2009. There is a strong correlation between the deteriorated press freedom and power of Saakashvili‟s regime. More powerful was regime, the more restricted press freedom was. As we see situation began to be improved from 2010. This was the period than new opposition started to be stronger and used all possible sources to express their protest against the government.

Bob Evans, the head of American NGO was charged to implement USAID‟s media programme in Georgia. According to him: “we were told many times to fully support the new regime and not point out the shortcomings of the new government… Behind the scenes, we were hearing that they didn‟t need a media program because Georgia “had already had its revolution.” (Mitchell L. , 2008, p. 130)

In fact, civil organizations and a vibrant free media always played significant roles in the political life of Georgia during Shevardnadze‟s presidency. The situation was dramatically changed under Saakashvili. NGOs lose their role to be government‟s critics and watchdogs. The new reality of Georgia was connected with a less independent media and fewer opposition voices than it had several years ago, during Shevardnadze‟s governance.

The very first step of the new government was that they closed a number of critical, political television programs. Rustavi 2, which was the example of independent media become far less independent, and it only broadcasted “successes of the most democratic government in Georgian history”. (Mitchell L. A., 2006, p. 673)

I want to highlight two tendencies, which characterized Western governments in relation to Georgian media sector:

●Withdraw funding from the independent media sector

●Ignore of repressive actions of the Georgian government

The result of abovementioned actions was the creation of the environment in which everything was controlled by the Georgian government. Georgian media became repressed, and self-censorship became the usual thing (Anable, 2006, p. 33). Leaders who were main supporters of freedom of speech during the Rose Revolution took the side of the government after revolutions. Good examples of this fact are Giga Bokeria and Levan Ramishvili (the leaders of the liberty institute). They became deeply involved in the new reforms, which practically eliminated freedom of speech in Georgia. Giga Bokeria, who became the member of Saakashvili‟s dominant party, National Movement participated in decisions which were against media freedom. The leaders of the Rose Revolution, who were the main defenders of freedom of speech, simply closed the opposition channel Imedi. NGOs promoted “freedom of speech for those who promote freedom of speech”. (Muskhelishvili & Jorjoliani, 2009, p. 689. 702)

Abovementioned arguments are enough to say that media freedom issue was one of the most problematic spheres in Saakashvili‟s period. Media sphere is good examples to proof that Georgia was very far from democracy. Competitive authoritarianism is more suitable term to describe Saakashvili‟s regime.

New dimension of the problem: people are losing faith The problems which were stipulated by the new government and their Western supporters were so obvious and serious in Georgia that people started to lose faith. Georgians, who

always have had pro-Western feelings, were not sure anymore if the way of improvement of their democratic situation had to be connected with West.

Despite the fact that Georgian citizens have pro-western feelings and attitudes, we have to mention the germination of anti-American sentiments in one part of the society during the presidency of Mikhail Saakashvili. The main sources of the dissatisfaction of these people were the import of liberal values and the support to Saakashvilis government from the West. During one of the protests which were organized in front of the embassy of the USA by the opposition party “Georgian Party”, the leader Irakli Okruashvili declared that the result of the American support to the Georgian government will be the end of Georgian democracy. He highlighted: “If Russians are taking away our territories, Americans are taking away our freedom” (Rekhviashvili, 2012). According to the Georgian opposition:

“Georgians are beginning to have anti-European, anti-US tendencies. It‟s never happened before. Now people are saying „they [the West] don‟t want democracy, they‟re not interested in how we‟re going to live. They just need stability in Georgia to protect their pipeline, and they‟re not concerned with anything else. They‟ve got double standards in US and Europe, and they only want democracy for themselves… A lot of people became convinced that you can‟t change things through elections that my vote stands for virtually nothing. That was the very, very worst thing that could have happened. Let it be Saakashvili, let it be his government. That you can deal with. But the fact that people lost hope in elections… and see democracy as something bad…” (Lazarus, 2010)

According to the critics, one of the greatest disturbance occurred in the presidential elections in the January 2008. If we take into the account that Saakashvili got only 53.5% of the vote and also if we foresee that international and local observers reported serious irregularities, we can conclude that maybe Saakashvili was not the winner of the elections.

The thing which has to be taken into the account is that Georgian citizens lost the faith that elections can change the reality. A lot of people do not consider the elections as an effective tool to change the government. The euphoria of the democratic miracle, which was stipulated by the Rose Revolution, proved false. After such a huge disappointment it became extremely difficult to believe that new election would bring new truly democratic leader. Common fatalistic expression of Georgian people became: “who asks us?” With rare exceptions, the losing parties and candidates in the elections did not recognize the legitimacy of the results.

They stressed that elections were falsified and in fact, a large part of their supporters agreed to it.

“Democracy deficit” is the term which was very often used to describe the situation during the presidency of Saaashvili. According to Ghia Nodia, one of the main reasons of abovementioned characterization of Georgian reality was stipulated because of the fact that the Rose Revolution, which was the hope of Georgian people, proved illusion. Nodia highlights several reasons, which explains the dissatisfaction of Georgian citizens:

●Low trust towards electoral procedures

●Strong executive power and weaker parliament, where the ruling party holds more than two- thirds of the seats

●Weak local government

●The most influential TV channels as pro-governmental propaganda outlets

●non-free judicial blanch.

One more thing which has to be added to this list is the support of West to the government which turned Georgian reality practically indivisible from Saakashvili‟s control mechanisms (Nodia, 2011). There are critics in Georgia who speak about the pseudo-liberalism of Saakashvili and his team. But I think that this consideration is exaggerated. One of the forms of modernization is liberalism. In Georgian society, it was carried out from the top using the mechanisms of coercion in order to inculcate upon one ideology. Although this was never formalized, we can see that people with a different outlook were simpy excluded from the public and political life. This is contrary to pluralism and diversity. After the Rose Revolution, the only ideology which was given wide scope was liberalism.

Scholars higlight, that despite the fact that according to the many critics the establishment of the undemocratic style of leadership in Georgia is under the responsibility of Georgian government we have to see the role of external powers, which use their finances and influence to reach their strategic goals. Critics very often states that this puppet regime which deteriorated the democratic situation in Georgia was set by the USA.

Fairness requires to review and analyze the highly-critical considerations as well. According to some radical critics, the relation between West (mainly the USA) and Georgia can be

characterized as a modern form of imperialism. Democracy is, in itself, pluralism, diversity of different opinions and requires the respect of different priorities and values. Radical critics highlight that it is just impossible to reach democracy in Georgia because of the fact that the country is under the control of empire (the USA), especially in the region where several geopolitical powers are trying to dominate. So Georgia has to apply to the rules which are dictated from the USA, and it does not have any opportunity to apply to the democracy which will be depended on the characteristics and circumstances of society.

According to Georgian expert of politics Irakli Ubilava, in order to establish democracy in modern Georgia, there is a need to become independent from the control of foreign powers. Only truly independent Georgia will be able to reach some degree of democracy and pluralism, which are so essential for the state‟s democracy development. (Ubilava, 2012)

As we see from the previous chapters, Georgia‟s revolutionary government strengthened state institutions, attacked political opponents and weakened non-state institutions. The result of abovementioned steps was the strong Georgian state, which was characterized with the dominant party system and competitive authoritarian regime. The role of Western governments was huge in a new reality of Georgia.

Conclusion The main aim of my research was to examine the results of Western aid, unconditional support and the presence of elite in the recipient country. I took Georgia as a case and reviewed and analyzed the period of Mikhail Saakashvili (2004-2013). The reason why I decided to take the case of Georgia was that, despite the fact of serious shortcomings, Georgia was described as the successful democratic country by the West. The concentration of power in the hands of elite and establishment the rule of one dominant party became Georgian reality.

The main aim of my research was to answer the question: What are the main factors which stipulated the establishment of one-party system and strong centralization of power in Georgia in the period of Saakashvili (who was considered the successful democratic leader by the West)?

Before setting up the hypothesis, during the study, I examined positions and opinions of all sides. I researched the considerations of the Georgian government, opposition, and scholars, as well as academic papers of Western authors to set off the real picture. As it is already stated above, the aim of my paper was not to criticize the West because of its imperialist policy. I just tried to focus on the problems and shortcomings which were stipulated by the independent variables. Despite the fact that paper was critical towards Western policy and Georgian government, it does not mean that Georgia did not make steps towards democracy. As I wanted to avoid to be one sided, I also analyzed the successful democratic steps which were made by Georgian government and also was stipulated by the Western support.

My personal experience and fundamental review of existing academic literature helped me to set the hypothesis, according to which: “Western democracy promotion“, unconditional support and Georgian ruling party, which tried to expand its political power, caused the strong centralisation of power and the establishment of the one-party system rather than the democratization of Georgia.

Dependent variables of the research were strong centralization of power and establishment of the one-party system in Georgia. The independent variables were “Western democracy promotion“, unconditional support and the Georgian ruling party, which tries to expand its power.

The short formulation of my research was: Centralisation VS Democratization and the role of foreign aid. The research was qualitative, and I proved the hypothesis with studying particular case. I used research methods, such as Process Tracing and Analytical Discussion. To avoid any misunderstanding, I defined independent and dependent variables.

I tried to review and analyze the facts and main events which stipulated the strong participation of Western aid in the establishment of fake democracy. I made it possible for readers to see clearly the serious defects of Georgian democracy. I was successful to connect independent variables – Western aid, unconditional support and strong ruling elite in recipient country – with each other. After that, I tried to analyze five important indicators of democratization to estimate if Western democracy support was successful (in the conditions where existed the strong ruling party). These indicators are the electoral process and political parties, independence of media, judicial framework, civil society and corruption. Abovementioned chapters gave me the possibility to check the validity of my hypothesis.

It became apparent that Georgian government started to legitimate their non-legitimate actions from the very beginning. Constitutional changes are the best proof of the domestic regime legitimization. In fact, abovementioned tendencies of centralization were directly or indirectly supported by the West. As I highlighted, centralisation is not necessarily negative phenomenon but in the hands of the non-democratic leader, it can be very dangerous. The paper showed that to explain the shortcomings of Georgian democracy, there is a need to pay attention not only on the domestic but also on international dimensions.

Saakashvili created the system in which only one dominant party was able to operate. United National Movement had full control on other parties. The dominant party had a large parliamentary majority. UNM attacked weakened opposition parties. The primary focus was on the politicians who abandoned ruling coalition. Majority of them were arrested because of different accusations. The result of abovementioned policy was that other political parties became very week, and they were not able to make any influence on the decision-making process. We also were able to see that, Saakashvili tried to create multiparty system image, that‟s why he allowed formal existence of other parties. Control mechanism which was used by his government was so strong that it was impossible for other parties to operate freely. They were even unable to have access to media sources, as everything was controlled by the government.

One of the deepest problems, which faced Georgian democracy during the presidency of Mikhail Saakashvili was the absence of societal forces and institutions. There was no civil society to balance the government. Their rating remained unchanged for many years. The influence of civil society can be estimated as weak. The problem was also connected with limited sources of local funding. Here civil-society organisations are mainly elite groups that follow the vagaries of international funding.

Media sphere, which is one of the most significant indicators of democratization, was not free, and the right of freedom of speech was roughly violated. The Rose Revolution leaders, who were the main supporters of freedom of speech and freedom of media, started strict control of all existing TV and Radio stations. Self-censorship became the unavoidable reality for Georgian journalists. Two main factors which have been done by the West to support Georgian government in the establishment of full control on media were withdrawal funding from the independent media sector and ignore of repressive actions of the Georgian government. After police raid of Imedia, Georgian citizens started to be in informational

vacuum. According to the information which was broadcasted by Georgian media, Saakashvili was democratic leader, who made only successful steps.

When we analyzed the indicator of corruption we were able to see a very interesting phenomenon. Georgia was one of the most corrupted countries in the world during the period of Shevardnadze; Saakashvili‟s government was able to decrease the level of corruption significantly. During ten years Georgia became able to replace from 124th to 55th place. The general level of corruption was practically eliminated, but on the other hand, elite corruption remained very high. Saakashvili created the system where only elite members were able to get benefits from every sector of Georgian life. System was so well organized that corruption worked only for them.

The judiciary system was influenced by the government and was not able to make impartial decisions. In my research, I reviewed and analyzed several rumoured cases. We were able to see how easily people were eliminated without any just verdict. We also saw in case of Zhvania‟s case how government was supported by the representative of the USA. Georgian people started to be adapted to the fact that if case was connected with the interests of Georgian government, there was no chance to wait for just sentence. The crimes, which were executed by the government never ended with impartial decision. We also were able to see the results of research, in which majority of Georgian people declared that prisons were full of innocent people. Scandal of prisoners was the new dimension of the problem which showed that government just torture the prisoners without any reason.

At the end of my paper, I paid attention on the new dimension of the problem. Georgian people, who have always fought for democracy and development, now started losing the faith that they were able to change the reality. Significant part of Georgian citizens simply decided that election was not the tool which was able to bring democratic leader. The fact that the Rose Revolution prove to be illusion had very pessimistic effect on Georgians.

Abovementioned chapters successfully could connect independent variables with each other and after that we were able to see their influence on democratization process. As we could see in some spheres, the democracy promotion was just the mask, which covered many other dimensions. While analyzing the case, we took into the account: strategic goals of Western countries; benefits which they received from the support of Georgia; the result of unconditional support; elite party in recipient country and their culture of government; concentration of power in the hands of a few people indirectly and directly etc. Finally, I was

able to successfully prove my hypothesis, Western democracy promotion“, unconditional support and Georgian ruling party, which tried to expand its political power, caused the strong centralisation of power and the establishment of the one-party system rather than the democratization of Georgia. It is enough to read abovementioned arguments to conclude that Georgia was closer with competitive authoritarianism and nothing had to do with democracy.

The study is valuable in the sense that it represents an innovation. Until now, the written works mainly focused only on ideological factors. I tried to unite several influential factors which can help us to see and analyze the overall situation and the problems which Georgia faces for a very long time.

Bibliography 1. Anable, D. (2006). The Role of Georgia's media - And Western aid - In the Rose Revolution. Harvard International Journal of Press/politics 11 (3) , 7-43.

2. Aprasidze, D. (2012). Georgia - Nations in Transit. Tbilisi: Freedom House.

3. Askarov, Z., & Doucouliagos, H. (2013). Does aid improve democracy and governance? A meta-regression analysis. Public Choice Volume 157, Issue 3 , 601-628.

4. Balboa, J., & Medalla, E. M. (2006). Anti-Corruption and Governance: The Philippine Experience. Viet Nam: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.

5. Bassiouni, C., Beetham, D., Beevi, J. M., Boye, A.-E. K., El Mor, A., Kubiak, H., et al. (1998). Democracy: Its Principles and Achievement. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union .

6. Brown, S. (2005). Foreign aid and democracy promotion: Lessons from Africa. The European Journal of Development Research 17, no. 2 .

7. Casula, P. (2015). Five Days of War and Olympus Inferno: the 2008 South Ossetia war in Russian and Western popular culture. Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, Vol. 9, No. 2 , 110-125.

8. Chirstophe, B. (2004). Understanding Politics in Georgia. Aarhus: DEMSTAR Research Report No. 22. Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus .

9. Cooley, A. (2008). How the West failed Georgia. Current History , 342.

10. Corso, M. (2005, May 10). Bush Visit to Georgia is a Great Political Victory-- Saakashvili. Retrieved May 4, 2016, from Eurasianet: http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav051105.shtml

11. Dahl, R. A. (1889). Democracy and Its Critics. Yale: New Haven: Yale University Press.

12. DOS. (2005). An Independent Judiciary. Washington : US Department of State.

13. Dun, F. v. (2005, November 28). Hobbesian Democrac. Retrieved April 18, 2016, from Website Frank Van Dun: http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Articles/Hobbesian%20democracy.pdf

14. Ehrenfeld, D. (2004). Foreign Aid Effectiveness, Political Rights and Bilateral Distribution. The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance , 1.

15. Engdahl, F. W. (2008, August 12). The Puppet Masters Behind Georgia President Saakashvili. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from Geopolitics - Geoeconomics: http://www.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Saakashvili/saakashvili.html

16. EPRC. (2013). Elite corruption and its Ecconomic qonsequenses. Tbilisi: Economic POlicy Research Center.

17. Fairbanks, C. H. (2012, September 24). Georgia's Prison Rape Scandal—and What It Says About the Rose Revolution. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/georgias-prison-rape-scandal-and- what-it-says-about-the-rose-revolution/262720/

18. Fawn, R. (2014). Georgia: Revolution adn War. New York: Routledge.

19. George, A. L., & Bennett., A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.

20. Georgia, C. (2006, March 7). Sensational Assasination is still the main political standoff. Retrieved April 27, 2016, from Civili.ge: http://www.civil.ge/geo/article.php?id=11961

21. House, F. (2003-2013). Georgia - Freedom of the Press. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2005/georgia

22. House, F. (2003). Georgia. New York: Freedom House.

23. International, T. (2003-2013). corruption perseptions Index. Berlin: Transparency International the global coalition against corruption.

24. Jalaghania, R. (2010). Monopoly - The cynic scheme of corruption. Tbilisi: Goeorgian Agency of Information.

25. Kamens, H. (2014, March 25). Death of Georgian PM Zurab Zhvania: was it murder? Retrieved March 29, 2016, from Neo New Eastern Outlook: http://journal- neo.org/2014/03/25/death-of-georgian-pm-zurab-zhvania-was-it-murder/

26. Kandelaki, G. (2006). Georgia’s Rose Revolution A Participant's Perspective. Washington: United States InsInsInstitute of Peace.

27. Kersting, E. (2014). Aid and democracy redux. European Economic Review .

28. Kunchulia, L. (2014). The expence of Ex-president and the signs of elite corruption. Radio Freedom .

29. Laborin, M. B. (2011). Mock Democracies: Authoritarian Cover-ups. Journal of International affairs Vol 65, No 1 Spring/Summer , 254-256.

30. Landman, T. (2007). Developing Democracy: Concepts, Measures, and Empirical Relationhips. Essex: Centre of Democratic Governance Department of Government.

31. Lazarus, J. (2010). Neo-liberal State Building and Western "Democracy Promotion" the case of Georgia. Prepared for delivery at the 2010 SGIR 7th Pan European Conference on International Relations, Stockholm, Sweden, September 9-11,2010. Oxford: st Anthony's College University of Oxford .

32. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: The Origins and Dynamics of Hybrid Regimes in the Post-Cold War Era. Cambridge: University of Toronto.

33. Lincoln, M. (2012). Georgia: The Issue is Not Democracy. Survival (00396338). Apr/May2012, Vol. 54 Issue 2, , 102.

34. Manicas, P. T. (1981 ). MONTESQUIEU AND THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY VISION OF. HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT Vol. II. No. 2 .

35. Markey, D. (2016, January 11). What Does Centralization in Government Mean? Retrieved April 4, 2016, from Synonim : http://classroom.synonym.com/centralization-government- mean-8643.html

36. Markozashvili, L. (2014). Transition toward democracy – Georgian problems. In Political Science Review (pp. 185-202). Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Nauk Politycznych i Dziennikarstwa UAM.

37. Matsaberidze, M. (2003). Bussiness and Politics in Georgia. Tbilisi: Social Sciences Centre.

38. Mdzinarishvili, B. (2012, September 19). Democracy has died in Georgia. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from Georgia & World: http://www.geworld.ge/View.php?ArtId=2111&lang=en

39. Mitchel A., L. (2009). Uncertain Democracy: U.S. Foreign Policy and Georgia's Rose Revolution. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

40. Mitchell, L. A. (2006). Democracy in Georgia Since the Rose Revolution. Orbis Volume 50, Issue 4 , 669–676.

41. Mitchell, L. A. (2006). Democracy in Georgia Since the Rose Revolution. Orbis, Volume 50, Issue 4 , 669–676.

42. Mitchell, L. (2008). Uncertain Democracy: U.S. Foreign policy and Georgia's Rose Revolution. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

43. Muskhelishvili, M., & Jorjoliani, G. (2009). Georgia's ongoing struggle for a better future contnued: democracy promotion though civil society development. Tbilisi: Democratization.

44. Nodia, G. (2012). Crisis of Democracz in Georgia? Views, Wazs and Resources of Democratic Consolidation . Tbilisi: The Caucasus centre of f Peace, Democracz and Development .

45. Nodia, G. (2014). External Influence and Democratization. The Revenge of Politics. Journal of Democracy , 139-150.

46. Nodia, G. (2011, August 24). Georgian democracy: three rows and a lesson. Retrieved April 23, 2016, from OpenDemocracy free thining for the world: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ghia-nodia/georgian-democracy-three-rows-and-lesson

47. Ormeci, O. (2014, May 29). Deffining and Studying Democratic Transition. Retrieved April 24, 2016, from Academic Politics: http://politikaakademisi.org/2014/05/29/defining-and- studying-democratic-transition/

48. OSGF. (2014). Local Democracy Development 2014-2016. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from Open Society Georgia Foundation: http://www.osgf.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=188

49. Paing, A. M. (2015). The Relationship between Foreign Aid and Democratization in Myanmar in respect to Civil Society. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.

50. Papava, V. (Tbilisi). The Political Economy of Georgia's Rose Revolution. 2006: Orbis .

51. Pokleba, N. (2016). Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. Routledge , 235-253.

52. Politics. (2013, August 1). 'IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING THAT ZHVANIA WAS KILLED'. Retrieved March 29, 2016, from Georgian Journal: http://www.georgianjournal.ge/politics/24294-it-was-clear-from-the-beginning-that-zhvania- was-killed.html

53. Ramprabha, K. (2015, April 7). Centralization and Decentralization. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from Management Study Guide: http://www.managementstudyguide.com/centralization_decentralization.htm

54. Rekhviashvili, J. (2012, May 19). US-Georgia - Value=based Relations. Retrieved April 23, 2016, from Radio Freedom: http://www.radiotavisupleba.ge/content/usa- georgia/24585142.html

55. Sanadze, V. (2013, May 17). Influence of the USA on Georgian State Formation . Retrieved April 23, 2016, from Resonans: http://resonancedaily.com/index.php?id_rub=11&id_artc=15592

56. Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What Democracy is... and is not. Journal of Democracy Volume 2 , 103-110.

57. Schumpeter, J. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy . New York: Harper & Row.

58. Shelley, L., Scott, E. L., & Latta, A. (2007). Organized Crime and Corruption in Georgia. London and New York: Routledge Transnational Crime and Corruption.

59. Siegel, R. (2005, September 15). Georgia's National Police Corruption Project. Retrieved March 19, 2016, from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4849472

60. Slade, G. (2012, September 24). Georgia's prisons: roots of scandal. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from Open Democracy free thinking for the world: https://www.opendemocracy.net/gavin-slade/georgias-prisons-roots-of-scandal

61. Slade, G., & Kupatadze, A. (2014, October 1). The failed "mental revolution": Georgia, crime and criminal justice. Retrieved April 23, 2016, from OpenDemocracy. Free thinking for worl: https://www.opendemocracy.net/gavin-slade-alexander-kupatadze/failed-mental-revolution- georgia-crime-and-criminal-justice

62. Szayna, T. S., Byman, D. L., Bankes, S. C., Eaton, D., Jones, S. G., Mullins, R. E., et al. (2001). The Emergence of Peer Competitor.s A Framework for Analysis. Santa Monica: Rand Arroyo Center.

63. Tsuladze, L. (2008). Quantitavie Research methods in Social research. Tbilisi: The center of social sciences.

64. Ubilava, I. (2012, February 29). Saakashvili's Democracy or dieregarded totalitarism. Retrieved April 20, 2016, from Georgia and the World: http://geworld.ge/View.php?ArtId=3368&lang=ge&Title=%C2%ABsaakaSvilis+demokratia %C2%BB,+Tu+wayruebuli+totalitarizmi

65. UNDP. (2010). Measuring Democracy and Democratic Governance in a post-2015 Development Framework. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

66. UNISEF. (2009). Education in Georgia. New York: The United Nations Children's Emergency Fund.

67. Uprety, U. (2011). A Reflection on the Legal Framework for civil Society in Nepal. The international Journal on Not-for-Profit law. Volume 13, Issue 3, .

68. USAID. (2015, October 15). Georgia - History. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from USAID from the American People: https://www.usaid.gov/georgia/history

69. USAID. (2015, October 6). Who We are. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from USAID from the American People: https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are

70. Watch, H. R. (2007). Crossing the Line. Georgia’s Violent Dispersal of Protestors and Raid on Imedi Television. Tbilisi.

71. Weeks, M. (2008, November 20). Georgians overthrow a dictator (Rose Revolution), 2003. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from Global Non-violent Action Database: https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/georgians-overthrow-dictator-rose-revolution-2003

72. Wright, J. (2009). How Foreign Aid Can Foster Democratization in Authoritarian Regimes. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 53, No. 3 , 552-571.

73. Youngs, R. (2006). Survey of European Democracy Promotion policies 2000-6. In democratization Working Papers. Madrid : Fundacion para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Dialogo Exterior (FRIDE) & Europeam Council for Foreign Relations.

74. Zeeb, B. (2013, July 29). Centralization and Democratization can go hand in hand! Retrieved March 17, 2016, from Project for Democratic Union: http://www.democraticunion.eu/2013/07/centralization-before-democratization/

75. Zurabishvili, T. (2006). Qualitative Methods in Social Research. Tbilisi: Centre of Social Sciences.