Ellen Barry, writing in the International Herald Tribune – the global edition of the New York Times – on October 8 describes how the “First week in spotlight shows back and forth of wealthy political novice.” We know that Ivanishvili is the wealthiest man in Georgia. We know that he has no political experience. As Thomas de Waal is quoted in the article as saying; “He is a page with a lot of blank spaces…” We know that Ivanishvili recommended that President Saakashvili resign, panicking Western capitals, only to change soon after.
We also know that Georgia has been a focal point for considerable United States aid. Georgia has received huge resources given its position on the southern border of Russia as well as an important transit passage for gas, oil and military equipment. It is helpful to remember that President George W. Bush visited Tbilisi in May 2005, calling Georgia a “beacon of democracy.” Part of the highway between the capital and airport is still called the George Bush highway with his picture on a prominent wall. It is also helpful to remember that Georgia has been promised to be a future member of NATO.
While analysts are trying to figure out who is Mr. Ivanishvili, it might be time to start thinking about what happened to Mr. Saakashvili. Not only was the victory by Ivanishvili a definite surprise – polls had him behind by 20 points a month before the election – but the defeat of Mr. Saakashvili is noteworthy as well. The Columbia University educated darling of the West led the Rose Revolution in 2003, became President of Georgia in 2004 and was supposed to have a high approval rating as recently as 2010. Videos of abuses in Georgian prisons before the elections caused quite an uproar, but the downfall of President Saakashvili was the culmination of a gradual disillusionment by the Georgian people with someone who had become autocratic, inconsistent, and was often blamed for the catastrophic war with Russia in August 2008 which saw Abkhazia and South Ossetia split away from Georgia. While Ivanishvili’s policy toward Russia is not yet clear, it seems to be more diplomatic than the provoking attitude Saakashvili had toward the leader of Georgia’s large northern neighbor.
The West, especially the United States, heavily invested in Saakashvili and Georgia. The possibility of having a western oriented leader on Russia’s border was part of the post 1989 euphoria that included Ukraine as well. Geopolitics and personality made Saakashvili an ideal leader to support. The election results seem to indicate that the Georgian people have had enough. Have they had enough of Saakashvili as a person, or have had had enough of certain western ideas he was supposed to represent remains to be seen.
An autocratic ruler was overthrown in Libya. Syrian rebels are struggling to overthrow the current ruler. In both cases, the West was dissatisfied with the ruling regime, but hesitant to fully support the unknown opposition. In the Georgian case, there was whole hearted support for Saakashvili post 1989. Whatever the future brings with Ivanishvili, the downfall of Saakashvili represents a resounding failure.