© Cover Photo: Ezz Gaber
Author
Kristina Pitalskaya | Brussels, Belgium
Georgia is currently experiencing an unprecedented wave of nationwide protests following the 26 October parliamentary elections. These demonstrations escalated after the Georgian Dream party announced on 28 November that it would suspend the country’s EU integration process until 2028. While Georgians are not typically known for protesting against domestic socio-economic issues, they are relentless in defending their constitutional aspiration for a European future. Ongoing protests however have transformed into more than a defense of Georgia’s European path – they represent an existential struggle for sovereignty, freedom without violence, and the right to choose the country’s direction outside Russia’s influence.
The ongoing demonstrations drew attention both domestically and internationally, strengthening debates about their potential impact on Georgia’s political landscape. Unlike previous protests, these ones are characterized by a decentralized structure, grassroots ownership, and broad regional participation with no direct party leadership. This raises a critical question: does the absence of centralized leadership signal a new era of activism, or does it hinder the chances of success as the protests enter their second month?
What makes these protests different?
Never before has Georgia witnessed such a long and well-organized horizontal protest movement. Several factors distinguish these protests from earlier demonstrations.
Clear demands:
The protesters have articulated four main demands: (1) release all political prisoners (currently up to 500 individuals); (2) hold free and fair elections under an independent election administration; (3) return to the path of EU integration; and (4) impose EU and US sanctions on those responsible for the violence and the suspension of EU integration. These demands have unified protesters across the country and provided a clear end goal.
Grassroots mobilization:
The protest is driven by grassroots efforts, with individuals, civic groups, and local communities organizing independently through use of digital platforms, thus, increasing a sense of empowerment. Protesters have organized daily thematic demonstrations – ranging from neighborhood marches to student rallies and farmer protests – showcasing an inclusive and diverse participation. This inclusivity has strengthened the movement’s legitimacy and protected it from accusations of political manipulation.
Regional participation:
Traditionally, protests in Georgia have been concentrated in Tbilisi. However, the ongoing demonstrations have expanded to at least 43 cities and towns across various regions, reflecting nationwide dissatisfaction. Even ethnic minorities, often considered loyal to the Georgian Dream party, have joined the protests. This regional dimension underscores the depth of general public opposition and challenges the government’s narrative, showcasing a collective resistance that overcomes urban-rural divides.
Absence of direct party leadership:
The lack of direct party leadership has democratized the movement, allowing civil society, grassroots groups, and individual activists to drive the agenda. New faces have emerged, promoting pluralistic voices and moving beyond the traditional power structures of party politics. While this horizontal structure has energized the protests in the beginning, it also poses a challenge in keeping the momentum and formulating a unified strategy to confront a government that shows no sign of stepping back.
Is the absence of party leadership a strength or weakness?
The absence of party leadership has sparked debate, particularly regarding the role of outgoing president Salome Zourabichvili. She has openly supported the protests and criticized the Georgian Dream government, becoming a de-facto leader of the movement. Her advocacy for European integration and calls for unity have resonated with many. As a directly elected president, Zourabichvili has used her legitimacy to urge negotiations with oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili before her term ends on December 29.
However, her impact on the regime’s power structures remains limited. As her term nears its end, she faces a dilemma: should she position herself as a figurehead advocating for Georgia’s European aspirations, or directly align with opposition parties to foster the unity needed for political change? While Zourabichvili’s continued involvement could lend continued credibility to the protests, her effectiveness will depend on her ability to transition from symbolic leadership to active political engagement.
To succeed, the movement must transform its decentralized structure into a model of shared leadership between Zourabichvili and political parties. This would enable protesters to maintain inclusivity while challenging the government’s portrayal of the movement as fragmented and lacking strategy.
International attention and the role of the EU
The crisis in Georgia has unfolded against a backdrop of international non-recognition of the results of the recent parliamentary elections. Allegations of electoral fraud in October and the Georgian Dream’s subsequent actions were condemned by the international community. This attention has mobilized protesters, who see their struggle as part of a broader battle for shared European values, including democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.
While international support has inspired Georgians, many feel that expressions of concern are not enough. Protesters are calling for more decisive and concrete action, particularly from the EU. The ruling Georgian Dream party appears to be hoping for the protests to lose momentum over time, proving the need for urgent international pressure.
The new EU leadership must act decisively and take concrete steps to support Georgia’s democratic aspirations. Non-recognition of the election results, diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions, and support for civil society will be critical. Georgia is not just fighting for its own democratic survival but also defending European values at a critical geopolitical fault line. The stakes are too high to allow another country to drift into Russia’s sphere of influence. The incoming Polish Presidency of the EU Council in January 2025 presents an opportunity for the EU to take a firm stance.
To achieve meaningful change, a dual approach is required:
Domestically:
The short-term goal is for the Georgian Dream party to agree to new elections, as proposed by President Zourabichvili. However, the regime’s leadership shows no sign of stepping back. The long-term scenario involves continued protests that could eventually dismantle the ruling regime. Here, the absence of centralized political leadership may slow the process, emphasizing the need for strategic alignment and unity.
Internationally:
Beyond sanctions and diplomatic pressure, the EU and US must provide tangible support for Georgia’s pro-European aspirations. Recognizing the Georgian people’s clear demands – the release of political prisoners and new, fair elections – is crucial. Concrete actions from the international community could bolster the movement’s momentum and ensure that Georgia’s European dreams remain within reach.
Conclusion
The evolution of protest dynamics in Georgia highlights both the potential and the challenges of decentralized, grassroots activism. But it also raises critical questions about the future of Georgian democracy and the possibility of political change, which could be redefined by the outcome of these protests.
Regardless of the government’s real motives behind its infamous announcement on 28 November, the consequences seem to have been unforeseen. Perhaps, after a cycle of anti-government protests in recent years, followed by a temporary quiet following the post-election protests in October, the ruling party could have miscalculated that it could suppress anticipated protests by taking a bold stance. However, the Georgian Dream party underestimated the level of self-organization among the Georgian people when faced with open threats to their sovereignty and European aspirations.
Described by some as the “last fight for democracy,” these protests represent yet another relentless effort by the Georgian people to demonstrate not only their commitment to European values but also their understanding of the sacrifices required to defend them. Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to say that whether this movement achieves meaningful change or fades into history will depend equally on the Georgian people’s ability to balance inclusivity with strategic coherence and the international community’s readiness to support them with concrete, measurable actions during this decisive moment – not just for Georgia, but for the principles of democracy and self-determination across the region.
