If there is one thing more unpredictable than the behaviour of anti-western leaders , it is the behaviour of the west’s self-anointed friends. Mikheil Saakashvili, who swept to power in Georgia nine years ago in the rose revolution, used to be the darling of Washington and Brussels. Young, aggressive, Atlanticist, intent on securing membership of Nato, Saakashvili appeared straight out of central casting. To the west, his message – in fluent English – was simple: back me and you will help a young democracy in the volatile Caucasus escape the neo-Soviet orbit of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Disaster ensued. In 2008, Saakashvili attacked a rebel enclave, South Ossetia – with substantial provocation from Moscow – and lost it permanently. One-fifth of Georgia’s territory is now occupied by Russian troops and pro-Russian separatists. Saakashvili’s rashness and Russia’s brutal reaction stopped Nato’s eastward expansion dead in its tracks.
The rose revolution grew out of protests against electoral fraud. Eduard Shevardnadze’s Georgia was not a tyranny, but it was terminally corrupt. Like the roads, the writ of the state expired a few kilometres out of the capital, Tbilisi. Almost a decade on, the revolution’s promise on this has been met. Corruption is no longer a tool of government and as a result Georgia’s prison population has quadrupled.
That would have been used as a boast by Saakashvili until 11 days ago, when video clips showing prison inmates being sodomised by broom handles were aired by two opposition television stations. The clips revealed the other face of Saakashvili’s revolution – its incipient and growing authoritarianism. Since 2003, there has been no change of power through elections, and in Monday’s parliamentary elections Saakashvili’s ruling United National Movement is determined to keep it that way. Electoral lists have been doctored, opposition figures and human rights activists have been attacked and arrested. Satellite trucks belonging to opposition channels have been damaged. Disproportionate financial sanctions have been imposed for violations of election law.
The target of Saakashvili’s fear is Bidzina Ivanishvili, an oligarch whose wealth is equal to half of Georgia’s GDP. After years of quiet philanthropy, Ivanishvili burst on to the scene as the head of the Georgian Dream coalition. Accused of being a creature of the Kremlin and of attempting to buy votes, he has seen his support mushroom and stands a good chance under free elections. Saakashvili faces the biggest challenge to his authority yet. He is due to stand down as president next year, but under constitutional changes, power will transfer to the prime minister. Who does this remind you of? Vladimir Putin? Surely not.