Interviewer: Nargiza Arjevanidze

The Social Justice Center presents an interview with Ronald Grigor Suny, the William H. Sewell Jr. Distinguished University Professor of History and Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan, as well as Emeritus Professor of Political Science and History at the University of Chicago.

For decades, Professor Suny’s research has focused on questions of nationalism, political and social movements, and the non-Russian nationalities of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, particularly those of the South Caucasus. He is the author of The Making of the Georgian Nation (Indiana University Press, 1988, 1994); The Baku Commune, 1917-1918: Class and Nationality in the Russian Revolution (Princeton University Press, 1972); “They Can Live in the Desert But Nowhere Else”: A History of the Armenian Genocide (Princeton University Press, 2015), Stalin: Passage to Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020), among other works.

In a series of interviews addressing the current processes and ongoing political crisis in Georgia, we engaged with foreign scholars and experts who possess in-depth knowledge of the Georgian context and the broader region.

The interview questions explored, on one hand, the anxieties surrounding Georgia's path to European integration and the risks and threats posed by the Georgian government’s open confrontation with the West. On the other hand, they focused on the youth at the center of ongoing social protests in Georgia, exploring the reasons for and significance of their involvement in the current resistance movement. This series of interviews also seeks to identify possible solutions to the crisis by gathering perspectives from experts and scholars.

Q: The controversial foreign agent law is part of the shift towards authoritarianism, and considerable democratic backsliding. In your opinion, what geopolitical factors are underling this crisis in Georgia?

A: I would begin by thinking about what went on for the last 30 or 35 years. I am a historian, so I look back to understand what is going on at the present and where we are going to go in the future. And basically, what we see is a process of what I would call the unravelling of the Soviet Union – that is the breakup of the great empire, a federation or a pseudo-federation, that required all kinds of adjustments. We thought in 1991 that it would be relatively peaceful, but it was not.

We had over and over again wars, civil wars, ethnic wars. Georgia knows this well; Nagorno-Karabakh, now the Ukrainian war. All of that, including the Ukrainian war is part of the single process. Each of the countries of the former Soviet Union, like Georgia, is adjusting to a new reality. And the new reality is the major struggle between Russia and the West.

That is the broad context in which this is taking place. And Georgia, basically, at least, much of Georgia, including young people, have made a choice that they want to be with the West, that they are rejecting Russia, a country which has occupied some 20 per cent of Georgian territory and that wants to exercise its hegemonic powers over parts of the former Soviet Union, like Ukraine and the South Caucasus.

And this mobilization of young people is an amazing thing. It is amazing that young people, this new generation, has sided so definitely with the West and with democratic countries. And they are supported by the West; the EU has opened the door to Georgia; the United States is promoting its accession to the European Union. So great choices are being made now. And it’s an important – maybe it is an essential and dramatic turning point in the history of Georgia. I would say that Georgia, sadly, since the end of the Soviet Union, has been very unfortunate with its leaders.

If you think of who has led the country, people like Gamsakhurdia, Saakashvili and so forth, even Shevardnadze who was tolerating corruption, and now Ivanishvili. Georgia has been betrayed in a way by its leaders. It is young people, it is the new generation – akhali taoba, which is trying now to move Georgia in a different direction. They may fail in this particular moment, but they are the future. And eventually, new democratic, Western-oriented Georgia will triumph. That is my optimistic reading of this moment.

Q: I will return to my question about geopolitical shift. If we think about this geopolitical shift, what could be the geopolitical potential consequences? You said there was the shift away from the EU and the Euro-Atlantic integration has been undermined by the Georgian Dream government consistently. So, what can be the potential geopolitical consequences of this shift?

A: The political consequences at this moment are whether or not Georgia will become a western-style democratic, I would say, capitalist country integrated in the European Union and with great American influence or whether it will fall into the camp of authoritarian states like Russia, Hungary, and so forth. This is really a turning point of that sort, so it is an extremely important moment. Think about what is actually happening now. Because Russia stupidly and at great cost invaded Ukraine two years ago, it moved away from Europe decisively, away from the western world. In other words, Georgia is trying, or at least young people in Georgia are trying to move away from Russia at the same time that Russia, in the essence, has shifted away from the West, and even from the South Caucasus. Russia is not as involved anymore. Yes, it occupies places like South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but in fact, it basically gave up its role in defending Armenia and Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh in the recent crisis. So, Russia has also had a turning point and it seems to me that young generation in Georgia understands that the choices are the great ones, that Russia has retreated; it is a pariah state; it is not a model for further modern development of a European type, and Georgia, young Georgian people, want to make that choice. For reasons that I do not quite understand, other people, like Ivanishvili and Georgian Dream, have made a choice to move in a different direction and that is strange to me. Why would you drive Georgia backwards? Why go in the direction that is unhealthy in terms of politics and economics, openness, modernization towards Russia, that in fact offers very little to Georgia at this moment. There is no Soviet Union, and there is no democratic Russia. Russia is now the state that will hold Georgia back that will move it in an authoritarian direction, and it is extraordinarily important that young people win in this struggle toward a more democratic, Western, open Georgia.

Q: To follow up on the social protest in which young people have mobilized, especially Gen Z. It is interesting that when we observe their participation on the one hand they are very patriotic: they wave the Georgian flag, dance traditional dances, but on the other hand, their symbolism is also interesting, because they are very much driven by values such as equality, freedom, etc. So, we see that this kind of mobilization was not expected from the younger generation because they had not been part of mass protests held earlier, but especially in relation to this law, which has been named the Russian law, Gen Z is very active. We can say that this is the generation, that since the collapse of the Soviet Union is the most patriotic one. So, we are trying to understand what could have caused this significant shift in political consciousness and the political thinking of the young people who are part of this resistant movement.

A: I would make a distinction between patriotism as you say and what I might call nationalism. So, patriotism is the idea that you defend and promote your own country in order that it becomes more virtuous, progressive, democratic, egalitarian, socially just. Nationalism, on the other hand, is the view that I defend my country, right or wrong, a kind of blind chauvinism. I think this generation of people on the street, with their Georgian flags, and by the way, I have seen Georgian flags - the Saakashvili flag with the crosses, I have seen the old Menshevik democratic Georgian flags of 1918-1921, I have seen Ukrainian flags as well as American flags. So, there is a cosmopolitan patriotism. This is the idea that Georgia wants to join the most progressive, socially just democratic countries in the world. It is not the old, more chauvinistic Georgian nationalism which destroyed the country at the time that it left the Soviet Union, that drove that small little Georgia into civil war, ethnic war and the loss of certain provinces, certain areas like Abkhazia and South Ossetia, because the government was proclaiming Georgia for Georgians, rather than a more cosmopolitan, multinational patriotism. Georgia is Georgia. Georgia is an ethno-national state, but it is a state also with minorities – Armenians, Azerbaijanis and others that live in that country. And it seems to me, if I am correct, that this more cosmopolitan patriotism is open to the non-Georgian minorities, who by the way, have lived as stumrebi, as guests, as citizens, not just stumrebi, because you can invite stumrebi to live too, but as real people who belong to Georgia, including, by the way, my own father, who lived here at the time of the revolution and knew Georgian well. There is a difference between what I am calling democratic, cosmopolitan, multinational patriotism and chauvinistic, narrow-minded nationalism that you do find in Georgia as represented by reactionary forces, I hate to say this, like the Georgian orthodox church and those parts of Georgian Dream that want to drive Georgia backwards into the Russian fold.

Q: Yes, there is this nature of the protest that this unity, national unity, is very diverse, cosmopolitan as you say and also inclusive, rather than exclusive. There are many different ethnic groups participating and what I was trying to add was that as you mentioned this very profound shift of the Georgian Dream government will threaten modern and more cosmopolitan developments. Do you see that what we are witnessing now, will threaten this specific process of nation building?

A: Absolutely. There are moments in a nation’s history when they face a choice, and they can make a wrong choice. I worry at the moment about my own country – the United States which could in November make a very wrong choice and move away from democratic society. This can happen any time. There are countries that do not have choices, like Azerbaijan at the moment. It is a reactionary dictatorship in the hands of a single family. There is no choice in Azerbaijan. But in Georgia and Armenia, there are choices. And the public has to decide – are we moving towards democracy, which at this moment in history means towards the democratic West or do we side with those growing reactionary authoritarian nationalistic populistic forces that are already evident in Russia, in Hungary and throughout Europe where you have a move towards the right, towards more reactionary nationalisms, building walls, getting rid of foreigners, etc. It is a moment of great choice, and I am hopeful, and I am always optimistic about Georgia, and also, I hope for Armenia as well. The reason I am optimistic is because that is a new generation that has somehow come to realize - because it’s their future – that they want to move on the path of democratic Europe. And hopefully Georgia will learn from its own traditions. Remember, you have many traditions. There are reactionary traditions in Georgia, there are chauvinistic traditions, but there are also democratic – even social-democratic traditions, like the first Georgian republic, which scholars in Georgia are trying to resurrect and amplify and demonstrate. You had the most amazing moment in Georgian history at the end of the 19^th and the beginning of the 20^th century, when a little country, Georgia, became the first country that was moving from a peasant country into a social-democratic future. That is a tradition that can be revived. It is part of your history. So, we have to learn about it and we have to move forward. And, hopefully, Europe is supporting that, the United States is supporting that, and unfortunately, at the moment, you have to fight hard to preserve that possibility.

Q: And if we think about the solutions. There is a profound polarization in society especially after the introduction of the foreign agent law. On the one hand, society is divided profoundly, and on the other hand, there is almost a non-existent trust towards political parties – both the opposition and the ruling party, and the opposition is quite weak. On the other hand, the ruling party has consolidated considerable power – both political and economic. So, we are in this crisis. On the one hand there a very profound mistrust towards the opposition, and also there is this political and social division within the society. We do not see how this can be overcome and how this can be solved – this situation. I know, it is very difficult to have some kind of a prescription in this situation, but what do you think what could be ways out of this crisis?

A: It is not unusual. It is very familiar in this moment of world history that countries are polarized. If you look at the United States, it is completely divided almost half and half. The elections in the fall might be decided by those who know the least about politics, who do not pay attention because the country is so divided. You see this same division in many European countries, like France and Italy, Spain and others. And there is a trend toward more authoritarian governments that some think can solve or overcome this polarization. But I would say from my experience and also by looking back into history, it does not work. Yes, there can be moments, crises, like 1922 in Italy, or 1933 in Germany, when the country swings quickly for whatever reason to the right, and towards something like authoritarianism or fascism, but there are also turning points that occur in another direction and it seems to me that as difficult as it is to imagine at the moment, a democratic resolution of the crisis, because of people who hold power, a turn to the right cannot be a permanent solution. It is a momentary solution. They will win probably at this moment and overcome the veto. That seems possible. But how do you deal with the next generation, how, in fact, are you going to integrate the people who represent the future of Georgia? Some accommodation has to be made. Now, if, in fact, the law passes, and the government implements that law and we end transparency in Georgia, and civil society organizations are destroyed, then you will move in a direction which is very undesirable. I actually do not think that will happen. I do not think that you can easily destroy what has been built up in the last 30-40 years. What is the great power that exists in Georgia and Armenia, but not in Azerbaijan? The development and the articulation of civil society. There is more than the state, there is civil society, there are all kinds of organizations that are fighting, like my good friend Giorgi Kldiashvili and his group, like your group, which are trying to hold their fingers in a dike against the authoritarian trends. In order to destroy that civil society, you would have to create a police state, the coercive apparatus to put down the most productive democratic progressive forces in Georgia. That is a possibility. We have seen something like that through democratic means in countries like Hungary. But we have also seen, as recently in Poland, that people can organize and vote in what are still open elections of one kind or another and change the direction of the country. I cannot predict. I am not a prophet. I am a historian, and I look backwards to understand the present. I cannot predict the future. But it seems to me it would be very difficult to think of a Georgia that moves in a direction like Azerbaijan. I don’t think that is in the cards. What is more likely is that Georgia, like Armenia, will move through a chaotic period of democratic organization, reconsideration, struggle, demonstrations, protests until the stable core of democratic organizations, unified oppositions, are able to come to power. As I said before, Georgia, has been unlucky in its leaders. When it thought it could make a democratic revolution, as in Rose Revolution against the Shevardnadze government, it failed to do that for variety of reasons, mainly the incompetence and even the near lunacy of the leadership. But there are other possibilities in the future. So, it’s very important that young people remain optimistic and hopeful about the future. Then they’ll go out in the streets because it’s their future.

Q: You mentioned leaders, and that’s really interesting, Georgian history is interesting to look back when we talk about leaders. But this protest movement has no distinct leader. In fact, no leader at all. Do you think it can be an advantage for the movement?

A: There is much scholarship written and journalism written about leaderless movements, and there were movements a decade or so ago – if you think of the Arab Spring, if you think of the Occupy movements in the United States and Europe. There were movements that thought we can do without leaders. And they evaporated. People have to go home, they have to go to work, they have to go to school, they leave Rustaveli Avenue, they go home and there is no movement. And the wrong people then come to power. Yes, you absolutely need organization, and you need leadership. And you have to find that and work harder at that. Now, that does not mean that you have to necessarily move to the other extreme. The other extreme would be something like Lenin and the Bolsheviks. They were leaders and those leaders eventually came to power, and they took the country in a certain direction. So, between something like vanguard parties and leaderless, movements, there has to be a way to organize in a democratic way. I can think of examples like that. Again, I turn to places like Poland, which did create a movement, a coalition of parties that brought Donald Tusk to power recently. So, it seems that Georgians, particularly these younger Georgians, have to get together, sit down and think about how can we have a movement that also stays in power, that not only can move the government out of power, but also, in a democratic way, creates a new government with a vision toward democracy, social justice, egalitarianism, and presumably a more Western orientation. I am not saying it’s easy. I have no formula for that. I live far away, and we have our own problems in the United States which is also having really difficult times. But it seems to me in a small country like Georgia where people know each other, maybe it’s even easier. Think about it. If you came together with a more cosmopolitan, multi-national, democratic government, that might be more attractive to those parts of Georgia, like Abkhazia and South Ossetia that have left and thrown their fortunes in with Russia. If Georgia becomes an attractive place, and Russia continues to be not so attractive, who knows what that future means for reuniting the country.

A: Thank you. You have mentioned, and that is rather interesting, the question of lost territories has been manipulated by the Georgian Dream government especially in relation to promising the return of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by 2030. This is quite a recent statement that was made on the Independence Day of Georgia by the Georgian Dream leader. Although within this shift away from Euro-Atlantic integration, from the west, most parts of the society see it impossible to solve the territorial problems without support from the West. Do you see it as problematic that they are manipulating the question of Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

A: I’ll tell you a story. Many years ago, I was at Stanford University and the Georgian prime minister came to speak. And he said: ‘we are going to join NATO and we are going to get Abkhazia and South Ossetia back in Georgia.’ And I very shyly raised my hand and said: ‘Those two things are very contradictory. In order to reunite the country, there has to be some kind of possible agreement with the power that occupies those areas – neighboring Russia. And clearly, becoming a member of NATO, that is not going to happen’. And we can see what such moves actually have generated in the conflict in Ukraine as well. So, in order to think clearly about the future, in order to think about the possibility of reunifying Georgia, one has to think much more boldly and much more outside the box. What I was proposing in my last answer, was that if Georgia is more attractive because it is democratic, because it is a real federation in which Abkhazia and South Ossetia will have autonomy of some kind within the Georgian federation, then maybe those people in those areas would be interested in coming back in. I am not sure that this is possible. I thought years ago that had Saakashvili decided when he practically eliminated the autonomy in the south-western part of Georgia, in Adjara, if he had, instead of eliminating it, shown that there can be some kind of autonomy, toleration of differences, etc. even though Adjarians are not that different from Georgians except by faith, maybe it would have been a model, a positive model to show to other parts of Georgia like Abkhazia and South Ossetia that we can live and tolerate and understand the multinationality of Georgia. You do not see the signs of that now. If you think of Javakheti, if you think of Marneuli in which other peoples live, there are not kinds of developmental policies that would lead Abkhazians and South Ossetians to think this is the country for all of us, not just Georgia for Georgians. So, there is a lot of political development and rethinking and imagination of what kind of country Georgia will be in the future. That has to be accomplished before it again emerges as a country that is tolerant, accepting, promoting, developing its multi-national character.

Q: I am left with the feeling that you are more optimistic, rather than pessimistic about the future of Georgia. Is it correct?

A: Absolutely. All you have to do, is to walk down the street in Tbilisi and you will see the enthusiasm, the energy, the joyfulness even in difficult times, and Georgia has had difficult times since the end of the Soviet Union, you see that enthusiasm, particularly among young people.

There were many formative experiences in the 70 years that Georgia was a member of the Soviet Union, that were actually positive. Georgia became more Georgian in the Soviet period, more people read Georgian, learned Georgian, sang Georgian than ever before.

I lived there then on many different occasions - I was studying. Those are things that can be brought up as positive achievements of the past on which a new Georgia can also be born. Georgia is now a country that, it seems to me, given the enthusiasm and the education of this young generation that has very expansive understanding of the potentials of the future. So why not be optimistic? I think optimism leads to the left, to progress, egalitarianism, democracy, social justice, and pessimism leads to the right, to authoritarianism and to narrow-minded nationalism. I will leave you with that.

Q: And this is a very good ending indeed. Thank you very much for finding time for this interview.