Belgium (Brussels Morning Newspaper), Last Monday in Tbilisi, with the sounds of unrest not far off, the Georgian parliament’s legal committee gathered for a decisive moment. Within the brief span of 67 seconds, they reached a consensus on a controversial piece of legislation, a law that many on Roestaveli Avenue, outside the parliament, loudly opposed. As the committee members voted, the echoes of the protesters’ voices surely penetrated the walls of the parliament—a witness to the growing tensions within the nation.
This vote concluded a weekend charged with public dissent. Starting Saturday night, Tbilisi’s streets swelled with tens of thousands of citizens voicing their displeasure against what has been dubbed the “Russian Law.” Officially named the “Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence,” its critics argue it nudges Georgia closer to Russian influence, potentially obstructing the nation’s path towards European Union integration.
The scale of the protests was unprecedented, peaking as the largest since the demonstrations began nearly a month earlier. It was the eve of the third and final vote on the law, and many protesters, undeterred by the rain, stayed out. They filled the night with music and dancing, the European flags they carried billowing against the dark sky, a visual plea for their geopolitical aspirations.
Come Tuesday, the full parliament was slated to cast their votes, a procedure seen more as a formality than a genuine electoral process. The ruling party, Georgian Dream, although short of a majority on its own with 74 seats out of 150, found an ally in the People’s Power party, securing a combined strength of 83 votes—enough to override any opposition. It seemed inevitable too that President Salome Zurabishvili, a declared critic of both the law and the ruling party, would veto it, only for her veto to be overridden by the parliamentary majority.
The “Russian Law” stands as a poignant symbol of the deep divisions slicing through the heart of Georgia, a nation of 3.7 million people. It wasn’t the first time Georgian Dream had attempted to pass such legislation; a similar effort more than a year prior was quashed by mass protests. However, the prevailing sentiment among Georgians to join the EU has only strengthened since. A recent survey by the U.S.-based International Republican Institute revealed a striking 89 percent support for EU membership, marking a four-point increase from the previous poll.
The law itself aims to cast light on the financial workings of NGOs and media outlets by tagging those with over 20% foreign funding as “foreign agents.” This label, fraught with negative connotations, tends to deter investors and advertisers and comes bundled with a host of other restrictions. Such measures, while perhaps intended to promote transparency, are seen by many as a move to stifle dissent and control the narrative within the country, setting a precarious stage for the future of democracy in Georgia.
The introduction of the “Russian Law” has sparked a wave of concern among independent journalists in Georgia, reminiscent of the situation in Russia after a similar law was enacted in 2012. Renowned media outlets like Novaya Gazeta and Meduza found themselves compelled to relocate abroad to maintain their editorial independence. The Georgian legislation also spells trouble for numerous foundations that are pivotal in the fight against corruption and in promoting democratic values and civil society.
Ironically, while Georgian Dream officially supports the country’s EU accession, they argue that this law is a necessary step to counteract what they describe as externally imposed societal divisions. At a press conference, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze portrayed the law as reflective of the Georgian populace’s will, claiming it would foster greater peace, tranquility, and stability by making NGO and media financials transparent.
Since its foundation in 2012 by the oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, the Georgian Dream has significantly influenced the country’s political landscape. Though Ivanishvili holds only a ceremonial title within the party today, his influence is profound and extends deeply into both party and governmental affairs. In a rare public address on April 29, he sharply criticized Western influence, NGOs, and his incarcerated political rival, Micheïl Saakashvili.
Detractors of the Georgian Dream view the “Russian Law” as a mechanism primarily designed to safeguard the political and financial dominion of Ivanishvili and his associates. They argue it targets the robust civil society and independent media in Georgia that are crucial in exposing government corruption and malpractices.
With parliamentary elections approaching in October, Georgian Dream is angling for a fourth term after securing wins in 2012, 2016, and 2020. Meanwhile, Saakashvili’s United National Movement appears to have receded from the forefront of the ongoing protests, with the opposition otherwise appearing fragmented.
For the Georgian protesters, the stakes extend beyond the immediate implications of the “Russian Law.” They view their struggle as a defining moment for their nation: a choice between succumbing to an authoritarian model reminiscent of Russia or embracing the liberties associated with European alignment. This moment in Georgian history draws parallels to Ukraine’s Maidan revolution in 2014, which resulted in the ousting of its pro-Russian leader.
Amid these national tensions, the European Union has not remained silent. After granting Georgia candidate status in December, the EU has voiced serious concerns about the new law. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, stated unequivocally that the legislation contradicts EU values and could jeopardize Georgia’s European trajectory. Echoing this sentiment during his visit to Tbilisi, German parliamentarian Michael Roth cautioned that EU accession talks would be off the table should the law pass. This aligns with the fears of many Georgians, who see the law not just as a local issue but as a critical factor in their future relationship with Europe.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. As always, we remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.Sincerely, The Brussels Morning Team
