Modern authoritarianism does not require the use of military force or the suspension of the constitution. In today’s world, it manifests in a much more flexible form, revealed largely through legislation and administrative control.
Generalizing the current assessments of the Georgian reality leads us to the concept of the so-called “Dual State.” This is a socio-political state of affairs where two systems coexist side-by-side:
1. The Normative State: Characterized by the formal existence of all institutions typical of a state, as well as adherence to all formalistic requirements for the adoption and implementation of laws.
2. The Prerogative State: A system of intra-state relations based on so-called “extraordinary” rights, prerogatives, or privileges. This system has nothing in common with a normal state; here, power is exercised under the aegis of “current needs,” “urgent necessities,” or “national salvation.” Moreover, this “extraordinary” nature is often carried out by observing formalistic requirements at a basic level to mimic the normative state.
This is why the rejection of representative democracy, institutionality, and accountability does not happen all at once, but imperceptibly and undeclared. The aforementioned dual state is created not suddenly, but through a chain of various actions. While all these actions are logically connected, the chain unfolds in a way that suggests everything is “in place” and “working.” However, through the, initially gradual, then accelerating, deterioration of legislation, a legislative authoritarianism clothed in the “sovereign will of the people” takes root.
This is not yet a dictatorship, but it is a unique form of rigid management. Because it is flexible, being “everywhere and nowhere,” its existence is much longer-lasting and immune to change. In such times, there seems to be less ground for formal disputes, were it not for the essence of the process.
It is the essence of the process that defines the country’s vices: when elections are called an unequal and unfair “special electoral operation”; when courts exist in a state of nominal independence but factual subordination; and when “democracy” refers to a phenomenon practically emptied of all democratic markers. Ultimately, we collide with a procedurally and formally impenetrable reality where authoritarianism is carried out in the name of “legality” and through the means of “the law.” One manifestation of this is the subordination of the legislature at the expense of increasing executive discretion. Over time, the “extraordinary” nature of rights and prerogatives finally swallows the last facade of the normative state—including the executive branch itself.
Sounds Familiar?
The academic study of authoritarianism as a form of government developed relatively late. This necessity arose from the need to label a “middle-ground” form of government that emerged between democracy on one side, and dictatorship/totalitarianism on the other. This form clearly deviated from democracy, though it was not yet a full-scale dictatorship. Generally, authoritarianism differs from dictatorship by the absence of power concentration in a single hand (or center), the lack of a universally mandatory ideology, and the absence of means for total mass mobilization. Notably, unlike dictatorship, authoritarianism is characterized by limited, yet still present, pluralism.
Unfortunately, discussing these differences in the Georgian reality is not merely a matter of theoretical interest. The deviation from democracy, this “middle-ground” form, has created a very specific, bitter reality and a specific challenge for Georgian society. It is this unpleasant and dangerous stage of modern Georgian history that forces us to mention the main signs of authoritarian rule and reflect on the environment we inhabit and envision its future trajectory. Specifically:
Reliance on the Punitive Apparatus: A key component of authoritarian rule is maximum reliance on the punitive apparatus, the selective use of coercive measures, surveillance, and censorship. To avoid concentrating the repressive “fist” in one hand, these powers are distributed across several agencies. This prevents any single agency from accumulating excess power and becoming a “super-force.” In Georgia today, this trend is increasingly evident: in a country turned into a land of prohibitions, political will is directed toward the apparatus that enforces these prohibitions rather than improving governance. Consequently, financial resources are directed toward maintaining the machinery of coercion instead of creating a modern state system.
Exploitation of the Budget: To secure the loyalty (I intentionally avoid the word “devotion,” which carries a different weight) of the coercive apparatus, it is a mandatory practice to “exploit” the expenditure side of the state budget. However, using the budget is not the only way; using any alternative means to “raise” money is also an approved practice. This approach undermines the prestige of the “uniformed” ranks, sabotages state thinking within these structures, and turns them into servants of narrow group interests instead of servants of society. The logical result is the pervasive erosion of the national security system, ending in its total neutralization.
Targeted Propaganda: This involves a peculiar reading and narration of “oneself,” the people, and the country’s place and role. A story is woven to make people see “national unity” and “national interest” in a new way. Global or regional events are interpreted specifically, mostly subordinated to the context of internal and external “enemies.” Furthermore, every process related to the country is linked to a peculiar test of national security, where yesterday’s enemy becomes a friend, and a partner or ally is turned into an adversary. To achieve this transformation, negative material, freely available due to the openness of the Western system, is often masterfully exploited. The result of this hybrid information war on one’s own population is the cultivation of a managed consciousness: the emergence of a “Post-Homo Sovieticus” with a national brand.
Economic Control (Weaponization of Income): A principal feature of this management style is the tendency to control the economic daily life of citizens. In this, it may seem close to a dictatorship, but two things are missing for a total match: total state control of the economy and interference in human incomes through “regulation.” Authoritarianism is more “delicate.” It does not “set,” “regulate,” or “equalize” incomes, but, by weaponizing income, it can significantly influence the political will of citizens. Practically, this means allowing desirable persons access to financial sources and cutting off undesirable ones. Consequently, the first category is “granted” economic self-sufficiency, while the second is punished for lacking it… or given the opportunity to reconsider their socio-political views to align with the authoritarian’s expectations. We clearly saw this in the disproportionate tightening of legislative control over the Georgian civil sector and non-governmental media, and the financial disarmament of entire sectors.
Focus on the International Arena: Authoritarian rulers pay great attention to global processes. Changes in global geopolitics, directly or indirectly, can influence the strengthening or weakening of their rule. To prolong authoritarianism, it is essential to identify situational partners on the foreign stage, bond with them, synchronize propaganda messages, and capitalize politically on the conflicting interests of major geopolitical actors. In this part, too, I believe Georgian domestic or foreign “policy” creates a familiar picture for the reader.
Therefore and Because of This
Precisely so that the process described above does not finally take root in our country, we need relations based primarily on rules and not on personal, group, or party loyalty.
Precisely so that the temptation to establish such management does not recur in the future, we need real and not falsified politics, effective and not sham economics, true and not hypocritical justice.
Precisely so that Georgians have an effective advocate and protector, we do not simply need a country or a motherland: we need a state.
Precisely so that we can create a solid claim on the future, we need a thinking state.
Op-Ed by Victor Kipiani, Geocase / Georgia First
