Paul Bell has had a 40-year career in journalism and strategic communications, working in over 20 countries across Europe and the Middle East. He has supported societies in transition, but, he tells Radio Free Europe/RL’s Georgian Service, he believes that his five years in Tbilisi, observing politics and power in Georgia, taught him the most about the relationship between culture, politics, governance, and democracy.
Everybody’s talking about President Trump’s comeback. Considering our ruling party’s almost religious reverence toward him, is he bringing them anything tangible?
I don’t think it makes much difference. Trump doesn’t have a specific ideology, and his instincts are more authoritarian. He’s comfortable with dictators and is fundamentally transactional. Georgians, I think, would understand that: he’ll do deals if they benefit him. After a period of harsh rhetoric from this government toward the United States, it’s clear that they recognize the need to tone it down. The new US administration will likely adopt a more laissez-faire approach to Georgia’s governance, which I think Georgian Dream would welcome.
You mentioned deals. Are there deals to be made between the Georgian Dream and the US administration?
There are certainly deals to be made. Over the past year, the foreign agents law and LGBT laws have been the focus of anger and resistance. The question is: How necessary are these laws for Georgia’s government? Could they live without them? I think they are bargaining chips, trade goods that could be exchanged in a deal with Europe, perhaps in exchange for Europe stopping pressure to overturn the election results.
Even if you don’t consider the elections legitimate, you still need to use every available legal means to represent the people who elected you
So that’s the current reality. What’s next for Georgia?
I think we need to step back and evaluate what’s not working. The opposition: will they go to parliament or not? I think they should go in. It’s probably an unpopular opinion, but voters need to be represented. Even if you don’t consider the elections legitimate, you still need to use every available legal means to represent the people who elected you. Opposition members will be criticized as traitors, but the key question is whether Georgians can sustain a more meaningful, rational debate. There’s too much noise and rhetoric in Georgian politics, with little substantive discussion of complex issues.
Taking a bird’s-eye view, where is the country headed?
Many believe Georgian Dream is steering the country toward Russia and China, and there’s some truth to that. But members of Georgian Dream are still Georgians, and they believe Georgia is European. I don’t think they could abandon that instinct, even if they are prioritizing ties with Russia or China. They also have families, and they gravitate toward Europe and the US.
Let’s focus on Georgian Dream’s leadership. Do they, at their core, want Georgia in Europe? Let’s start with Ivanishvili.
Ivanishvili is harder to read, but look at how his family lives. They gravitate toward Europe and the US.
Yes, but many Russian oligarchs’ families do the same. Are they European?
They want to send their children to London or Paris, not Beijing or Moscow. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are vying for a European future for Russia. They want to maintain a relationship with Europe that suits their financial and political interests, but they don’t want it to threaten their financial or political clout. What I see is people who are determined to hold on to their positions and their property.
Speaking of Europe, I’m going to quote an essay you wrote: “If this [foreign agents] bill becomes a law, it’s hard to imagine Europe will want to exact the same price from Georgian Dream, if only to save face.” Well, the bill has passed, and Georgian Dream is celebrating. Where is the price?
So far, the price hasn’t been very high. Europe has effectively frozen the accession process, which is a clear message to Georgia, but not a severe punishment. It’s a punishment for the Georgian people. It sends the message that they need to put pressure on Georgian Dream to reopen the EU accession door. I’m surprised there hasn’t been a bigger price extracted yet, but perhaps there will be in the future. They’ll perhaps revisit the visa situation. And that would be disastrous for the Georgian people.
Members of Georgian Dream are still Georgians, and they believe Georgia is European. I don’t think they could abandon that instinct
Returning to the domestic situation, where does Georgian Dream go from here? How will they handle the impasse?
If I were them, I’d let people blow off steam and hope it fizzles out. Winter’s coming, and people will get tired. They know how this goes: people protest for a few days, shout loudly, then go home, and nothing changes.
Why do we expect anything different?
Exactly. But Georgian Dream has to be careful not to close off all avenues for public engagement and governance. Pushing people to extremes could backfire. The result we’re seeing shows the extent of state capture, which doesn’t improve confidence in the government. In that sense, it’s been a failure.
You’ve said Georgia has always lived like a lizard on a hot rock, exposed to danger. What happens to those lizards?
Georgia’s biggest threat is its former colonial master, Russia. That threat reinforces Georgia’s desire for a strong relationship with Europe as a safeguard for its sovereignty. Georgia’s independence is fragile, and it has always struggled to sustain its identity, its sense of self, surrounded as it always has been by larger, more powerful neighbors, be it the Ottomans or the Persians, or the Russians, even the Romans.
You’ve written that small states like Georgia must prioritize survival above all else. Is Georgia at such a moment now?
I think Georgia is always in a survival moment. It’s been like this for millennia. But today, Georgia isn’t worse off than it has been in the past, like in 1921, when its sovereignty was taken. But holding onto independence since 1991 has been hard, and Georgia is still not a full democracy. It’s a conservative society, and there’s little difference between the parties when it comes to economic policy. The country is still far from the kind of democracy I would recognize from the UK, and the political focus is often more on retaining power than on policy. We happened to be on version number four of this scenario; we’ve had more than 12 years of it, but somewhere, and I’m not quite sure where you begin, somewhere you’ve got to slow the wheel down.
So, where does Georgia stand in the 21st-century geopolitical landscape?
Georgia hopes it can have its cake and eat it too.
How delusional is that thought?
Pretty delusional. Georgia wants recognition from Europe while maintaining its own values and laws, but when you join a club, you have to follow its rules. Georgia finds that difficult because of its unique geography and cultural context.
You ask in your essay whether Georgia is at a crossroads or always has been. Mark Galeotti said, “Georgia is cursed by its geography.” How does that affect Georgia’s future?
In my essay, I posed the question: Who will bring the bolt cutters to break the chains? I had this image of Amirani, the predecessor of Prometheus, chained to the rock in the Caucasus and the bird picking constantly at its liver and flesh, and what did I do? I reverted to, in a sense, the single person.
You’ve been in Georgia so long, you also started to expect a Messiah to appear. Do you think a leader will emerge, perhaps from the opposition, who can be trusted?
I was born in the UK but grew up in South Africa, witnessing its painful transition. Despite the struggles, we had Nelson Mandela. He wasn’t perfect, but compared to other leaders I’ve met, he stood out. Meeting him felt like being in the presence of the Dalai Lama: his aura was powerful and filled with goodness. Though he struggled with his own prejudices, he worked hard to teach others to engage with adversaries and seek solutions. Such leaders are rare, and South Africa was fortunate to have him.
As for other leaders, some I’m fond of, but many, after years in power, haven’t broken through. Take Saakashvili: he was a charismatic, passionate leader who could galvanize people, but he overplayed his hand. In Georgia, the focus is too often on power retention, and policy takes a back seat. Saakashvili was a great modernizer but not a natural Democrat, though, who truly is in this country?
Interview by Vazha Tavberidze
