Propaganda and Fear: How Georgia’s Ruling Party Mobilises Voters
Ahead of the parliamentary elections in Georgia on 26 October, the country’s government has adopted an unprecedented approach to campaigning, stylising the election as nothing less than a vote to save the country from utter ruination. The decision, it says, lies in the hands of voters.
Translated from the German by Hillary Crowe.
The upcoming parliamentary election on 26 October marks a critical moment for Georgia. Voters will not only elect a new government; they will also decide Georgia’s future, choosing between Russian influence and a European perspective. The political mood is tense, and this is clearly reflected in the rhetoric of the ruling party Georgian Dream. Every day, statements by the party and its leading representatives appear on social media, clearly signalling that the government itself sees the election as pivotal to the country’s future. And it has no qualms about taking its rhetoric to extremes. The message from former Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili, for instance, is emphatic: ‘On 26 October, we will either choose peace, progress and national development, along with a European future in dignity, or we will vote for the war party, which will surely and inevitably bring conflict, chaos, death and despair.’
Division as a mobilising mechanism
Georgian Dream has governed the country since 2012 – with increasingly autocratic tendencies in recent years. Over the past few months, the party’s messaging has become noticeably more strident in tone, a clear indication that right now, it is worried about the prospect of losing power in the forthcoming elections. The frequency with which the topics of peace and war in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine are foregrounded is particularly striking. This dichotomy is intended to present voters with a clear choice: either stability and security under the present government, or chaos and war under a new leadership. Through its messaging, the government is stoking the fear of war and thus positioning itself against the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Western stance adopted by the opposition.
Georgian Dream purposely exploits this dichotomy and, in its rhetoric, draws a sharp distinction between ‘our’ side and the ‘opposing side’. The following statement is a blatant example of this strategy: ‘[O]ur objective is to guide our country … with dignity to a haven of peace and prosperity. All those who are against this are enemies of Georgia, both at home and abroad.’ The opposition is depicted as the internal enemy of the country, with Georgia simultaneously facing an external threat from the ‘global war party’. Georgian Dream is thus complicit in spreading a conspiracy theory that portrays the ‘global war party’ as a secretive international organisation whose members include leading Western politicians and institutions and whose aim is supposedly is to draw Georgia into the war with the opening of a second front. For Georgia’s current Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, there is no alternative but to stand firm against this global war party: ‘The only other option is capitulation, and the consequence of capitulation is the Ukrainisation of Georgia.’ Only one thing, he says, has rescued Georgia from chaos and war in recent years: ‘the wisdom of the Georgian people and their government, which made decisions independently and based solely on national interests.’
Fear as an instrument of power
Georgian Dream has no compunction about utilising clearly conflicting messages for propaganda purposes. On the one hand, for example, there is Kobakhidze’s assertion that as far as he is concerned, the European Parliament’s resolution on Georgia’s foreign agent law ‘amounts to nothing’. For background: in May 2024, the Georgian Parliament passed a controversial law, modelled on Russian legislation, which opens the way for media organisations and NGOs to be classed as ‘foreign agents’, allowing restrictions to be imposed on their activities. For Georgian Dream’s Secretary General Kakha Kaladze, too, the European Parliament’s resolution is nothing but a ‘shameful’ document. In general, Georgia’s ruling elite regards the European Union not as a sovereign, values-based union but as an organisation under the control of the ‘global war party’. As they see it, the only way to safeguard peace is to refuse to ‘bow to Western pressure’. On the other hand, despite this anti-EU rhetoric, they also talk about Georgia’s future in Europe. According to Kobakhidze, on 26 October, Georgian citizens ‘must choose between … [a] dark past and Georgia’s bright, European future’. So while the government rejects genuine European structures and refuses to participate in actively shaping Georgia’s process of convergence with the EU, it continues to invoke a mythical ‘European future’.
Likewise, the European Union’s values do not feature in this European future. For example, protecting Georgian national identity and future generations from ‘LGBTQ propaganda’ is another of the ruling party’s objectives. For Kobakhidze, the upcoming election is therefore a ‘decisive referendum’ in which the Georgian people must choose not only between war and peace but also between ‘moral decay and traditional values’. Shalva Papuashvili, another leading figure in Georgian Dream and Speaker of Parliament, warned voters: ‘The main concern is not to choose the European path but how to pass this way. We should pave the path so as not to sacrifice our independence and identity. We should not be forced to proceed on tiptoe or to deny our national dignity or debase ourselves.’ As tangible evidence of this position, on 17 September 2024, the Georgian Parliament passed a Law on Family Values and Protection of Minors, which severely restricts LGBTQ rights and, like the ‘foreign agent law’, shows parallels with Russian legislation – a move that is also intended to mobilise ‘traditionally-minded’ voters.
Georgia’s future on a knife edge
By constantly emphasising themes such as war, turmoil and the protection of Georgian values and national identity, the aim is to create the impression among the Georgian people that a change of government would end in chaos. As the outcome of this alarming rhetoric, voters could well regard the ruling party as the safer and more stable choice despite their dissatisfaction with its policies.
Georgian Dream’s rhetoric, in other words, is more than just a political communication strategy. It is deployed intentionally as a tool to manipulate public opinion. There is a risk that these simplistic and polarising messages will deepen social divisions and make constructive political debate impossible. In Georgia, then, this is not only about the next legislative term; it is about the country’s direction of travel for years to come.
Diana Bogishvili is a sociologist. Based at ZOiS, she wrote her doctoral thesis on changing values and migration in Georgia.