Thread by @arzugeybulla

Georgians’ collective memory has been shaped by pride in their struggle for independence since 1989 and fear of existential threats. This narrative has overshadowed other domestic challenges and increased Georgia’s reliance on individual leaders.
carnegieeurope.eu/2021/04/27/str…

Georgians are proud to see their country as an established democracy. Yet, thirty years on, the mainstream historical narrative still portrays the country as vulnerable and facing existential threats to its statehood.

Change is necessary, yet experience has proved that replacing a leader without altering policy only temporarily eases the situation and, in the longer run, fosters a sense of frustration and polarization in society.

In contrast to some other post-Soviet nations, the public in Georgia perceives the state and its political leader as different from each other. Even if the leader lacks full legitimacy, the state continues to move in the right historical direction.

The perception is that the state is pursuing a long journey through history, while the leader is a temporary figure.

If the goal of the national movement in the 1990s was to restore independence, in modern times the narrative is that there is still a danger of Georgia losing its independence—so the overriding goal is to preserve it.

Russia and its occupations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are seen to pose an existential threat, which drives Georgia’s ongoing aspirations for its integration into the EU and NATO.

The result is a political formula in which independence must first be strengthened and only then is the country’s social and economic development possible.

Thirty years after Georgia gained independence, it is worth asking whether the country’s national project is complete. As long as Georgians see their struggle for independence as continuing, that question remains unanswered.