“Elections are not a ritual” – Interview with Beka Liluashvili (Gakharia – For Georgia) and a critical analysis

A conversation with Beka Liluashvili – and what it conceals

Between hope and system logic

"We are preparing for the local elections and every other election." This is how Beka Liluashvili, leading representative of the "Gakharia – For Georgia" party, begins his interview with Tiflis24. His main argument: no political terrain should be ceded to the ruling party without a fight. The elections are "an arena of struggle."

“We believe that all battlegrounds must be used – and elections are one of them.”

But what if this battlefield has long been controlled by the enemy? If there is no longer equal opportunity, no free press, and no independent judiciary?

Review: The 2021 local elections as a warning example

The 2021 local elections are now considered an example of an increasingly controlled political landscape. The election monitoring organization ISFED documented systematic violations of fair election standards – particularly in the digital space:

• Over 180 anonymously operated Facebook pages were active in the run-up to the event, many of them party-politically motivated but not transparently declared

• These sites spread targeted disinformation, personal attacks and partisan narratives – sometimes using inauthentic profiles

• Official channels of municipalities published content that de facto served as indirect election advertising for incumbents

• Political communication was also conducted in an opaque manner on platforms such as TikTok and Viber - ISFED

The use of administrative resources , the blurring of the boundaries between party and state, and the deliberate distortion of the information environment represented a clear threat to equality in the election campaign.

The contradictions in Liluashvili's argument

Liluashvili himself describes the extent of the deterioration:

"After the 2024 parliamentary elections, electoral law was tightened again. The pressure on political opponents, the violence, the arrests – all of this has increased."

Yet he still advocates for participation. When asked whether this doesn't strengthen the legitimacy of the system, he says:

"Some say that participating in elections gives the government legitimacy. But what is the source of legitimacy? It is the assessment of Georgian citizens—whether the elections were conducted fairly and in accordance with the law."

The problem is that the government controls not only the implementation, but also the perception. If international observers aren't taken seriously, the media are scrutinized, and NGOs are criminalized, whose opinion actually matters?

The boycott question – cleverly posed, weakly answered

Liluashvili asks a legitimate question:

"What happens after the boycott? What concrete proposals do the boycotting parties have?"

But this question must also be put back to him: What happens after participation? What if the government once again controls, manipulates, and media-accompanied protests without having any effect? What if the system prevails again, as it did in 2021?

He says:

"It's hard to predict, but we believe the opposition can win in several major cities."

But even if that's true, what good is a city council seat in a country where mayors can be removed from power at any time, budgets blocked, and elections reversed?

The great hope: Tbilisi as a lever

Liluashvili relies on symbolic power:

"If the opposition wins in Tbilisi, for example, it could be a lever to highlight contrasts with current government policy. For example, in construction or transport policy."

Sounds plausible – if Georgia were a parliamentary democracy with a functioning separation of powers. But the reality is: Even in Tbilisi, the mayor's office operates under strict control, and political decision-making freedom often ends with the Ministry of Regional Development. The vision of a "Tbilisi without corruption" remains a pipe dream – as long as all crucial resources are centrally controlled.

The economic criticism – apt, but inconsequential

Liluashvili provides a surprisingly clear diagnosis of the economic situation:

"We have a Potemkin economy. Credit growth has collapsed, budget resources are lacking, and consumption is based on debt."

He cites declining tax revenues, budget cuts in the regions, and declining investment. Yet he fails to address the obvious conclusion: that political participation makes no sense under these conditions.

"The system tries to legitimize itself with the economy. But people notice this – at the very latest when they open the refrigerator."

So why not be consistent – and completely delegitimize such a system?

The democratic varnish is off

Anyone who still believes in fair elections in Georgia after the experiences of 2021 is either politically naive or deliberately deceiving themselves. The 2025 local elections are no longer a democratic instrument—they are a backdrop. Participation in them may offer visibility, but it won't bring about change.

Real change requires a clear stance, new forms of resistance and, above all, the courage to no longer allow ourselves to be instrumentalized.

The interview: Beka Liluashvili in full

(Verbatim transcript of the questions and answers, conducted by the Tiflis24 editorial team – without editorial changes)

Question: As is known, your party plans to participate in the local elections. Members say this is a strategic form of campaigning. How do you intend to achieve your main goal with this strategy?

Answer: Our stated public position on the elections has remained unchanged and consistent for over two months. We are preparing for the local elections and every other election. We are currently fully executing everything related to election preparation. At the same time, we always emphasize that should our position change, we will communicate this very clearly and openly to our audience, our voters, and all interested parties.

Of course, propaganda tries to attribute different meanings to our party stance. But our decisions are influenced exclusively by the attitude of the voters—not by domestic or foreign policy pressure. We are a party that has never had a radical agenda to steer political processes. We don't believe that revolutionary developments in this country are a solution. We are convinced that elections are the only non-radical way to change power—and that has been our position so far.

Some voters are asking whether a boycott might not be more sensible. We respect every stance, but we also ask: Okay, okay—but what happens after the boycott? What concrete proposals do the parties calling for an election boycott have for society to achieve their goals?

Question: So you see elections as a strategic tool – not just as an opportunity to take power?

Answer: It depends on many factors. But the mere fact of preparing and participating in the election at least helps society hear more truth and clear positions. Whether a result is achieved depends on many things—among them, whether the Georgian Dream party further worsens the situation, and whether there is another case of widespread vote theft. But we believe that, under certain circumstances, an opposition victory in some major cities is quite possible. In the parliamentary elections, too—despite massive fraud—the opposition won the majority of votes in Tbilisi.

Question: But back then the situation was less tense than it is today.

Answer: That's true—and that's why it's difficult to make precise predictions. But if a party decides to participate, its goal must be to achieve a result.

Question: In 2021, an opposition candidate won in Tsalenjikha – without any noticeable impact. What would be different this time?

Answer: Let's imagine the opposition wins in several major cities, including Tbilisi – whether coalition-based or not. This would have significant symbolic and practical influence. The opposition would have a platform to communicate with the population and could demonstrate clear contrasts – for example, in construction without corruption, in transportation policy without chaos, or in healthy urban development. If they succeed in convincing even supporters of the ruling party to change course, that would be a first step.

I'm not saying that Giorgi Ivanishvili will pack his bags and fly to Russia the next day – but such a change of power in Tbilisi would be a lever that the opposition hasn't had for ten years.

Question: But what if voter turnout is low or the election is rigged?

Answer: Then, of course, things look different. But let's imagine the opposite: There's a boycott, the election is held without fraud because it's not even necessary – the "formal opposition" enters parliament, everything stays as it is, no one documents any irregularities because none were necessary. The protest energy remains, but what happens afterward? Unfortunately, boycott advocates can't answer this question.

Question: The use of administrative resources is often criticized. How can this be curbed?

Answer: That was always a problem—especially in 2024. They used intimidation, control mechanisms, and call centers outside polling stations. The pressure on officials was enormous. Nevertheless, in large cities, where people are better informed, the opposition was still able to win. And attitudes within the administrative apparatus are also changing—many officials are more critical of the government today than they were just a few years ago.

Question: But the pressure on civil servants is still enormous?

Answer: Of course. But this intimidation doesn't work as well anymore. In 2024, there were open threats: "Anyone who doesn't vote for the governing party will be identified and lose their job." But in the end, only those who publicly expressed a different opinion were fired. The officials notice this. They're not stupid. They realize: The threats are empty.

Question: If there are still political prisoners at the time of the elections, do you have a strategy for that?

Answer: This concerns very sensitive tactical and strategic considerations that we do not wish to discuss publicly at this time.

Question: Giorgi Gakharia spoke of a third phase—economic stagnation. Why has this been delayed?

Answer: There hasn't been a delay. We live in a "Potemkin economy" today. What is being sold as growth has no real basis. Many municipalities are already cutting their budgets. Lending has plummeted, and VAT is barely growing. The government is trying to buy time with revenue from Russia.

And the exchange rate of the lari? That's not a reliable indicator. When imports decline, demand for foreign currency falls – which is why the exchange rate appears stable. But the fundamental figures are no longer correct.

What we're experiencing is pure consumption on credit. Banks are making billions in profits – at the expense of the population. If there were real economic dynamism, there would be no need for propaganda documentaries about "Economy 2030." Everyone would see it in their refrigerator.