In Georgia, parliamentary elections in October 2024 spurred mass mobilization and protest nationally over alleged electoral fraud and government violence. Thousands of individuals took to the streets to demand that the elections be re-done, alleging the ruling party had rigged the vote. While the government emphasized its legitimacy and commitment to democratic order, its response illustrated a deeper erosion of democratic norms in the country. Georgia, once viewed as a pro-European democratic state, now faces growing skepticism about its legitimacy due to allegations of electoral fraud and state violence. This blog post makes the argument, based on its post-election response, that Georgia’s use of strategically ambiguous pro-EU language and repression of the opposition signal democratic erosion. Using the frameworks of Varol, Lust & Waldner, and Levitsky & Ziblatt, it is clear that democratic erosion can happen without a total degradation into autocracy.

Georgia has long portrayed itself as a leader of democracy in Europe and sustainable democracy through European integration and multiparty politics. However, the legislative elections in October 2024 exposed the truth behind this facade, demonstrating a decline in democratic representation. The opposition coalition organized a large protest in response to alleged irregularities, such as tampered ballots and intimidation of voters. In Tbilisi, demonstrators accused the ruling party of “rigging the vote under Russian influence” (AP News, 2024). Despite the unrest, the government continued inaugurating the new president. The outgoing president did not participate in the transition ceremony, claiming that the new president “is not a legitimate leader,” and the election results did not represent the will of the people (Reuters, 2024). Therefore, the violence inflicted by the state shows that the elections were not reflective of the public but a means to maintain the ruling party’s power.

Ozan Varol defines stealth authoritarianism as a way to keep control of government through democratic legal means, thereby being able to increase power without declaring an overtly repressive situation. Instead of eliminating elections to become authoritarian, states “cloak repressive practices under the mask of law” (Varol, 2015). In this sense, Georgia can be seen to demonstrate the pattern of stealth authoritarianism. Elections did take place; however, the government made it increasingly difficult for opposition parties to operate by limiting the media, using police against peaceful demonstrators, and intimidating the opposition. The Associated Press reported that “At least several thousand protesters, some of them waving Georgian and EU flags, rallied outside the parliament… facing phalanxes of riot police” (AP News, 2024). The government promoted its actions as essential for the stability of the nation and, while not claiming outright totalitarianism, clearly suppressed dissenting views. As Varol argues, such methods are designed to “insulate the incumbents from meaningful democratic challenges” while not operating in blatant contradiction of democratic institutions (Varol, 2015). Georgia’s oppression demonstrates how stealth authoritarianism can be present even when behind a democratic façade.

Ellen Lust and David Waldner define democratic backsliding as a decline in “competitive electoral procedures, civil and political liberties, and accountability” (Lust & Waldner, 2015). Georgia’s post-election crisis showed democratic erosion in all three areas. The elections themselves were questioned as legitimate not only by the public, but also by international observers who identified numerous violations, while the opposition parties completely boycotted parliament. Many expressed frustrations, including student activist Vakho Sebiskveradze who stated, “It’s not only about the elections — this is about stealing the European future from the Georgian people” (AP News, 2024). This sentiment represents widespread discontent with both the nature of the electoral system, and the ruling party’s alleged pro-Europeanism. Protesters often publicly challenged the legitimacy of the new president; one explicitly told Reuters, that “we have only one legitimate president, and this is Salome Zourabichvili” (Reuters, 2024). Georgia’s democracy is seemingly collapsing from within, with weakened accountability, unresolved allegations of fraud, and more autocratic governance— what Lust and Waldner describe as a “slow death” (Lust & Waldner, 2015).

As pointed out by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, democracies need unwritten norms such as mutual toleration in order to work, not just formal institutions. They describe these norms as the “soft guardrails of democracy, preventing day-to-day political competition from devolving into a no-holds-barred conflict” (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). In Georgia, these norms seem to be worsening. Opposition parties were denounced as illegitimate, and protests became obstacles to be repressed with legal restrictions and a series of arrests rather than discussion. Levitsky and Ziblatt note that “when norms of mutual toleration are weak, democracy is hard to sustain” (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). The ruling party’s unwillingness to recognize opponents as legitimate participants in democratic life, as well as the tendency to silence critiques behind a mask of order, reflect an abandonment of democratic discipline.

Although there are apparent signs of backsliding, the Georgian government still manages to portray itself as devoted to democracy and EU integration. This pro-European rhetoric allows the ruling entity to express democratic conformity abroad while solidifying its control at home. Lust and Waldner state that interactions on the world stage could promote democracy by “shaping domestic preferences for reform, shaping the domestic distribution of resources, [and] strengthening democrats and weakening autocrats” (Lust & Waldner, 2015). In Georgia’s case, the government created an illusion of European alignment without becoming truly democratic. While publicly proclaiming the objectives of the EU, they violently suppressed protests and disregarded electoral accountability. This tactic illustrates how governments can deploy democratic language to legitimize themselves abroad while increasing domestic repressiveness.

Ultimately, the 2024 elections and their aftermath in Georgia offer a strong example of democratic erosion in action. While Georgia managed to preserve the formal democratic institutions and EU-appropriate language of democratic structures, the administration has continually eroded electoral integrity, civil rights, and political accountability. As the frameworks of Varol, Lust & Waldner, and Levitsky & Ziblatt make clear, democratic erosion is rarely a sudden, or even explosive, event. Instead, democratic erosion is gradual and often under the disguise of legitimacy. Without strong and significant international pressure or the re-evaluation of domestic reforms in Georgia, the country risks further backsliding, compromising its democratic future and European goals.

Bibliography:

AP News. (2024, November 4). Thousands rally again in Georgia to protest the parliamentary election they say was rigged. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/georgia-parliament-protest-european-union-russia-1cf767b6fb6ca0fc1584191df6b66b8c

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown Publishing Group.

Lust, E., & Waldner, D. (2015). Unwelcome change: Understanding, evaluating, and extending theories of democratic backsliding. USAID. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MKMK.pdf

Reuters. (2024, December 29). New Georgian president sworn in as predecessor says he is not legitimate leader. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/new-georgian-president-sworn-predecessor-says-he-is-not-legitimate-leader-2024-12-29/

Varol, O. (2015). Stealth authoritarianism. Iowa Law Review, 100(4), 1673–1742. https://lawreview.lclark.edu/live/files/228-varol-stealth-authoritarianism