The Rose Revolution Shows its Thorns

As Ukraine begins preparing for a new election after its highest court last week annulled a rigged poll, the supporters of liberal opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko have been looking to the peaceful "rose revolution" in Georgia last year as a beacon of hope -- an inspiring symbol of what "people's power" can effect.

A bloodless coup

After ruling Georgia for almost 30 years, Shevardnadze's government claimed in 2003 it had won a parliamentary election. Mass street protests ensued, gaining momentum until thousands of people demanded his resignation, tired of the rampant corruption and widespread poverty which prevailed under the Shevardnadze regime.

On Nov. 23, Mikhail Saakashvili burst into the parliament, leading the crowd holding a long-stemmed rose in his hand and prompting Shevardnadze to flee the building.

Is the honeymoon over?

But delivering on the promises he made in those heady days has proved difficult. Twelve months on, even some of his staunchest supporters feel disappointed.

"Before we decide on any system, there must be public consultations with professionals on what is good for Georgia -- not just swift decision-making and adoption of a system which will fail," Anna Dolidze, who heads the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association, a group critical of the turns the country is taking, told Deutsche Welle.

"With most of the issues, that's the case," she added. "But some ideas are formed, decisions taken swiftly, with to little public consultation."

Dolidze and many others would like to see livelier public debate.

"All the experts can do is sit down and provide critique of measures already taken, which is of course not as productive," she said.

In this respect, according to the critics, Saakashvili is little better than Shevardnadze. A democracy is based on public participation in choosing a country's direction, with -- for example -- a strong parliament, referendums, lobby groups and press freedom. But today, many journalists accuse the young president of censoring the media -- something his predecessor never did. Now, anyone who asks uncomfortable questions risks losing their accreditation.

Press restrictions

Slowly but surely, the media is becoming the mouthpiece of the government, a development set to be consolidated by new press laws.

"Take the licensing system of regular commercial media," Dolidze said. "Before, if you got a license and you didn't violate the licensing terms flagrantly, it was prolonged automatically till eternity. That was a guarantee of independence. But now, according to a new initiative, after 10 years, competition has to be announced concerning each and every license. That's a very good norm in western terms -- we understand that it supports transparency and open competition. But it wouldn't work as it should in Georgia."

The new committee in charge of issuing licenses will be dominated by the president and parliament. Politicians will have every opportunity to exert pressure on the media, filtering out critical voices in the run-up to elections, for example, by threatening not to renew licenses set to expire.

"This method would be a very good tool for the government to control how the media behaves -- even though it was explained in very kind terms, saying that there is a transparency needed in media ownership," Dolidze said.

A one-party state?

When Saakashvili's National Movement-Democratic Front received over 78 percent of the vote in March this year, taking all the seats in parliament, the result gave rise to fears that Georgia could become a one-party state.

He then began introducing constitutional amendments including a presidential right to disband parliament. Critics insist the changes enhance executive authority at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches of government.

"I think (the president's) desire for increased power and the constitutional changes he made were a clear expression of a new policy," said opposition politician Koba Davitaschvili. "It's one step closer towards an authoritarian regime."