EN 
NL 
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Over the past decade, Georgia has undergone a quiet but profound transformation. The country, once considered a democratic frontrunner in the South Caucasus, is now facing an authoritarian setback that threatens the foundations of its judicial system. The ruling party, Georgian Dream (GD), has consolidated its power not only through elections, but also through the judiciary systematic to itself and turn it into an instrument to punish dissidents and protect rulers.
This development is not only domestic, but also has direct implications for Georgia's European trajectory, civil society and the credibility of EU values in the region.
As a member of the Georgian Movement for Social Democracy (MSD) explained in a recent interview, "Since independence, Georgia has never had a truly independent judicial system." However, what distinguishes the current period under Georgian Dream is the depth of institutional control and the speed with which it has been established.
From reform promises to institutional takeover
When Georgian Dream came to power in 2012, it capitalised on a wave of popular discontent with the outgoing United National Movement (UNM) government and pledged to restore the depoliticising the judicial sector. For a short period, modest reforms were introduced. But, as the MSD member recalled, "After a year or two in power, more and more concerns emerged... there was no strong political will to really depoliticise the justice system."
By 2016-2017, it had become clear that these reforms were largely cosmetic. Instead of dismantling the old structures, GD had rebuilt them under new control. Due to its dominance in the Supreme Judicial Council (High Council of Justice) and appointment process, the government has created a loyal network of judges who guarantee political obedience in exchange for job security.
"There are many reasons why they stay in the system," the MSD member explained. "If there are political interests involved in a case, they know they have no chance to resist. Those who have tried to do so have been fired, transferred or punished." Judges' professional survival, the welfare of their families and their economic dependence bind them to the ruling power. "They remember the punishments... they still know what it means to go against the political leadership," he said.
The result is a judicial system that functions independently only in apolitical cases. When activists, opposition figures or journalists are put on trial, the outcome is predetermined. The courts function as instruments of selective justice that disguise political persecution as legal procedure.
Political prisoners and the October 4 elections
The 4 October local elections were a defining moment for democracy in Georgia. The official results delivered another victory for Georgian Dream, but widespread allegations of vote-buying, intimidation and misuse of state resources led to immediate protests across the country. Thousands of people gathered in Tbilisi and regional cities to demand transparent results and an end to GD's political dominance.
In the days that followed, dozens of protesters and opposition activists were arrested. Many were accused of "disorderly conduct", "resisting the police" or "Conspiracy to overthrow the government", while others faced criminal investigations aimed at intimidating and financially depleting them. These arrests came on top of an already growing list of political prisoners, underlining how the legal system functions as an extension of the ruling party's political machinery.
Fragmentation and the need for citizen participation
The perseverance of the protest movement in Georgia is striking, but it also exposes the weakness of a fragmented opposition. Ideological divisions and a lack of coordination have limited the ability of activists and political leaders to present a cohesive front against authoritarianism.
Instead of trying to merge all opposition forces into one party, the Movement for Social Democracy calls for a profound change in political culture. The focus should not be on organisational unity, but on political awareness. Citizens must see how their everyday grievances, such as corruption, inequality, unemployment and lack of social security, are linked to the erosion of democracy. Only when social and economic struggles are recognised as part of the same political crisis can a broader, more inclusive democratic movement take shape.
This argument highlights a fundamental weakness in Georgia's modern political development: the country's democracy has remained largely elite-driven and top-down. As the MSD member noted, "Politics has never been built from the bottom up." Real change requires a new model of citizen participation, one that draws on everyday realities rather than party headquarters.
Europe's strategic missteps
For years, the European Union was seen as an important external partner supporting Georgia's democratic transformation. However, according to the MSD, Europe's approach was slow, inconsistent and too technocratic. "We begged them to set conditions years ago, when the signs of authoritarianism were already visible, but Brussels and other capitals ignored it," the MSD member said.
By the time the EU institutions began to consider mechanisms such as suspending the Visa waiver for Georgia in 2024, Georgian Dream already had its power firmly in hand. Such measures risk harming the general population rather than those directly responsible for abuses. "It will directly affect the most socially and economically disadvantaged," warned the MSD member, "and Georgian Dream will use it as a weapon to claim that Europe is the enemy."
What the EU and the Netherlands should do
Europe's response to Georgia's democratic decline must begin with the recognition that repression thrives in silence. When judges, prosecutors and politicians can prosecute opponents without consequences, authoritarianism no longer seems to be a failure of governance, but the normal course of events. The first task for the EU and the Netherlands is therefore to name what is happening and who is responsible for it. Public disclosure is important. Sanctions work not so much as bureaucratic tools, but as moral signals: those who use the law against citizens should not enjoy the privileges of travel, investment or respectability in Europe.
But accountability alone is not enough. Any authoritarian system depends on the exhaustion of those who oppose it. Georgian civil society has been fighting for democracy for more than a decade, often with little support and under constant risk. For many activists, the threat is not only political but also very personal: they lose their jobs, face lawsuits and see family members intimidated. This is precisely where Europe's solidarity must become concrete. Dutch and European funding mechanisms that connect directly to local initiatives - from legal aid groups to independent media and grassroots campaigns - are not charity projects, but democratic infrastructure. Scaling back this support now would send the worst possible message: that Europe supports courage only when it suits.
Visibility is another form of protection. Authoritarian regimes depend on darkness; they act most freely when no one is watching. When European diplomats attend trials, visit detainees or appear at peaceful protests, they increase the cost of repression. Presence creates deterrence. Even symbolic gestures can disrupt the sense of impunity cultivated by Georgian Dream.
Finally, Europe must look inwards. The credibility of its support for democracy abroad depends on the consistency of its values at home and in its foreign policy. Whenever EU leaders embrace autocrats in Baku or Budapest, they confirm the cynicism of those who claim that Europe's principles are flexible. The Netherlands, which has long profiled itself as a guardian of the rule of law, is well placed to insist on coherence: European partnerships must be based on shared democratic commitments, not on convenience or energy contracts.
From deterrence to civil awakening
Despite arrests, court cases and intimidation, the democratic spirit in Georgia persists. In the aftermath of the 4 October elections, people continue to come together and speak out. These acts of resistance are important: they show that civic courage still exists and that the country's future is not yet sealed.
"The EU should not confuse the government with the people," the MSD member stressed. "It is Georgian citizens who are fighting for democracy." Supporting them requires more than declarations: it requires a coherent strategy that protects democratic actors, prevents further repression and restores the foundations of the rule of law.
Georgia today finds itself at a fragile crossroads. Whether it moves further towards Europe or sinks deeper into authoritarian isolation will depend on the resilience of its citizens and Europe's willingness to stand by them - not only with words, but also with concrete actions.
