Another Abkhaz revolution. What’s next? Astamur Tania and Inal Khashig, video discussion
President Bzhania’s ousting in Abkhazia
Another Abkhaz revolution has concluded with a “happy ending”, while Aslan Bzhania becomes the third consecutive president against whom citizens of the country have expressed a vote of no confidence in a radical way — by storming the presidential palace.
This recurring scenario has turned Abkhazia’s political reality into a kind of Groundhog Day. How can such events be prevented from happening again? Is it possible to carry out constitutional reform before the presidential elections? Are society and the political elite ready for change?
Editor of the news outlet Chegemskaya Pravda, Inal Khashig, discussed the recent extraordinary shift in power and solutions to the ongoing crisis with historian and political scientist Astamur Tania.
Full text of interview:
Inal Khashig. Hello, you’re listening to Chegemskaya Pravda. Today our topic is obvious: another change of power in Abkhazia. Once again a president resigns prematurely — this is now the third time in a row. Unfortunately, it’s becoming a stable political tradition in our country. We will talk about how to build a political system that is stable and meets the expectations of citizens. One where residents don’t feel the need to take to the streets to oust their president. Our guest today is our regular political expert, Astamur Tania. Hello!
Astamur Tania. Good afternoon.
Inal Khashig. The situation with the investment agreement initially seemed hopeless. It wasn’t just the opposition representatives who opposed it, but also intellectuals, the academic community, and other citizens. At the protests, I saw many residents of Pitsunda and Gagra — hotel owners, restaurateurs, guesthouse owners. It was clear they understood that this agreement directly affected their interests. Nevertheless, the authorities persistently tried to hold a session. Some deputies simply “went into hiding,” avoiding phone calls, as reported on social media, and even spending nights in the administration building.
People, as we’ve seen before, began summoning their deputies by district and demanding they not vote for the agreement. On the other hand, just days before the vote there were arrests of opposition members, which only heightened tensions. The opposition blocked bridges, and the atmosphere was heated.
My question is: why does the executive branch, particularly the president, continue to lose touch with reality? Why couldn’t they just postpone this agreement?
Astamur Tania. Which of your questions should I answer?
Inal Khashig. All of them, if possible.
“Abkhazia lives in a state of perpetual crisis”
“A small nation cannot be thrown Into the waves of free competition”
Astamur Tania. Well, there are two aspects here. The most fitting quote comes from the immortal Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin: “it never happened before, and here we go again.” The reasons, generally speaking, have not changed. Abkhazia lives in a state of perpetual crisis. This is tied both to the socio-economic situation and to the fact that our political structure does not match the realities of today. Our president is endowed with enormous powers.
Everyone knows he has these powers — external actors and internal lobbying groups know that all lawful decisions are made through the president. Naturally, he is subjected to comprehensive pressure from both inside and outside. Then there are his supporters, who sometimes cause more trouble than his opponents, and they also need to be appeased. These are the realities. In practice, our president cannot fully exercise these powers. He lacks the tools because this is a small society.
I find it hard to imagine that in this society one half would beat the other with rubber batons while the third applauds. There are unique features to our community, and they’ve been described many times. It’s such a tangle of connections that even as a local, you might be surprised to discover what links people together. Then you find out they truly have close ties. So if you lead Abkhazia, you cannot ignore these societal peculiarities.
The attempt to address this through force seems to me to have worsened the situation for the executive branch. This unhealthy atmosphere, the work of Telegram channels, and all the negativity only aggravate the internal political climate. The legitimacy and public support for the current government are shrinking. Moreover, we know that even when there’s no president for months, some issues still get resolved.
I even suspect that some matters will continue to be addressed without him, through the efforts of local authorities and, to some extent, central structures, but mainly through local governance. Looking back, significant steps, even those promised during the presidential campaign, have not been taken.
Most importantly, the political model has not been altered to eliminate the very powers that create problems for the president. You may have noticed that our crises are usually resolved not so much by the executive branch but by the legislative one. Right now Parliament has distanced itself, which is somewhat strange. But typically, these crises are resolved collectively. Meanwhile, the executive branch, despite its enormous powers, is unable to deal with the crisis.
This needed to be aligned with the realities of today. And of course, a very important issue — one we’ve been discussing regularly for at least three years — is that capitalism is making its way into Abkhazia. For the first time in many years, there’s an opportunity for significant financial resources to arrive. These needed to be organized. It’s very challenging, of course, to do this in a way that wouldn’t stifle our emerging businesses or cause us to lose control over our own economy. Because a nation cannot exist without control over its economy.
Otherwise it’s just a folklore ensemble, not a nation. Without mechanisms to control national resources — resources that allow cultural and technological development and improve competitiveness — a nation cannot thrive. We face acute issues with language and demographics. Although we are a nation, on these fronts we are in a precarious position.
These issues, by the way, are rarely discussed, despite being fundamental and key for us. How will we address these challenges if our economy and resources are controlled by foreign corporations? Our political power will automatically become dependent on these corporations, relying not on our society but on those who dictate the economic climate in the region. We need to treat our territory as a protected area because a small nation cannot be thrown into the waves of free competition. That would condemn it to dissolution. Unfortunately, this is the reality.
Inal Khashig. I’d point out another pattern. Yes, this is the third time we’ve seen many similarities. The scenarios for how events unfold are essentially identical. The presidential palace is stormed, the president retreats to some other place, negotiations take place, and in the end, he resigns, submitting a letter that Parliament then approves.
This pattern has become quite universal. It’s how Ankvab left, how Khadjimba left, and how Bzhania has now left. However, the previous two revolutions were largely internal squabbles, and external issues were not addressed. But now, with these agreements — not only investment-related but others, like those concerning apartments — President Aslan Bzhania provided an ideological framework that seems quite absurd to us. This is a small Abkhazia, where everyone knows everyone else.
Suddenly, we see discussions about things like political extremism, Western agent networks, and other accusations of anti-Russian sentiment. A barrage of labels that the president attached to a significant portion of his citizens — a move that was very poorly received in Abkhaz society. Incidentally, his last interview, given after he submitted his resignation, was extremely negative toward his own people.
But how much does the external factor influence such processes?
“It’s impossible to govern Abkhazia without a social contract.”
Astamur Tania. I think it wasn’t worth listening so much to so-called external experts who, in reality, understand nothing about Abkhaz internal life. The outgoing authorities, particularly in recent years, placed noticeable emphasis on law enforcement structures. Naturally, power cannot operate solely through force without some ideological justification for its use. So, they decided it was necessary to create the image of an enemy hindering our supposed “bright” future.
This is where all those clichés came from, forming the basis of propaganda standards and ideological work. This was fundamentally wrong because those who did this — or advised it — thought everything would go smoothly but overlooked the real situation. Abkhaz society has certain defense mechanisms against propaganda due to its constant, close interpersonal connections.
We host numerous events every week, two or three mass gatherings, and there are regular interactions among relatives. If you label someone’s relative a Western agent, their closest family members can always refute this directly. This approach was flawed from the start. We’ve seen in previous years how such crude moves by so-called specialists led to bad outcomes.
It’s essential to understand that without a social contract, governing Abkhazia is impossible. Even if you shut down all political institutions, sooner or later what just happened will happen again. Fences are merely an external display of impotence.
If we want to build an Abkhaz state rather than suppress the Abkhaz nation, where all political and economic matters are decided without the involvement of the Abkhaz people, that’s a different approach. But if we want the Abkhaz nation to develop, we need to align political methods with our unique characteristics.
I’m not advocating for a return to archaic practices, but you need to understand the material you’re working with. The state must, of course, work toward modernization. Bzhania did propose a modernization project, and it might have resulted in some infrastructure development or advancements. But this modernization would have been for the sake of modernization, not for the survival of the Abkhaz people. This crucial factor was not considered.
To avoid dependence, the political system must be structured to involve the broadest possible range of people in decision-making processes.
Inal Khashig. Still, again, we understand that presidential power, seeing that the third consecutive president is leaving in this way, we understand that the institution of the presidency in the form in which it exists has outlived itself and does not meet the challenges that exist.
Astamur Tania. Not that it has outlived itself, it was already flawed in this form.
Inal Khashig. After all, this constitution was written in 1994. It’s worth remembering what 1994 was like. The country had just emerged from war, the economy was destroyed. Enemies were everywhere. Russia had imposed an economic and political blockade on Abkhazia. And at that time, we needed, so to speak, our own commander-in-chief. Moreover, the threat of a new war from Georgia was constantly looming and making itself known, as seen in the events of 2001, and so on.
In this situation, the position of president was written for a specific figure, Vladislav Ardzinba, who at the time had unlimited authority in Abkhazian society. When Vladislav left, others came. It was clear that the suit was the same. People change, but the uniforms tailored for Vladislav clearly do not fit the new presidents, because the powers are the same, but the level of trust and mistrust is different.
“To make Batumi here where there will be no Abkhaz?”
Astamur Tania. The mistake was that Abkhazia was a parliamentary republic during the war, but nevertheless, Vladislav Grigorievich was granted great power. It was not because the system was structured this way, but due to his personal qualities, authority, and achievements after the war. I am sure that even if we had changed the constitution at that time, we would still have given him broad powers because of his personal qualities. But people who do not possess such qualities, even if they are given the same powers, will still not be able to wield them. Sergey Bagapsh used to go for coffee every morning at Brekhalovka. But this is characteristic only of small states, like ours.
You cannot imagine a president who drinks coffee with you and then sits with you like Buddha, and you think that grace is emanating from him, that he will solve all the problems. This is impossible. So despite the constitution, the president will not be able to wield this amount of power. Why set someone up from the start? Because our partners are not obliged to delve into our internal specifics. They try to cooperate with us based on what is written in the constitution. We must bring our laws into line with the requirements of our reality. And in reality, we don’t have that many options.
The first path, proposed by Aslan Bzhania, is an easier path for modernization and changes in the country. But we are not immune from this happening again. A lot of time has passed, and there has never been a successful attempt to develop a program that aligns with our national interests and the interests of survival. Ensuring our survival is much more complicated and less profitable for political elites than the path of open doors for foreign capital.
This is a much more complex path with many unknown factors. But if we really define what our goal is, it will become clear that we should not try to do it. To make Batumi here where there will be no Abkhaz? Perhaps we need to create a state that will have its own national identity, where there will be a careful attitude towards nature and its own characteristics.
Inal Khashig. But here you’re talking about modernization and different options. There’s the Bzhania option, and a more nationally-oriented one. Nevertheless, the system of governance does not inspire confidence, it keeps leaking out in some way. We talk about presidential power, where the president feels like an autocrat and tries to influence the judicial and legislative branches. For example, we elected the parliament, and most people got there through the president’s patronage.
Astamur Tania. But you know, he didn’t appoint them.
Inal Khashig. He didn’t appoint them, but it just so happened that these people are completely unknown.
Astamur Tania. I often hear criticism of the parliament, and sometimes it’s justified, but let’s not forget that there were times when, thanks to the parliament, at least some things were achieved.
Inal Khashig. But it wasn’t thanks to the parliament, it was thanks to the principle that in Abkhazia, power is within arm’s reach of its citizens. When this is felt, the parliament becomes more sensitive and attentive to society’s demands. As long as this doesn’t exist, as long as people don’t gather by the windows and demand some attention, even agreements could have gone through without any doubt.
We choose a significant portion of deputies as if it were a deputy ATM — you throw a coin in, raise your voice in time, and it’s not necessary for you to be heard. The main thing is that they vote. Unfortunately, we have brought the situation to this point. I wouldn’t want us to now blow the dust off this parliament and inflate this holy organ. No, that’s not how it is. The whole system of power, due to the lack of a normal balance, has rotted; the whole system. And unfortunately, now, three months before the elections, we are heading toward these elections, and we are again going by the old templates. This means that this groundhog day for us will be inevitable.
Astamur Tania. I recently read two very constructive statements — one was made by lawyers, and the other by public figures. You signed it. We must use this interregnum period to irreversibly carry out political reforms, because the desire will arise again, and we will lose everything. First of all, the urgency will immediately subside. A new government will come in, and it will immediately face a flood of problems — electricity, etc. This whole political reform will be postponed indefinitely. There will simply not be enough time. And then the desire to deal with it will disappear.
So we have to make the most of public activity to launch the reform process, so that it takes on an irreversible character. Of course, with a change in the political situation, nothing will automatically change. We have been in this situation for many years. You spoke so emotionally just now — this is the result of all the destruction and degradation of our society. These are the ruling elites. It reflects the state of our society. I know examples where some prominent specialist or well-known person participates in elections but doesn’t even make it to the second round. But a person with no education, no background, gets through. This also happens.
We have such examples. It’s not only because the authorities are patronizing him. We have developed a street culture, a local one, within which a parliament deputy is seen as just an ordinary person — sorry for the expression, a “fixer” who should cover the road, set up lighting, build a playground, even though it’s not his job at all. Naturally, this corrupts the system because this person, to be constantly elected, must maintain good relations with the executive power to solve local problems.
And here we get the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” process. So these are interconnected things, you can’t change them immediately. But we must create the conditions for the upbringing of our society, its political culture, self-awareness, and so on. The media must work for this, not to dumb people down, but to stimulate their critical thinking. This is a very difficult state task. You can’t solve it in five years. But significant progress can be made. First, you need to show that the government is fair and that it does not steal. This can be done relatively quickly. It’s not rocket science.
For example, you could simply take candidates and ask them to go to the shrine, swear that they won’t work for personal or corporate interests. Maybe we could involve such traditions in this, and people would see it immediately. They see when the president’s entourage suddenly begins to improve his well-being. People understand the nature of this phenomenon, they know the salaries and level of prosperity. These things can be done quickly. When you do this, it will already be the foundation of public trust for solving more complex issues and making unpopular decisions. It’s impossible to solve just in one place, you’ll have to solve it in parallel.
Inal Khashig. But still, now we need to, in these three months before the presidential elections, develop some kind of roadmap, fix it, develop it, and adopt it. Now all political forces are kind of at the starting line of the presidential campaign, and there’s no unconditional administrative resource. It would be good to search for various supporters in this environment, both of the former president, and the opposition, and people who want and have the understanding that something needs to change in these rules.
“How long will Abkhazia be governed by people who began their careers in the party, Komsomol, and other Soviet government structures?”
Astamur Tania. We also need to solve one important task — finally affect a generational change of power. How long will Abkhazia be governed by people who started their careers in the party, Komsomol, and other Soviet government structures? A generational change is needed. It’s even boring to watch the same thing over and over. It would be nice if both teams were led by and composed of young people, because what happens now is that a person of a rather mature age, who was once in the Communist Party and worked in some Soviet structures, comes forward, and against this background, the youth are there saying, “I’ll do it for the youth.” No. Let the youth do it for themselves.
The older generation is already mentally, and even physically, unsuitable to solving the tasks we face. These people need to back away. They need to stop blocking progress with their presence. But we have this culture of seniority in politics. The entire political space is occupied by mature individuals, sorry for the expression. I don’t know, but it’s already critical. People aged 25-45 are the most active citizens. Vladislav Ardzinba, at 45, became the leader of Abkhazia.
Napoleon became the first consul at 30, and at 35, he became emperor. Do you want us to have an infantile, irresponsible generation? But if you don’t trust them to manage the country, eventually, the moment will come when these people will pass away. But there should be a generation to govern the country, right? We are raising an infantile generation because we constantly hold them back, not letting them move forward. And I would like to see the youth stop hiding behind old figures. There’s no need to hide behind old, even very respected, beloved men.
Look at your peers. I’m talking about those from 25 to 45. Why is the driving force behind all these events young people? And the benefits are reaped by those who are well over 60. This definitely needs to change, because we’re stuck. For 30 years, the same elite has been governing the country.
Inal Khashig. On the other hand, this is probably not just about the system, but also about culture. We still haven’t formed a succession of the political class. The principles are such that people who were sitting on their haunches yesterday are suddenly parliamentarians today. And, essentially, they represent nothing but the ability to vote. These big shots have been in politics since the ‘80’s.
I think we need to go back to thinking about what our political class will actually look like. This should be an ongoing process, so that the political class is not formed by those who are aiming for the presidential palace. There should be different ideas, different principles, and a different level of intellect. Unfortunately, we don’t have this. When people get into parliament without even a secondary education, this is a serious problem. And ministers sometimes show up with questionable diplomas. This situation has led to these problems.
Astamur Tania. We need to ensure that the heads of central executive bodies are approved by parliament and that this happens publicly. As Peter the Great wrote, they should not just read from a piece of paper, but speak for themselves so that every one of their mistakes is visible. Television is a powerful tool. If the president or his representative appoints someone to the position of minister, they should present their vision publicly.
This will provoke responses from the media. This is a simple way to keep public power under control. Why is our parliament closed off? How can one work in such a “cage”? Yes, this is political suicide for the elite. Sooner or later, it will lead to explosions. And in a small society like Abkhazia, it will be noticeable immediately, like a fruit fly.
Inal Khashig. But is there still any hope that we can develop new rules in three months?
Astamur Tania. We haven’t lost hope for 30 years.
Inal Khashig. With the same success, we’ll keep not losing hope for another 30 years.
“Youth should engage in politics, not create obscure clubs that have no program or clear goal.”
Astamur Tania. It’s easy to propose. But these young lawyers, young people, should not expect that their documents will be treated like treasures. They need to actively work with the authorities and the public. If you want to change something, you need to actively bombard public institutions, parties, the opposition, parliament, everything, to push these ideas forward.
Youth should engage in politics, not create unclear clubs that have no program or clear goal. We need to understand how to solve the country’s problems. For that, there are political rules that must be followed. It’s not about making noise, but about engaging in real politics.
Inal Khashig. Nevertheless, there is one idea: previously, all presidential commissions on constitutional reforms were initiated by the president. Now it’s being suggested that parliament should do it. I think there’s a better chance of the process moving forward in this case.
Astamur Tania. There will be a resolution to the crisis. It will either be in our favor or against all of our interests.
Inal Khashig. To ensure it’s not against our interests, we need to think about how we will live moving forward. We have experienced the third Abkhaz revolution, so to speak, or the third Groundhog Day.
Astamur Tania. Sorry, let me interrupt. I remembered the Soviet times when, in a KVN sketch, an ambassador from an exotic country said: “We have had our 35th revolution, and it too socialist.” There should be real changes.
Inal Khashig. Our program can be watched not only on the “Chegemskaya Pravda” YouTube channel but also on Rutube, and on the outlet’s Facebook page. You can also read it on our website “Chegemskaya Pravda.” My comments can be found on the Telegram channel “Inal Khashig — Chegemskaya Pravda.” Thank you for watching, and see you next time.
Terms, place names, opinions and ideas suggested by the author of the publication are their own and do not necessarily coincide with the opinions and ideas of JAMnews or its individual employees. JAMnews reserves the right to remove comments on posts that are deemed offensive, threatening, violent or otherwise ethically unacceptable.
