Presidential election in Abkhazia: How to avoid worsening the crisis?Astamur Tania and Inal Khashig

Presidential election in Abkhazia

The situation before the second round of the presidential elections has escalated to the limit. A dialogue between the two candidates for president would seem necessary in order to diffuse tensions. Support from all state and public institutions in this direction is also needed.

The editor of Chegemskaya Pravda, Inal Khashig, discussed ways to avoid radicalization of the election campaign with historian and political scientist Astamur Tania on Thursday, February 20.

Full text of interview:

Inal Khashig: Hello, this is Chegemskaya Pravda. Recently, we had the first round of the presidential election, and now we’re waiting for the second round. The situation is quite alarming: tensions are high, and this is not the first time. We would like to discuss how to reduce tension with our regular expert, historian, and political scientist, Astamur Tania.

Astamur, good afternoon. The situation is as follows: we have two political camps, each firmly standing its ground. On one side, there is the camp represented by Badra Gunba (a presidential candidate in Abkhazia). He speaks of unity, but in reality, there is no unity. He is supported by anonymous channels, some Russian media, and so on.

The main thing about this side is the claim that Moscow supports them more than others. On the other side, candidate Adgur Ardzinba is positioned in the media space as an anti-Russian figure, as well as a pro-Turkish agent, and so on. This mythology distracts us from real issues such as constitutional reform, local government reform, and others. We are discussing unclear matters that only further inflame the situation. Ardzinba’s supporters believe they are being oppressed, that justice is being violated, and that their election is being taken away from them. This atmosphere could lead to unpredictable consequences that we would like to avoid. How do you assess the current situation?

Astamur Tania: The situation is, of course, not new for Abkhazia; we are experiencing something similar to what happened in 2004, though in a somewhat different form. Society must take its experience into account.

Regarding the first round and the socio-political situation before and partly thereafter, fortunately, things are better than how they are presented in the media. Sometimes when reading publications, I recall the American film Wag the Dog, where there was supposedly a war in Albania in the media space, even though the Albanian government insisted there was no war—but no one listened to them.

The narrative about dark anti-Russian forces exists in the information and propaganda space without any real basis.

Astamur Tania: However, we must not forget the power of words⁠—as crude methods they can generate corresponding sentiments, which is undesirable for either Abkhazia or Russia in the medium and long term. It seems that these elections are being treated like a football match, where the main goal is simply to win and take the trophy. But after the elections, the goal should not just be to claim the presidency as a prize—it should be to establish effective governance in the country. Power must be based on the will of its own people; this is where its legitimacy comes from.

The previous president did not understand this, and that was his biggest mistake. If we fail to realize this, our institutions of government may become mere formalities. There are already reports of violations and actions based on ethnic grounds. Interethnic harmony is one of the pillars of our state’s existence. We have already undermined many of our fundamental principles, and now this as well. Over the past 30 years, not many representatives of the Abkhaz diaspora have relocated here—this is a separate issue as to why. But it was part of the Abkhaz national project and ideology, which did not prevent Abkhazia from maintaining its orientation toward Russia. Turkish geopolitical influence does not play a role here.

If we continue this way, after the election we will face devastation, ineffective government institutions, and a fractured society. Those involved in the process must understand that emotions, ambitions, and grievances exist, but if one aspires to be the head of state, they must rise above them. Competitive struggle is inevitable, and we don’t always like each other. It is crucial to plan ahead for managing the situation after the election—because once the commotion settles, the real problems will remain. We barely managed to heal the divisions of 2004, but now we risk creating new fault lines.

There is also a lack of public action: if there are violations, law enforcement agencies should be dealing with them. But they remain silent, even though they should be taking action—the prosecutor’s office, the police, and security services. If we are a sovereign state, we must solve our problems independently rather than delegating them to others.

Inal Khashig: But our state institutions have effectively withdrawn from the process.

Astamur Tania: Parliament must strengthen its public engagement. It is not just a body for passing laws but, above all, a public authority. The executive branch has effectively collapsed after the events of November, and it is now unclear who is actually governing. The legitimacy of parliament is not in question, so it should regularly make statements and provide a platform for candidates to meet. This was done in the past. Why this withdrawal now? Parliament can act as a mediator and invite both candidates. I’m sure neither of them would refuse.

Our society is held together by an internal consensus which is very fragile. Stability is precarious, and much depends on dialogue. If the sides can’t establish a dialogue, those who can facilitate it must step in. We need to set clear rules to ensure that the elections take place and don’t descend into anarchy. The threat is real—tensions are rising. Today is Thursday, and the situation is already significantly worse than last Friday. Although everything seems calm on the surface, it is like a pressure cooker. We shouldn’t push each other into a corner. The candidates know each other well; they are not enemies. It is important to understand that one part of society can’t be an enemy of the other.

Inal Khashig: I have noticed that tensions are gradually escalating. State institutions are practically unresponsive. There are reports of pressure on ethnic Armenians in villages with a predominantly Armenian population during the elections. Both sides claim such pressure is taking place. However, law enforcement agencies don’t seem to have initiated any criminal cases, and investigative actions are barely being conducted. Now, Russian investigative authorities are stepping in, considering that some individuals hold Russian passports. We are demonstrating complete passivity, showing that the law does not function in our country and that state institutions are merely decorative.

Astamur Tania: Merely decorative.

Inal Khashig: I agree that, during the election, we are witnessing a power vacuum, a kind of anarchy. However, we do have various public and state institutions—the Public Chamber, parliament, councils of elders, veterans’ organizations, and numerous civil associations. But I don’t see any effort to ease tensions or call for common sense.

Astamur Tania: Maybe we have to wait it out.

Inal Khashig: You know, I think we should take advantage of this situation.

Astamur Tania: Take advantage of it, and understand why there is no movement in this direction.

Inal Khashig: I clearly remember the elections of 2004 and all their drama. Back then, the tension reached its peak, but candidates Raoul Khajimba and Sergey Bagapsh met in person and discussed the situation. Moreover, their teams also met, trying to find common ground. Now, as we approach the most intense phase, I don’t see similar actions from the headquarters. There have been some attempts at mediation to establish a dialogue, but in reality, nothing is happening. There is no direct dialogue between the candidate camps. It seems to me that if Adgur Ardzinba and Badra Gunba met personally, discussed their concerns, set a common agenda, and defined red lines, it would be productive for how the elections conclude. It’s important not just who wins, but how the elections are conducted and how we move forward afterward.

Astamur Tania: We need to understand Abkhazia’s position. Yes, we are a sovereign country recognized by Russia. But de facto, Abkhazia is a Russian protectorate. If our law enforcement agencies and authorities fail to maintain the rule of law, and the situation spirals out of control, we should not be surprised if Russia, guided by its own security interests, takes measures to ensure order in Abkhazia. Our state institutions and political leaders are being tested for maturity. This kind of development does not suit either Russia or us.

We always talk about Abkhazia’s sovereignty and statehood, but responsibility must follow those words. Sometimes it is unclear who the criminal is and who the law enforcer is. We have so many generals that it seems there were fewer in the Soviet Union. They need to match their ranks and responsibilities. Abkhaz sovereignty and statehood must be translated into real terms, not turned into a farce. The main responsibility now lies with the two candidates. One of them will become president. They both need to understand their responsibility, take public steps and make statements, dispelling the myths that are being spread.

Right now, this may seem like a competitive advantage, but in the future, it will lead to problems. If we recall the activities of Vladislav Ardzinba (the first president of Abkhazia), who is often mentioned, although people are doing the opposite. From the perspective of the then authorities, Vladislav Ardzinba could be considered an anti-Russian extremist, as he opposed proposals for joining Georgia, transferring police functions to peacekeeping forces, and returning all the refugees. Under him, the return of the Abkhaz diaspora from Turkey began. Although many didn’t return, none of them created extremist pro-Turkish organizations here.

And a lot of time has passed. More than 30 years. We need to think about the long-term consequences. His strategy played its role: Abkhazia remained one of the strongholds of Russia’s interests during a difficult period. Some in the Russian leadership admired how Abkhazia managed to survive. We survived. Now the younger generation is being tested for maturity. Ruslan Khashig (an Abkhaz journalist) said that the generation who died during the war could have taken responsibility for the country.

But the reality is that those of us who are in our forties must now admit the seriousness of the situation. The world around Abkhazia is complex. Our task is to remain as an independent entity. Our relationship with Russia is an advantage, but we must maintain our independence within that relationship. It should be one of mutual interest. They need to understand that. Time is short, and we should not take steps that will only make the situation worse.

Inal Khashig: In times like this, there isn’t much to analyze. We’ve become trapped by myths and phobias, and we’ve forgotten the main thing—why we are electing a president. We need to return to a sound agenda and stop spreading destructive ideas. I think Russia is also interested in this because, after the elections, regardless of the winner, we’ll need to figure out how to manage the country in a tense atmosphere with many people who could be labeled as pro-Turkish or anti-Russian forces. It’s strange that people with no connection to Abkhazia are speaking more about us: anonymous channels, where there is nothing Abkhazian. These people either came to work off some task, or they’re not even here. I read comments from Russian military correspondents who are knowledgeable about the situation on the frontlines in Donbas, but when they talk about Abkhazia, they clearly don’t understand and may have never been here.

Astamur Tania: In 2004, there was the “hello, Adjara” incident [on September 30, 2004, a grand concert organized in Sukhumi by Moscow-based artists to mark the day of victory in the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, where Gazmanov appeared on stage and shouted, “Hello, Adjara!”].

Inal Khashig: Yes, yes. People who are uninformed on the subject speak with great confidence as if they are the final authority on the election. It seems to me the candidates should take note: even if there is no external information support, there are people around them. I would caution Ardzinba’s supporters. I understand the emotions, but we live in one republic. Elections are one thing, but translating everything into an ethnic dimension and searching for blame will only worsen the situation and the future prospects. Even if Adgur Ardzinba wins, it will create problems for him. Any escalation of the situation when any candidate comes to power will lead to enormous problems.

Astamur Tania: What will the result be? The reform agenda, all these ideas—will be thrown into the trash. After the election, there will be a tense situation, and we’ll have to heal the wounds from the divide in society and the inter-ethnic mistrust that has not existed for the past 30 years. This is an urgent problem requiring the work of both the public and the state. Without reforms, our country will not move forward. We have missed what should have determined the direction of our future. It was expected that the main theme of the campaigns would be reforms, discussions about them, but instead, we are discussing marginal and harmful topics. These topics are influencing public consciousness—xenophobia and so on. How long will we reap the consequences of this? No election or position is worth the sacrifices we might make in a matter of days or weeks. This must be understood. A state is built according to known rules, but it can also be destroyed.

Astamur Tania: The state must have meaning, and the majority of the populace—Abkhaz, Armenians, Georgians, Mingrelians, Russians—must be invested in it. If there is no such investment, the state will disappear. There are states that are recognized by everyone and exist de jure, but de facto don’t exist, such as Somalia, which is fragmented along ethnic lines. We need to understand this. We have to move to the next stage of development—from an ethnic nation to a civic one—defining the parameters that unite us.

We’ve been engaged in state-building for 20 years, but with little productivity. Recognition by Russia is an important achievement, but in other respects, the state’s work is unproductive. Everything has come down to corruption and the redistribution of spheres of influence. That is not how a state is built; it has all turned into a puppet show. We need to understand this. The elections have revealed our ailments, which have existed even before the campaign. We’ve been living in a permanent crisis for many years, and the elections have made that clear. We see our problems—will we treat them, or let them go unchecked, which will end badly?

Inal Khashig: I suppose it’s time to wrap up. A call to think with our heads about the future.

Astamur Tania: To remember that we have a head, and it’s not just for eating.

Inal Khashig: I would like us to approach March 1st with a common goal. I understand there are two boxes in the ballot, right? Three, yes, one of them is “against all.” But we should have a common idea behind why we’re ticking these boxes. We are doing this so that all citizens living in Abkhazia are voting for their future, so that regardless of the winner, the country continues to live, develop, the standard of living improves, there is national consensus and law and order. If we are ticking the box for someone just because they’re closer to the one in office, then the country has no real prospects, and we can already sense where these prospects end. I hope the presidential candidates and their supporters hear us.

Astamur Tania: I would like to address the parliament: they don’t have the political or moral right to be passive observers of this process. The people elected them for a reason. Just like the president, there are 35 people who represent the people of Abkhazia. This is what they should remember. And in 2004, by the way, I also participated in negotiations with former speaker Nugzar Ashuba. We discussed many issues, even though the situation was tense, and some things were done to stabilize it. That’s why there should be continuity in this sense within the parliament. They should take charge of this matter.

Inal Khashig: Well, I hope everything will be ok, that the elections will go smoothly, and everything will work out. Let’s conclude on that optimistic note. Thank you. Until 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.