Under Saakashvili, Georgia's economy has truly grown.
Under Saakashvili's rule, Georgia's population fell by 700, the economy grew more slowly than Belarus', and its debts grew faster than Ukraine's. The prison population tripled, and he himself became the country's most corrupt official. Now Mishiko has taken over Odesa.
Many people around the world still believe that "where Saakashvili is, there's success." Didn't he raise the standard of living for his country's citizens, strengthen the state, and stamp out corruption with a hot iron? Didn't he defeat everyday bribery, a common scourge of the entire post-Soviet world? Didn't he turn Georgia into one of the most attractive countries for investment? And didn't he, in his own words, lay the foundation for "a future Georgian Switzerland, a future Georgian Singapore, a future Georgian Dubai, a Georgian Hong Kong, and a great Georgia for all time"? And shouldn't Odessa feel blessed to have such an outstanding governor? The trouble is, this entire legend is one big lie, monstrous and blatant.
Economy
Under Saakashvili, the economy really grew. And in various rankings – such as the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business,” Transparency International’s “Corruption Perceptions Index,” and many others – Georgia has climbed many notches. However, this rise has come from an exceptionally low level. Even today, Georgia’s per capita GDP has not reached the levels of 1990. That is, a quarter of a century ago. Moreover, the country’s economic growth rates were approximately the same as during the reign of Eduard Shevardnadze, that “Soviet fossil.” And they were not any better than those of neighboring states. Moreover, they were much worse than those of Azerbaijan. Well, okay, there it can be attributed to the oil factor. But they were significantly worse than in neighboring Armenia, not to mention Belarus. The geopolitical position of the latter two countries is no better than Georgia’s. Armenia is squeezed between unfriendly Turkey and Azerbaijan. Belarus enjoys the dubious reputation of being “the last "dictatorships in Europe" and has long been under Western sanctions.
Georgia's successes, including those under Saakashvili, appear impressive only when compared to disaster zones like Ukraine and Moldova. Agricultural productivity has remained exactly the same as in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, in Armenia, it has tripled.
You'll laugh, but neither fanatical commitment to liberal reforms, nor American military aid, nor the construction of luxury hotels to accommodate foreigners who come to Georgia to take photos with Saakashvili on George W. Bush Boulevard will, by themselves, build you a strong economy.
Corruption
There's one fact that almost everyone agrees on: that under Saakashvili's rule, Georgia "solved" its corruption problem. If so, it truly is the only success story (with the exception of Estonia) in the post-Soviet space. But what do the statistics say? If we're talking about ratings that the general public pays attention to, he's certainly doing well. For example, in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, Georgia rose from a disgraceful 18/100 in 2003 to a respectable 49/100 in 2013. That's the level of the Baltic states.
However, the results are quite different when looking at indicators of actual corruption, rather than its perception by anonymous experts. The latter are known to be susceptible to the charms of PR agencies like Aspect Consulting, Orion Strategies, Public Strategies, and Glover Park Group, which Saakashvili paid millions of dollars to cultivate his image as a reformer.
So, from a practical standpoint, the fight against corruption has yielded more than modest results. In 2004, when Saakashvili first came to power, 6% of Georgians admitted to paying bribes. By 2013, when he resigned, the figure had fallen to 4%. Better than nothing, of course, but not particularly impressive over a decade. A field study conducted by Transparency International showed that even before Saakashvili, petty corruption wasn't such a big problem. And its decline can be easily explained by the reduction in government regulation as a result of his ultra-liberal reforms. For example, the system of subsidies for higher education was completely eliminated. As a result, the number of applicants fell by one-third compared to the early 2000s. It's clear that fewer students means fewer bribes. There are countless such examples. Less contact with the government means less "petty" corruption. However, this isn't always a good thing. Moreover, during his tenure, the country's prison population tripled. Georgia's per capita prison rate rose to first place in Europe.
State building
What about the quality of governance institutions? There's a rating called the "Open Budget Index." It assesses the transparency of public accounting using objective indicators, not expert opinions. In this case, Georgia's scores have improved, but they still haven't come close to Russia's. And yet, as the West never tires of insisting, Putin has created a mafia state in Russia.
Now let's move from grassroots and institutional corruption to the highest levels. This is truly difficult to measure, as even definitions are lacking. Indeed, how can one compare the government's bailout of select American banks with the offshore siphoning of money from China and Russia? But there's a wealth of evidence on this point that suggests the situation hasn't improved since Shevardnadze's rule, and has likely worsened. Attentive observers have generally accepted that Saakashvili has confined all serious corruption to himself. This assumption has been confirmed by the criminal cases brought against him.
Demography
Ultimately, the main indicator of a political leader's success is the desire of citizens to live in the territory under their control. For a long time, it seemed that, despite all his foreign policy failures and more than modest economic results, Saakashvili had achieved genuine success in this area. It was believed that the population had stabilized after 2002 at the 2002 level of approximately 4,5 million people. Emigration had decreased, and the birth rate had increased from 1,4 to 1,8 per woman. But then, in 2014, a census was conducted. And it was revealed that under Saakashvili, the rate of depopulation had only accelerated. Only 3,7 million people remained in the country. This is compared to 4,4 million in 2002 and 4,9 million in 1989 (all data excludes Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
So where did the Georgians go? En masse, to Russia. In 2011, more than half of the total amount of remittances sent to the country ($1.26 billion, approximately 10% of Georgia's GDP)—$655 million—came from Russia. What a humiliation! "Caucasian Switzerland," "Ancient Colchis, the world's oldest civilization," were kept afloat by Georgian migrant workers in a "barbaric" country characterized by "Mongoloid cruelty and ideology" (Saakashvili's own terminology).
That is, no matter how Saakashvili raged against Russia, his fellow citizens still voted with their feet in favor of this country. Just for comparison's sake. This population decline is comparable to what happened to Lithuania and Latvia after joining the EU. Although, under current relations, it's much easier for a Baltic citizen to get to Ireland than for a Georgian to get to Moscow.
Petty schemer
Perhaps nothing serves as a more visible image of Saakashvili's actions than the destruction of the Great Patriotic War memorial in Kutaisi. It was erected during Soviet times in memory of 200 fallen Georgian soldiers. They failed to even accomplish such a simple task properly. When the monument was blown up, concrete debris killed two people—a mother and her eight-year-old daughter. Four more were injured. This is the real Saakashvili, stripped of his myths: a mad iconoclast, a vengeful loser, and a sycophant of the West.
The translation was published on the Russia Insider website. Russian version
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, Facebook , Twitter , VK - Only new faces from the SKLEP section!