translation article 1

7/27/2019 translation Article 1

1/12

Giga Bokeria: Should we apologize to Onishchenko but condemn the EPP?

Article CommentsAuthor:Nino MacharashviliRelated:Pendulum of Violence

The New Georgian Government and 100 Days of Its Foreign PolicyThe Perception of Selective JusticeThe Chairman of the National Security Council of Georgia Giga Bokeria talked with Tabula

about the countrys foreign policy orientation, its court reform, the plans and problems of the

United National Movement as well as other important developments in the country.

How much have the cuts in the budget of the National Security Council (NSC) affected thescope of its activity? The new government made allegations about the untargeted and non-transparent spending of the NSC budget.The NSC budget was downsized in terms of expenditures made for NSC policy, foreign

policy, and the consultants whose task was to support our national security interests. The

government decided that these directions were not priorities or, as they said, the money was

being spent incorrectly. Now, as they have declared, they themselves have signed contracts

with international consulting groups.

There is nothing extraordinary in their decision to run the business themselves. But, I

believe, the form in which this was done was incorrect. They did not show even the tiniest

interest in what we dealt with or how it would be better to continue our activities. That was

followed by allegations from the realm of the conspiracy theories which our governmententertains today. I see nothing scandalous in the cuts to the budget itself and we have not

kicked up any fuss about that. What is worth noting, however, is that all this happened

without any inquiry and by inquiry, I do not mean a criminal prosecution which is a

declared goal [of the new government].

Those expenditures covered several directions which did not involve consulting companies,

the so-called lobbyists. They concerned extremely apolitical topics, for example, establishing

a structure for running the country in case of emergency, war or natural disaster. Such

projects had been implemented for several years with the assistance of our international

partners. However, [after the new government came to power] it became a matter of political

jealousy. In order to avoid the suspension of that project because of political jealousy, we

made the new government an offer that another entity would continue its implementation.

Initial reactions seemed positive, but they failed to reach a decision and the project was

suspended.

As regards current developments, recently the European Peoples Party [EPP] adopted adeclaration on Georgia in which it expresses regret that certain steps of the government have
http://en.tabula.ge/article-7153.html#tabs-1http://en.tabula.ge/article-7153.html#tabs-1http://en.tabula.ge/article-7153.html#tabs-2http://en.tabula.ge/article-7153.html#tabs-2http://en.tabula.ge/profile.html?uid=4122http://en.tabula.ge/profile.html?uid=4122http://en.tabula.ge/profile.html?uid=4122http://en.tabula.ge/?p=7117http://en.tabula.ge/?p=7117http://en.tabula.ge/?p=7086http://en.tabula.ge/?p=7086http://en.tabula.ge/?p=7054http://en.tabula.ge/?p=7054http://en.tabula.ge/?p=7054http://en.tabula.ge/?p=7086http://en.tabula.ge/?p=7117http://en.tabula.ge/profile.html?uid=4122http://en.tabula.ge/article-7153.html#tabs-2http://en.tabula.ge/article-7153.html#tabs-1


2/12

damaged the positive image of Georgia, thereby endangering the ratification of theAssociation Agreement between the European Union and Georgia.At the same time, however, the EPP notes in that declaration that it remains committed to

making the [Eastern Partnership] Summit in Vilnius [scheduled in November 2013] a success

for Georgia. In my opinion this is the most important issue.Government representatives declare that the EPP declaration will not jeopardize theachievement of the countrys objectives. What is your stance is the danger of questioningGeorgias European course or the Association Agreement, in particular, real?I hope it is not. Our objective is to make the Vilnius Summit a success for Georgia by

achieving its minimum objective the signing of the Association Agreement and the Deep

and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU whilst, in parallel, continuing

successful implementation of the action plan for visa-free travel. The maximum objective is

to have the European perspective explicitly outlined within the framework of the

Association Agreement. This issue has not been decided yet. In other areas, the work wasalmost completely done before the change of power: there were virtually no barriers left in

the technical part and a political decision was also taken at the summit in Warsaw. Now

there is the need to complete this work and avoid spoiling it.

As regards a direct message about our EU prospects, this issue has required quite a lot of toil

because there are some skeptics in Europe. I hope, at least, the minimum objective will be

achieved.

Recent steps taken in Georgia and the sharp reactions to the [EPPs] criticism are dangerous.

First, because of what it may bring about in terms of achieving a practical objective. When

you aggressively attack the largest political party of EU member states because you do notlike its criticisms, it is political stupidity.

So it turns out that if the Georgian president criticizes [the Chief Sanitary Inspector of Russia

Gennadiy] Onishchenko, we must apologize to him, but if the EPP criticizes us we must

condemn it.

A second threat, which is even more dangerous in the long term perspective, is

demonstrating total intolerance and unrestraint towards criticism. No government likes

scathing criticism. One may not agree with the criticism, and may even become angry about

it, but having this type of reaction is dangerous.

The aggressive letter of the Speaker of Parliament [Davit Usupashvili] to the EPP wasscandalous. It came as a surprise to us. We do not agree with Mr. Usupashvili on many topics,

but never before has he committed such an act of political craziness. The reasons of that,

however, soon transpired with his characteristic straightforwardness, the prime minister

[Bidzina Ivanishvili] said that it was his idea.

A reaction of this type adds to the attitudes of European skeptics that this country [Georgia]

behaves like some other countries of this region, especially our northern neighbor.


3/12

Even if one does not agree with the reasons that the action plan was draw up for, one must

agree with the points that were made in the recent EPP declaration [on Georgia]: that there

must be political competition; that the opposition must not be persecuted; that self-

government bodies must not be forced to switch sides; that certain issues in the media, for

example, those concerning the independence of the Georgian Public Broadcaster, must not

be revised; that the recommendations of the Venice Commission on the issue of court

reformation must be taken into account; that no selective justice must be applied, et cetera.

In such cases, a responsible authority, even though it may not agree, would say that it would

listen to them and work with them.

The attitude that Europeans must not interfere into our affairs, should not teach us, and so

on and so forth, is a dangerous sentiment. The situation appears confused they first say

visit us, criticize us, inspect us, but then, when they do not agree with the clear criticism

voiced, they get angry and their reaction is hysterical. As a result of such attitudes, Georgias

European path may get entirely derailed, regrettable signs of which have already been seen.

This derailment is not irreversible and has not yet been completed and I hope that this willnot happen.

The demands the West placed on our team [the United National Movement, UNM] were

way higher than they were towards [former President Eduard] Shevadnadze. Now, for the

first time ever, a new government has come to power through elections and this government

may be required to meet yet a higher standard still. That must not come as a surprise to

them. No matter how irritating the criticism, it must be perceived as a healthy phenomenon.

The denial of such criticisms may, at a minimum, impede the fulfillment of our objectives

the signing of the Association Agreement and other issues.

Along with the criticism towards Europeans, new details have emerged in Georgias relationswith Russia, including the establishment of a format of bilateral meetings in parallel with theGeneva talks. The government contends that this will not interfere with the Geneva talkswhich will carry on as normal. Do you deem the establishment of another channel withRussia justifiable? What possible risks or benefits may it contain?When the new government said that it wanted to talk to Russia on all issues, our reaction

was supportive and we wished them success. Unfortunately, we have strategic differences

with the political class of the Russian Federation, but it is logical and there is no problem

when a democratically elected new authority offers dialogue on the fundamental issues we

face. Dialogue itself is good.The problem lies in the following: the vision that sorting out relations with the Russian

Federation is a prerequisite for Georgias advancement toward the West is a grave mistake.

The normalization of relations with Russia, as our government itself admitted, will take a

long time and if the pace of our advancement slows down, we will find ourselves in a

stalemate. The only chance of more or less settling relations with the Russian Federation is a


4/12

rapid integration of Georgia into the Euro-Atlantic space, just as Poland and Baltic States

managed to do.

We [the UMN] also used to say that we were ready for dialogue with the Russian Federation

at any level. But if this dialogue means setting aside a problematic issue for a long time,

refraining from reminding Russia that whilst it occupies our territories it will have aproblem, how then will this issue [de-occupation] be solved at all?

The government, however, stresses that its priorities and rhetoric in the international arenahave not changed.They have not changed, but if we do not make efforts to have our international partners

exert pressure on Russia, then everyone will forget that.

The prime minister often repeats a romantic phrase that, it is not in the hands of Russia itself

[that Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region remain occupied], and we will explain this to

Russia. This is the height of infantilism. You cannot explain anything to an adversary who,at a given point of time, pursues the objectives which strategically oppose your own. The

illusion that President Putin, at his current age, will change his vision is beyond the scope of

unseriousness.

We supported the establishment of dialogue but the format must always be multilateral, like

it is in Geneva today. There can be meetings held in parallel, but in discussions of strategic

issues we must never be alone with the Russian Federation. That brings about dire

consequences that we have already witnessed more than once before. During such dialogue,

Russia must be made to face political problems in its own international relations until its

attitude towards Georgia changes.

There are certain concrete issues which Russia banned on political grounds, for example, the

return of Georgian products to the Russian market. Georgia supported Russias accession to

the World Trade Organization (WTO). The use of such a lever [as it was Georgias support to

Russias WTO accession] through dialogue is good Russia must know that we have this

lever and that it may pose problems for it.

No one will be against opening the Russian market to Georgian products. The problem is the

excessive expectations towards that. We must exercise caution in order to avoid dependence

on exports to Russia in any sphere regardless of international levers, we do not have any

guarantees that Russia will not decide to use its grip on us as it does with Moldova.

An open market, diversified exports and a possible enhancement of business is all good, but

they cannot lead to a breakthrough in Georgian economic development. The Soviet period,

when the Georgian economy was small and 90 percent of exports went to Russia, was bad for

Georgia and it cost us dearly back then. Georgia has since developed and those volumes will

no longer bring any result. The wine industry, which suffered most severely from the

Russian embargo, has diversified and this has translated into better quality and, at the


5/12

same time, we are better protected politically, we no longer depend on anyone telling us that

if we do not act accordingly it will close down its market without any legitimate reason.

Can the reopening of the Russian market to Georgian products be considered a positive resultof the new government and its new policy?They will portray that as such, but I think that this will be a result of the fact that theGeorgian economy has withstood the embargo whilst the embargo gave nothing to Russia.

If this is considered one of top priorities in the negotiations then that is no problem, let them

[the new government] be credited for that. But pinning great hopes for the Georgian

economy on that is incorrect. The opening of the Russian market cannot be, and has never

been, a panacea for settling any problem.

Attempts to achieve the reopening of the market are absolutely normal. What is abnormal is

that we cannot see a proactive foreign policy, for example, in terms of NATO. Attitudes

towards us vary in Europe: there are skeptics as well as supporters. It is necessary to actively

work with everyone on a daily basis, to use lobbying and all available instruments, includingconsultants, in order to mobilize opinions among the political class about the further steps

needed for Georgias Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

By the way, we missed a very good chance of dissuading skeptics after the October

parliamentary election. That election was seen as a test for us in the West. A new political

team, working jointly with us, could have capitalized on that. I am not saying that it would

necessarily have brought a direct result, for example, the award of a Membership Action

Plan, but a focused campaign indicating that Georgia deserved the next step should have

been conducted. I did not see that. There was a concrete idea a joint visit [to Brussels]

would have been a strong signal for the European audience. That would, inter alia, have putEuropean skeptics in a position where they would have had to acknowledge that Georgia had

already become a different country. But our government, and the prime minister personally,

has chosen a different path, which is part of a big problem instead of portraying his

personal success in the elections as a step forward on Georgias path towards

democratization, he decided to open the worlds eyes to how terrible we were and what

terrible things had been happening here at a time when they thought Georgia was a

successful country. This, at best, is political stupidity.

It is shocking for anyone in international relations when the government spends most of its

foreign communications asserting how bad its opposition is and how big the lies are that they

have heard about Georgia.

It creates catastrophic impressions and causes catastrophic results when the foreign

ministers key message when visiting the United States is that everyone from the former

government are criminals, even more so when this is publically declared prior to the

completion of any legal investigation. It is equally grave when, during a meeting with

investors, the prime minister says that things are very bad in Georgia in reality and whatever


6/12

they have heard to the contrary is all a lie. This is an inadequate and anti-statehood

expression of political rancor.

For its part, the political opposition, which only criticizes the government, speaks about the

shortcomings of democracy and does not place emphasis on the strategic objectives of the

country, also looks bad. As the opposition, our message must also be that Georgia deservesadvancement in Euro-Atlantic integration, but the idea that opponents must not take bad

news outside is the approach practiced in the Russian Federation.

One more issue is the de-criminalization of the crossing of Georgias borders running alongthe occupied territories. The government asserts that this de-criminalization is merelypragmatic in nature. Does such an amendment to the Law on Occupied Territores weakenGeorgias positions in terms of its non-recognition policy? Can we consider this as a toningdown of rhetoric or a prerequisite of future concessions?This causes concern in a general context. The decision for the achievement of a practical

objective may not be alarming itself. Even under the existing legislation, the government hasthe right to allow people to enter the occupied territories from other countries; this

discretion is in the hands of the government. I have not yet heard from the government how

we will benefit from ceding this discretion. If anyone explains, we will listen to and discuss

that explanation.

The fact that trespassing the borders of unoccupied territory is punishable, whilst along the

occupied territories is not punishable, is abnormal. Understandably, there may be

circumstances when we will not need to prosecute those people who have illegitimately

entered Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region, however, the effective law currently allows that

without the need for amendments.

Talks about making a pragmatic concession, like talks on other issues, should not

automatically cause hysteria; nonetheless, explanations about why this is being done are

necessary.

As regards the restoration of rail traffic via Abkhazia. How timely is it to raise this topic nowand can this initiative be beneficial for Georgia?It is incomprehensible why open statements were made on this issue without first having

considered in what context this can be beneficial for Georgia and how it can be

implemented.

Those statements aroused questions in our strategic partner Azerbaijan. Starting relationshipswith question marks is not good for the new government. I hope this will not create a

fundamental threat to our relationship with Azerbaijan, but all this indicates immaturity, to

say the least.

As the new government itself later admitted, the Abkhazia railway involves many complex

issues to which there are no answers yet and therefore it is too premature to talk about that.


7/12

Our position was clear-cut: this issue can be discussed only in the context of de-occupation

or a fundamental settlement of the situation of the occupied territories.

What weve got is a situation where a statement was made about something which is

unfeasible, whilst the Kars-Akhalkalaki-Baku railway project, which is being implemented

and clearly serves our national security interests, was questioned. Everything is happening inreverse.

That gives rise to problems with our friend Armenia because an illusion is created which

cannot be materialized. This is not normal. It must be clear-cut and transparent for our

partners what our stance is on this issue, what the barriers are, and what is and is not

realistic.

Let me ask you about a statement made by President Mikheil Saakashvili after his officialvisit to Baku in early March. He said that Russia is preparing the same scenario forAzerbaijan as it used against Georgia during the October parliamentary elections. Thestatement caused a rather sharp reaction from Baku. President Ilham Aliyevs administrationexpressed its surprise about that statement, denying that this issue was discussed during anymeeting there. On what basis did Saakashvili make this statement and how correct wasmaking such a political statement about problems between Azerbaijan and Russia right afterhis visit?A statement of a representative of the Azerbaijani Presidents administration said that there

could be some similarities [between the situations of the two countries], but each country

has its own path and foreign policy. This statement underlined that those issues were not

discussed during the meetings in Baku.

We also confirm that this was not a topic of discussion in the meeting between PresidentSaakashvili and President Aliyev. This is the vision of President Saakashvili and I can assure

you that, in general, President Saakashvili openly speaking about the plans of the Russian

Federation towards its neighbors creates no problems for the Georgian-Azerbaijani

relationship.

Every country has its own tactics regarding what and what not to articulate. The President of

Georgia deemed it necessary to articulate that. The Azerbaijani side deemed it necessary to

specify that that was President Saakashvilis position and not Azerbaijans, so they did.

I completely share President Saakashvilis vision in regards that the Russian Federation has

such plans towards its neighbors. This is not a problem in Georgia-Azerbaijan relations.Society is interested in issues related to your team after the defeat in the parliamentaryelections, the UNM admitted that it had made some mistakes and also declared that the partyneeds transformation and renewal. Six months have passed since then, but the results of thistransformation and renewal have not been seen yet except for several new faces in the party.What is the reason of that and what can be expected in terms of transformation?


8/12

I do not want to talk much about this topic. I was, am, and will be a member of this political

team, but I am the Chairman of the Security Council and do not want to speak about political

party issues in detail. However, I am ready to briefly outline my opinion.

The mere fact of being in power for nine years itself always makes voters in any countrytired of one and the same team. Nine years will blemish any political team. An integral part

of such blemishes are the inevitable mistakes which were made during those years some

grave, some of medium severity. Added to this fact was that unemployment was still high,

regardless of the obviously strong economic growth that occurred in spite of both the

[August 2008 Georgia-Russia] war and the global economic crisis. Such a high

unemployment rate in which even a segment of self-employed sector considered

themselves unemployed was a serious political problem and a very grave starting position

for any political team. This was further compounded by the inertness of a segment of our

society who still think that a government may come to power that will tell them: I will take

care of you and pay for everything instead of you in order to ensure your wellbeing withoutyou needing to make any effort.

However, the UNM did not shun social programs either, including during the electionperiod.I am talking about conceptual messages. Our key rival was a person whose wealth was a

message itself. That was compounded by a clear message given during the election campaign

that Georgia will become similar to Ivanishvilis native village since this man is personally

rich, he will be able to ensure our wellbeing and give us money.

The extreme weakness of political opposition over the period of those nine years, and

especially in the past few years, made us relax, and led first to a decrease and then to thedisappearance of discussion both inside and outside the country. This would weaken any

political team, and proved true in our case too. All this then resulted in further relaxation

and a distortion of checks and balances inside the system.

One expression of that and the most ruinous and terrible was the prison scandal [the

release of video footage featuring the torture of inmates just two weeks before the October

election]. The key problem was not that groups of individual sadists committed such an

appalling crime, but that the system made such a crime possible and that an early reaction

mechanism to such crimes proved to be absent in the system. That was a result of a lack of

discussion and heated debate. That is a fundamental mistake which the UNM made.Recently, President Saakashvili said that the policy of zero tolerance to crime had to becompleted several years ago. Do you consider that a mistake too?I partially disagree with him on that. I believe that the conceptual approach of zero tolerance

is correct in a country which inherited a grave situation in terms of organized crime, crime

in general and estrangement towards the state. However, it is a problem if the court reforms

and other processes fail to keep pace with that.


9/12

Just as the correct objective of fighting organized crime and crime in general cannot justify

the atrocities and crimes which were revealed in the prison scandal, neither can the exposure

of the latter justify the revisions which we are seeing today. I mean the amnesty which was

carried out without any analysis, and resulted in the release of Russian spies without any

scrutiny of their cases. The new government itself declared that they had not even

declassified their cases.

Likewise, the investigation against [the former head of the penitentiary department] Bacho

Akhalaia because of a prison riot [in 2006] and openly declaring him a culprit is unfair and

the gravest mistake. That riot was staged by organized crime, and incontestable evidence of

this fact was presented. This is a very dangerous signal for the future if organized crime

attempts to regain its influence, the first signs of which can already be discerned. If a similar

situation [a prison riot] occurs in future, any future head [of penitentiaries] will find it very

difficult to apply legitimate force, and that is very dangerous.

Lets go back to the political team. A recent public opinion poll conducted by the USNational-Democratic Institute has shown that the UNM and its leaders enjoy some 10percent support almost the rating that the political opposition had in previous years. Howrealistically does the UNM evaluate its possibilities? Do you think the UNM, in the currentform, will be able to become a competitive political force? Is that possible before, forexample, the presidential elections scheduled for October 2013?You want me to make a political prognosis, which I will not do. I think, however, that the

UNM today is a key political force and will remain as such tomorrow.

The new political team is now having a honeymoon with voters. The mandate given to them

for making good on their promises is still fresh. The results of that poll reflect this and

nothing more. At the same time, they show that regardless of a very aggressive campaign

against the UNM, the tiredness of voters and the prison events, the UNM is the only solid

alternative. It is not essential whether the rating is 15 percent today or 20 or 25 percent

tomorrow. What is essential is that the UNM is a political alternative to the political force

now in power.

- As regards a rally the UNM plans to stage on 19 April in support of Georgias Europeanpath, according to the prime minister, there is no point in holding that rally as thegovernment supports that course. Why is that rally needed? Just recently, parliamentadopted a resolution on the foreign course of Georgia, which accommodates proposals fromthe political opposition as well.The resolution is a good document, the result of a good process. It is incomparably better

than the draft resolution submitted by the ruling party. But were the issues of the countrys

development decided by resolutions alone, we would not worry at all all sorts of

declarations have been adopted and a plebiscite [on accession to NATO] was also held.


10/12

That concerns not only foreign policy orientation but also domestic issues as to what path

the political class has embarked on and where it wants to lead society. On these issues,

fundamental differences exist between the UNM and the current government. These topics

have proved sufficient for the UNM political leadership to seek the expression of its opinion

through a public demonstration.

Therefore, the aggressive reaction of the prime minister is inappropriate. It is clear that he

does not agree with the assessments of the opposition, but if he thinks there is no point of

holding the rally, then let him not worry about that at all.

Can you be more specific about those fundamental differences?The message of a critical segment of the political force that won the elections is that

Georgias becoming part of the developed world endangers genuine Georgian identity. That

is a huge difference.

Our attitude was always clear-cut: Georgian citizens are patriots of this country, but are

citizens of the free world. Everyone living here is a Georgian citizen irrespective of theirreligion, ethnic origin, or their belonging to a sexual or any other minority, and everyone

who tries to create speculation on this matter and incite hatred is an enemy of freedom and

Georgias interests.

There were people, and such people are in abundance in the new political team, who for

years have believed that such an approach was an erosion of Georgian identity, that

Georgia has its own path, that there is Russia with a common religion, et cetera. On top of all

that, there is a fundamental difference in economic policy, where the message of the new

team is that, with the help of a wealthy man, they will tackle problems for people instead of

people tackling these themselves.Yet another important issue is the draft amendment to the Law on Common Courts. Theconclusion of the Venice Commission has already been published positively assessing part ofthe draft law, whilst recommending against the termination of the power of members of theSupreme Council of Justice, as envisaged by this draft law. What is your take on that? This is linked to the focal point that the early termination of membership on the Council of

Justice is unacceptable. This recommendation concerns the course of the new team which,

though having come to power through elections and not through revolution, does not want

to wait until the completion of legitimate processes in any of those institutions which it

regards as politically problematic. Not only does it seek to change the rules of game, but italso wants to either gain control outright or attempt to dismantle, according to its

understanding, the existing system controlling such institutions. That concerns the Georgian

Public Broadcaster, the Supreme Council of Justice and also, for example, the intelligence or

special state protection services.

The heaviest attack was made on self-government. The main idea of independence of self-

government is that it is not tied to central government. However, the violent efforts


11/12

undertaken by the new team demonstrated that the change of central government also

means the change of self-government. It is a catastrophic message for the tradition of self-

government and decentralization.

When we were in power, we were criticized for local government being under the political

control of the central government. This criticism may partially be fair, but that was the resultof elections the same political team won both the parliamentary and local elections. After

the October parliamentary elections we had the situation where we were to demonstrate

that central and local governments are two different things. However, that was forcibly

quashed.

Regarding the judiciary, that will be a demonstration of imposing political control. I think

that has been precisely the key objective of this reform. The rest is camouflage which does

not arouse much political discussion. The instant dismantling of a structure which, in the

governments understanding, poses problems for them is the declared goal. This is what the

justice minister openly speaks about.

The same holds true for other issues. The real objectives can be seen in prime ministers

statements. He sent a message to us that if we bother him politically he will arrest us. The

rhetoric of the justice minister is similar "these people create problems to us and therefore,

this problem must be solved."

This holds true for the crisis related to the Agrarian University as well a scandalous step by

the education ministry and the education minister personally. This was an open political

retaliation carried out by applying shameful bureaucratic methods. This is not my

interpretation alone, they said that themselves statements openly expressing political

hatred towards [the chairman of the supervisory board of the Agrarian University] Kakha

Bendukidze were made, first by the education minister and then by the prime minister. It

was said publicly that Bendukidze is an enemy of society, is a bad man and thats the reason

everything has been done.

Youve mentioned the issue of the Agrarian University. The National Center for EducationQuality Enhancement which rescinded the authorization of the University was created bythe previous government as part of a reversal from liberalization to bureaucratization of theeducation system. Do you not think that the former government also shares responsibilityfor what is happening now?As regards the responsibility, the former government may partially share it. The education

system should have been deregulated to a larger extent in order to limit the number of levers

in the hands of any political team. Under the circumstances of the political team which I

represent, a situation when a bureaucratic body would close down a university for some

ridiculous or semi-ridiculous shortcomings was absolutely ruled out, especially for the reason

that a head of a university entertained politically opposing views.


12/12

Regarding the process of political cohabitation inside the country, attempts to achieveagreement on constitutional changes were undertaken. During those meetings a number ofissues were outlined on which consensus seemed possible, although ultimately agreementwas not achieved. Can it be said that today the attempt of cohabitation has entered deadlock? I think, the issue of constitutional changes will soon be resolved. The different positions ofvarious political forces regarding the constitution is not itself a problem of cohabitation. The

problem stems not from difference of opinions concerning the constitution, but from

attitudes shown in everything. It became a problem for cohabitation when the new political

team put it this way if you do not do what we think necessary in regards to the

constitution, we will deprive you of security guards, will not allow you to deliver a speech,

will use aggressive people who will beat you up whilst the police will not defend you, and so

on and so forth. This is the problem for cohabitation and, even more so, of democracy.

I was against the constitutional model adopted in 2004 and publicly expressed my attitude

back then. I supported either a clearly presidential or a clearly parliamentary republic. I have

never liked hybrid models. However, the assessments we hear now that that was a

dictatorship and a tyranny are comical.

Dismissal of the government by the president is politically absolutely ruled out. Everyone

understands that. What would that bring to anyone, including the UNM or the president?

The president said that explicitly.

It seems that the attitude of the prime minister has not only a pragmatic side but an

emotional facet too creating the impression that we have no moral right to criticize him so

bitterly. This is a very dangerous symptom.

translation article 1

Documents