Editor's comment
Perpetuity of Conflict
05 November, 2015
Here, the difference of opinion is perceived not as the knowledgeable and well-organized Western political culture would dictate. Here, a political disagreement is usually charged with utmost belligerency, conducive to exacerbated altercations, vicious incriminations, irrational argumentations, blatantly obvious mutual hatred of the opposing sides and their physical collisions.

Georgia is getting heavy with conflict again, and the incipient confrontational situation in the country is built on the primacy of the two of Georgia’s evolutionary preferences –going West or North. Th
is is what most political experts think and dwell upon. But as irrelevant as it might sound, I am not concerned about this alternative right now because the issue of choice has already acquired a tiring triviality for all of us here.I am more interested today in the issue of perpetuity of conflict as such in Georgia because if anything is eternal in our culture, it is the state of perennial conflict which I think needs our thorough analysis. If possible of course!It so seems that the most natural condition for our society is the permanency of lasting and persistent political controversy, and this is easily proved by the number and the temperature of recurring conflicts in the post-soviet time of freedom and democracy. Using the power of conventional wisdom, one could say that contradictions and discrepancies are the movers of life forward because the much-needed and sought-for truth is usually born as a consequence of reasonable disputes and intellectual clashes. Not here in Georgia though! Here, the difference of opinion is perceived not as the knowledgeable and well-organized Western political culture would dictate. Here, a political disagreement is usually charged with utmost belligerency, conducive to exacerbated altercations, vicious incriminations, irrational argumentations, blatantly obvious mutual hatred of the opposing sides and their physical collisions. Divergence of ideas are met with zero tolerance and understanding. Often, the active players of political games come into conflict with each other, having no substantial reason for a quarrel. In most cases, the interminable war of words makes no sense, only consumes our time and nerve, and does not yield into anything that might improve our confused people’s life, watching the unending political hullaballoo in consternation, and not knowing whether to laugh or cry. The inconsistency of profusely multiplying political figurines is creating the impression that we are having nothing else to do except those incongruous and unnecessary ideological bickering as if we have already given good life to our desperately fighting for survival population. Perpetuity of conflict in Georgia is based on something psychological too. This might be our temperament that makes no room for reason and harmony. It could also be our character that is inflicted with strokes of impatience and intolerance. The infinity of conflict may also be ascribed to our inexperience in pursuing healthy political affairs. How about the historicity of the issue? Historically, with a couple of brief exceptions, we have always needed an external power to make calm and order on this land. And now, when we are left to our own devices – seemingly at least – we may not be capable of turning our invariably futile political arguments into favorable social and economic results. This is the theory of the problem, which claims to shed some light on reality. Now the question is where the perpetuity of the conflict is taking the county to. Back to the political ambivalence of the current moment, the presumptionis that Georgia’s western orientation and its integration into Euro-Atlantic world probably needs the permanency of stability, quiet and compromise rather than waves,shocks and disparities because progress and development suggested by the West will never take place in a confrontational environment.Conversely and arguably, the return of Georgia onto the Russian orbit might be facilitated only via encouraging Georgia’s conflict-oriented stance and character becausgeotv.gee if conflict is brought to a head by any chance, then Russia will feel ‘obligated’, as she has often done before, to assume the role of a mediator and peace maker. Thus, the opportunity for Russia and Russia’s Georgian adherents must be embedded in the steadiness and effectiveness of conflict in Georgia. Its effectual resolution might forever enforce the powerful Western presence and the final elimination of the Russian political ambitions in Georgia notwithstanding the current activity of the Russian business here. I am more than sure that provocation of new conflicts as part of the series of conflicts, instigated by Russia in Georgia, will only work on deterioration of Georgian-Western relations and on enhancement of Georgian-Russian interaction. This said, I am not surprised there are powers that be that would never desist from letting the conflict situation in Georgia smolder and reach the acme at the moment when the vulnerability of the Georgian political ground allows it. The current conflict between one of the TV stations and its former owner is being belittled by some of us, qualifying it as a commercial dispute between the two parties, and is elevated to the rank of a political controversy by others, characterizing it as an attempt of the existing regime to choke the freedom of speech. I personally refuse to describe it as either. I cannot call this conflict situation ‘much ado about nothing’ because the reason of argument is much deeper than the elementary tip of an iceberg. I am also rejecting the possibility of final and decisive murder of free media in Georgia because the overwhelming clamor around the subject sometimes seems to be like an instrument in the hands of the interested party for making survival. Conclusively, this must all be the reflection of ideological mainstream in Georgia: Keep the conflict up and going – somebody needs it much!

Print