Time for a king for Georgia?

[Marcus Marulus]

TIME FOR A KING FOR GEORGIA?

Giorgi Lomsadze 10/12/07


Amid ongoing controversy about the Georgian government democratization methods, the leader of the Georgian Orthodox Church has proposed the idea of establishing a constitutional monarchy as a guarantee of stability.
In a televised October 7 sermon, Patriarch Ilia II argued that a monarch would best protect the interests of citizens of Georgia. Citing Spain as an example, the patriarch said that the constitutional monarchies of the West act as safeguards of stability and national unity. "The king will reign, not rule," he said.

The patriarch’s proposal was quickly embraced by many of Georgia’s main opposition parties, as well as by media magnate Badri Patarkatsishvili, who has announced potential political plans of his own. The proposal neatly dovetailed with the opposition’s new slogan "Georgia without a President," a takeoff on President Mikheil Saakashvili’s Rose Revolution motto "Georgia without Shevardnadze." The slogan is intended as a call for a parliamentary system of government.

"Speaking for most opposition parties, I believe … a constitutional monarchy is the perfect form of government," Zviad Dzidziguri, one of the leaders of the Conservative Party, told reporters the day of Ilia II’s statement.

A parliamentary debate on the topic, proposed by the opposition New Rights Party, has been scheduled for October 25. The New Rights Party has not joined an opposition coalition formed around former Defense Minister Irakli Okruashvili, who recently announced the formation of his own opposition party, Movement for a United Georgia, to Saakashvili. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Since being released on bail from prison on October 9, however, Okruashvili has stayed out of public view. At an October 11 press briefing, United Georgia member Koka Guntsadze told reporters that Okruashvili would be leaving politics. "I would like to tell you that his moral condition is rather grave. The state of his health is also unfavorable. He finds it hard to speak about details," Guntsadze said, after a two-hour conversation with Okruashvili.

"Considering the current state of affairs and all the nuances, Irakli Okruashvili will leave politics for the time being, Guntsadze continued. "We, his friends and partners, would like to state that we understand his moral condition …. and have no complaints whatsoever against him."
Meanwhile, the idea of a constitutional monarchy has become the latest political buzz topic. In a memorandum, the New Rights Party argues that a monarch would be "above political and economic ideologies and debates" and act as a "neutral arbiter and the defender of the country[‘s] unity and independence." By holding the right to dismiss a prime minister with authoritarian tendencies -- a trait the opposition claims increasingly characterizes President Saakashvili -- a monarch would help preserve democracy, the memo holds.

One local political analyst, however, argues that the sudden support for a constitutional monarchy has less to do with actual political beliefs and more to do with the fight for political clout that has followed Okruashvili’s accusations, arrest and subsequent recantation. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

"Had the idea come from a political party, it wouldn’t have become so popular. But the Church has a lot of authority, and politicians are trying to make a point that their values are akin to those of the church," said Ramaz Sakvarelidze, an independent political analyst.

Meanwhile, the governing Nationalist Movement Party has tried to soft-pedal Ilia II’s statement. "The patriarch didn’t suggest establishing monarchy today. He meant this may happen after Georgia resolves its fundamental problems," pro-administration MP Giga Bokeria told reporters on October 8.

Ilia II has avoided further comment on the topic.

Parliamentary Speaker Nino Burjanadze has expressed skepticism about the idea, pointing out in an October 11 interview with the pro-opposition daily Rezonansi that a constitutional monarchy would "perhaps create even more problems" for Georgia.

Reviving Georgia’s monarchy was first broached during the last years of the Soviet Union. The proposal was shelved after nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia was elected president in 1991.

Who would even assume the role of monarch, though, is a matter for additional debate. In his sermon, the patriarch called for restoring the ancient Bagrationi dynasty to the throne, although some Georgians have interpreted the statement as simply an appeal to restrict the president’s powers.

While ordinary Georgians have a soft spot in their hearts for the Bagrationi family, which produced many prominent scientists and military commanders, picking a candidate monarch would not be an easy task. The ascendancy of the dynasty dates to the 10th century and is roughly divided between descendants of the eastern realm of Kartli-Kakheti ruled by Giorgi XII until 1801 when the Russian Empire annexed Georgia and abolished its monarchy, and a western realm (Imereti) ruled by Solomon II until 1810.

Historian Raul Chagunava, a longtime researcher of the Bagrationi family, believes that the crown by right belongs to Nugzar Bagrationi-Gruzinski, the director of Tbilisi’s Tumanshivili Theater and a patrilineal descendant of Giorgi XII. Nino Bagrationi, the 90-year-old direct descendant of Solomon II told EurasiaNet that she recognizes the claim of Nugzar Bagrationi-Gruzinski. Meanwhile, Georgia’s monarchist party, Royal Crown, favors another ancillary branch.

But feelings among those Bagrationis still in Georgia are decidedly mixed about the patriarch’s proposal.

Setting up a constitutional monarchy would not solve Georgia’s political woes, noted Giorgi Bagrationi-Jafaridze, a laboratory head, and the son of Nino Bagrationi. The sovereign, he argued, could become a mere puppet in the hands of politicians. "While absolute monarchy is out of the question, the king has to hold control over strategic matters," he commented.

When asked about the restoration of Georgia’s monarchy. Nino Bagrationi, a professor of engineering whose features are reminiscent of those of her royal ancestors, smiles calmly and shakes her head.

"The time is not ripe for this," Bagrationi said. "The country has to grow and develop. Later… perhaps."

Editor’s Note: Giorgi Lomsadze is a freelance reporter based in Tbilisi.


Posted October 12, 2007 © Eurasianet

[source]

[Gavril]

edit: Never mind. Let's not discuss that.

[Crvena zvezda]

Given Georgia's two seperatist regions and that in parts of the country where Georgians live the government has little or no authority I doubt this is a smart move at this time.

A proposal like this was made in Serbia a few years ago but the government decided not to pursue it because of the situation in Kosovo and the fact that the union with Montenegro was still in place.

[Marcus Marulus]

I am not sure if there is any point in introducing monarchies there where they were once abolished.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Plethon

I am not sure if there is any point in introducing monarchies there where they were once abolished.

Even the existing ones are having difficulty maintaining their legitimacy.

[Almost a Christian]

The sovereign, he argued, could become a mere puppet in the hands of politicians.

And the politicans are the puppets of big business..

Un-elected monarchy naturally descends into a type of surreal fool worship, whereby the luckless monarch becomes a figurehead masking a vast web of corruption...

[Kernunnos]

Just a fig leaf.

Modern monarchies are just often costly theatrical shows.

Either your estore a serious monarchy or you keep a republic.

In any case, be advised that even republics have become chaste like systems: the italian President of the Repubblica costs the italians much more than the Queen of England costs Britain.

He has a staff of first quality cooks working for him daily, also he inhabits an old roman nobility palace that belonged first to the Vatican State and then it was the seat of the italian kings ... at a lower cost.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Breha

Just a fig leaf.

Modern monarchies are just often costly theatrical shows.

Either your estore a serious monarchy or you keep a republic.

In any case, be advised that even republics have become chaste like systems: the italian President of the Repubblica costs the italians much more than the Queen of England costs Britain.

He has a staff of first quality cooks working for him daily, also he inhabits an old roman nobility palace that belonged first to the Vatican State and then it was the seat of the italian kings ... at a lower cost.

There is an interesting historical note here to add: the modern-day office of President was in fact invented by the USA, after their Indpendence War. They were the first ones even to use the very word ("the one who presides"). It was later that other modern republics copied the model and adopted the word (the French Revolution used the word consul, if I am not mistaken).

If you look at the very vast powers that an American President has (of course, today only nominally, since corporations and lobbies are those that really decide on everything), he can almost be considered a democratically elected king, in a way. Maybe it was the original idea: maybe their Founding Fathers were copying their mother-country Britain, which had, since the Glorious Revolution (1688) a somehow "constitutional monarchy" (albeit without the written constitution in a proper sense of word), whereby king's power was limited by the Parliament. American idea went step further: no more king, but a man who will be elected to be a primus inter pares, which was grounded on their premise of equality, so characteristic of modernity.

Later on, different models of republican government arose, in some of which president had very big powers (presidential system), has limited powers (half-presidential system) or is reduced almost to a merely ceremonial personality (the purely parliamentary system, like in Italy, Germany, Hunagary, in some countries the president is being elected by the parliament).

But the basic idea of president who is, in a way, embodiment of the national sovereignity, symbol of the state (though the distinction is usually being made between his persona and the function, by saying that it is his function that represents the state and not his person as such) has remained, and it bears some resemblance to the monarchical conception.