The situation presents urgent questions regarding the essence of democracy and the fine line between honoring electoral results and addressing public dissent. Are these protests a true struggle for democratic principles, or a bid by a vocal minority to overturn the majority's will?

The Majority’s Mandate

In the October elections, the Georgian Dream party secured a decisive mandate, pledging stability and pragmatism in a volatile geopolitical setting. Their decision to pause EU membership talks—though contentious—aligns with their policy agenda. Critics assert this move brings Georgia closer to Russia, a historical adversary, while supporters argue it represents a necessary adjustment of national priorities amid rising concerns about the costs and conditions of EU integration.

Nevertheless, the government's legitimacy faces challenges from opposition forces, whose grievances have been amplified by external influences. Western governments, quick to voice support for the protests, portray them as a battle for democracy. However, these narratives often neglect a crucial democratic principle: the outcomes of free and fair elections must be respected, even when they yield inconvenient results.

A President Challenging the Constitution

President Zourabichvili’s decision to remain in office beyond her legal term has further deepened the divide. By declaring the parliament illegitimate without substantial evidence, she has undermined constitutional norms and emboldened the opposition. Her actions raise serious concerns about eroding institutional stability at a time when Georgia cannot afford it.

The president’s defiance, along with her alignment with protestors, has heightened tensions rather than promoting unity. Her role should be to mediate and uphold the constitution, yet her approach seems to prioritize political interests over institutional integrity.

Hypocrisy on the International Stage

The international reaction has been both swift and problematic. Western nations, particularly the United States and EU member states, have criticized the Georgian government and supported the opposition. Yet, these same nations deal with well-documented flaws in their electoral systems—gerrymandering, voter suppression, and contested results. This raises an uncomfortable question: what moral authority do these governments have to lecture Georgia on democratic practices?

Criticism from the West risks appearing less about defending democracy and more about advancing geopolitical interests. The portrayal of Georgia’s EU membership as an ideological battleground reflects a broader trend of international interference, where sovereignty often takes a backseat to strategic considerations.

A Way Forward

For Georgia, the way forward must be grounded in respect for its democratic institutions. The government, with its electoral mandate, has the right to govern and make policy decisions. Opposition voices have every right to protest, but their actions must remain within legal boundaries and avoid destabilizing the country. The president, too, must respect the constitution and leave office at the end of her term to preserve the integrity of the nation’s political system.

For the international community, the lesson is clear: supporting democracy means respecting the decisions of sovereign nations, even when they don’t align with external agendas. Constructive dialogue and genuine collaboration—not coercion or selective outrage—are the only ways to foster stability and progress.

Georgia stands at a crossroads. It can either chart its own course, guided by the will of its people, or risk becoming a pawn in global power struggles. The choice is its own to make, and respecting that choice is the truest test of democracy.