Georgia and the Slippery Nature of Defining Democracy

https://eurasianet.org/us-congressional-measure-to-punish-georgian-dream-government-at-risk-of-failure

Take note how the religious concept of 'backsliding' is being applied to governments that are restricting democratic processes and institutions. Democracy is indeed a key doctrinal plank in the Humanist religion. In most cases its ideals and values are simply assumed by media and government figures and yet it's never that simple.

Democracy comes in many forms and always with limitations. More than a few states have presidential systems, which centralize power. Constitutions limit democracy, and are meant to. There are questions of access and different concepts of freedom as well. For some, freedom is framed by libertarian ideals. In other cases freedom can only be conceived in the framework of full access and participation. Others see democracy as weakened when there's an underclass that due to economic and social restrictions is unable to make real choices. It's complicated.

But when the West is unhappy with a political development somewhere, they pull out the democracy card and all the slogans and use this to make their public arguments. Ironically in some cases they may (despite the slogans and rhetoric) actually be seeking to subvert democracy. This would certainly be the case in places like Romania, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Armenia, and Georgia - all accused by the West of either backsliding or of being guilty of sham democracy.

In the case of Georgia, Western (EU and American) leaders are unhappy with the political currents at work in Tbilisi because large sections are tilting toward Moscow and away from Brussels. In truth, the nation is divided. But what if a democratic majority decides to reject the West and its values and would rather go with more of authoritarian model that holds negative societal forces in check and engages in protectionist policies?

At that point, such 'democracy' is unacceptable and thus we see (in this instance and many others) that even the concept of democracy is often little more than a facade, a narrative mechanism utilised by the investor class and finance capital which are (in the end) the behind the scenes movers and shakers of Western power. They don't govern directly, or shape the political arguments, or give the orders to drop bombs, but they are behind the scenes, making the phone calls, whispering in ears, pushing and manipulating. They don't micromanage the politicians but the political class bows to them, relies upon them, and works on their behalf. It's not absolute. At times the political class moves against figures within the financial elite/oligarchy, but even this is often connected to a larger story and set of circumstances. It's complicated. Beware anyone who tries to over simplify it. But beware those who make noise about democracy when they are happy to ignore it or subvert it in other cases.

Undoubtedly Washington and Brussels are unhappy with the direction of some governments within the former USSR and Warsaw Pact. Some of these governments have clamped down on some democratic institutions. Who is to say when this is or is not acceptable? Did the EU cry fowl when Greece crushed the Golden Dawn party and dismantled it? They had democratic support but were considered beyond the pale for their ultra-Right-wing views. Who decides where the boundaries are? Ultimately it's the leaders of the powerful nations - an utterly un-democratic paradigm.

And how would the US react if foreign governments started looking to sanction the GOP for its authoritarian takeover and the democratic backsliding taking place within American politics? Needless to say they would resent it and cry fowl. They wouldn't like it if other nations started to interfere, but the US and the EU do this on a regular basis.

The fact that the media does not expose and explain this is also an example of democracy being subverted. There can be no democracy if the people are kept in a state of ignorance. The vast majority of the American public has no idea what it's government is doing around the rest of the world. Coverage of geo-politics and foreign policy is utterly slanted - more akin to regurgitating briefings issued from the White House, State Department, and Pentagon. And why does the media not report these stories, contextualise them, or otherwise help the public understand? The main reason is because media outlets in the United States are corporate owned and as such their masters have an interest in keeping the public ignorant of such matters and yet even more important they are profit-driven and since the public has no appetite for global news, the lack of demand leads these outlets to report on other things - human interest stories, weather-related rescues, and the like. A great deal of news today is little more than extended commercials. All of this represents a subversion of democracy.

Whether Georgia is moving in a bad direction or not is an open and debatable question. It's undoubtedly true that Georgian Dream is less concerned about some of the democratic ideals championed (if hypocritically) by the West. But their ideals drive them to restrict such open democracy. That very openness is utilised by Western political and financial interests to push their agendas and subvert the non-Western values the leaders of Georgian Dream are trying to protect.

Is it simply corrupt, a shill for Moscow? Some would make that argument. In other words it's simply corrupt and acting the behest of other powerful financial and geopolitical interests. If so, I fail to see how that is fundamentally or in principle much different from how a lot of politics work in the West - especially in the United States.

Democracy is never absolute. Some have made it into not just a means but an end in itself - but this is either in ignorance or insincerity. Hamas was brought to power through democratic elections as was Hitler and the Nazi party. There are times when parties use democracy to come to power and then subvert and destroy the process and the institutions required for it to function. Other times, the choices made are simply unacceptable, they are immoral, even evil. But then to counter this and such flawed democracy, one must abandon the universal claims of democracy. At best it's a tool, and a very flawed one at that. But if this is granted, then the so-called 'backsliding' exhibited by some states may in fact be justified.

As a Christian, I don't believe in the premise of democracy but I'm happy enough to live under such a regime - even though I won't participate in it. It's neither righteous nor godly. It's practical in some situations and its strongest advocates (at the end of the day) more or less must grant this.