Selective memory in the South Caucasus

The Georgian Naitonal Assembly in 1918 Photo (CC) commons.wikimedia.org / Georgian national archive

Just a few days earlier Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, had been conquered by Sergo Ordzhonikidze and his comrades. The head of the Red Army in the Caucasus enthusiastically wrote to Lenin that “The red banner of Soviet authority is fluttering above Tiflis. Long live Soviet Georgia.”

Zhordania did not expect that his farewell, or rather escape, would be tantamount to the end of sovereignty of the whole region. He would be the last head of state of independent Georgia. It was a disaster not only for Georgia but also for Armenia and Azerbaijan, three republics which became independent after the collapse of imperial Russia. At first the Georgians, Armenians and Azeris created a common state, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, which existed just 35 days. After the dissolution by the Transcaucasian Seim on May 26th 1918 Georgia declared its independent sovereignty. Armenia and Azerbaijan did the same two days later.

End of an era

This year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the short independence for all the South Caucasus states. Politicians in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan use this opportunity to remind their populations about their countries’ history of statehood and present their own vision of both that time and the current situation. What is the general perception of that period? Are the traditions of the short independence still alive in the hearts and minds of the people or politicians? One hundred years since this significant moment, the region today faces new challenges. Independent again after 70 years of Soviet domination, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are still in a transition process. And 2018 is also special not just because of the independence anniversary but also because of the ongoing political transition and political turbulences.

In the spring of this year citizens in Armenia showed a final lack of trust to the newly appointed prime minister, Serzh Sargsyan – who after ten years as president was unable to maintain power any longer. It was the end of an era. Amendments to the nation’s constitution should have opened a way for the former president to take the post of prime minister. However there was, unexpectedly, a visible deficiency of social support for this idea.

Armenia is independent but the state is in a very difficult position in the South Caucasus region. What is even more important is that the social situation determines a lack of perspectives for many Armenians and the government is unable to adequately address these issues. There is a low level of political engagement from society and a high degree of apathy. The arrival of a new political star – Nikol Pashinyan – has brought a new ray of hope. Leading popular protests he achieved something that has been impossible for a long time – he broke the monopoly of the elite and forced them to redistribute power. In fact, the social pressure was strong enough to remove Sargsyan as prime minister, but the question of a general election remains open.

Pashinyan, as the new head of state, faces many difficulties and his main tasks is to focus on survival. His government has a minority in parliament, where the previous ruling party still carries a lot of weight. In this political landscape the anniversary of independence was a true opportunity for strengthening Pashinyan’s position. “We have won and we will win in all the events when we will decide to win, when we will rely on ourselves rather than others, when we will not give in before any difficulty, when we will love, love unlimitedly our fatherland and each other, when we will not attempt to tie our personal interests to our own people and the state, when each and every citizen will realize that he is an owner in his country, not a vassal,” Pashinyan said in his anniversary speech.

Drastic kick-off

This statement reflected confidence and optimism for future developments. Commemoration of the past was also expressed and strongly connected with the present: “The establishment of the First Republic was crowned with the proclamation of the Third Republic, was glorified with the victory of our people in the Artsakh War and gained worldwide fame with the non-violent people’s velvet revolution,” Pashinyan emphasised.

The new president, Armen Sarkissian, reflected a similar point of view. In his presidential address we can find both history and reference to the situation in Armenia. He stressed that “100 years ago, our people who saw genocide, and stood on the edge of life and death, restored the independent Armenian statehood with highest effort – declaring the birth of the First Republic of Armenia” as well as “today we must with special depth realise the significance of Armenian statehood. As a result of the latest changes in Armenia we have the chance of a drastic kick-off, and the required sufficient human and institutional resources are available.” Both politicians strongly highlighted not only the current situation but also the crucial events for Armenian historical policy – the genocide and the Artsakh War (Karabakh War).

Karabakh, as the Azeri say and its more commonly referenced name (which means Black Garden), is at the centre of attention both in Armenia and Azerbaijan. This long conflict has strongly influenced the political and social life as well as geopolitical relations in the region. It was no surprise for anyone that on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Azerbaijani independence President Ilham Aliyev would refer to the unresolved conflict in his official speech during the celebration. Aliyev stressed that: “No matter how hard the Armenians of the world have tried, no state has recognised the illegal Nagorno-Karabakh regime” and added that “two years ago, the Azerbaijani army managed to free some of the occupied lands from the invaders”. 

In his speech Aliyev mentioned his father – the late Heydar Aliyev and previous head of the Azerbaijani Republic and founder of the ruling clan – 15 times. No one who was involved in the creation of the first republic 100 years ago was named. Even if this year has been declared the “Year of the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic” the main focus in the speeches has been centred on the legacy of president’s father. In Aliyev’s view: “Unfortunately, we lost our independence [in 1920]. This shows again that it is more difficult to preserve independence than to gain it. The flag raised in 1918 was lowered in 1920, but it was raised again by the great leader Heydar Aliyev at a session of the Nakhchivan Supreme Majlis 70 years later.”

This quotation is one of several concerning the role of the former president in Azerbaijan’s history. It is important for understanding the historical policy of Azerbaijan. Aliyev noted that: “The establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic is a historical event. A democratic republic was created for the first time in the Muslim world. We are rightfully proud of the fact that the Azerbaijani people created this republic” – yet it is very difficult to find a connection between the first republic and contemporary Azerbaijan. Rather we can notice a continuity between today’s situation and the Soviet times when Heydar Aliyev was in charge as the first secretary of the communistic party of Azerbaijan.

In essence, Azerbaijan has been ruled by one family for decades. This year’s early presidential election held in April showed to the international community that nothing would change in the near future. According to the OSCE Election Observation Mission’s final report, the election “took place within a restrictive political environment and under a legal framework that curtails fundamental rights and freedoms which are prerequisites for genuine democratic elections”. Based on constitutional amendments, which had been introduced after a referendum in 2009, Aliyev was elected for a fourth term in office.

Link to the past

A slightly different election environment has been observed in neighbouring Georgia. But also in this country, along with amendments to the constitution and the ongoing transition of the political system, we have witnessed a historical election in October. It was the last time when citizens elected the president directly. The role of the president in Georgia’s political system has already been diminished during the second term of Mikheil Saakashvili. The decision that the next president would be elected differently was made by the Georgian Dream coalition, which has a majority in the current parliament. It is no secret that a lack of understanding between the ruling party and the outgoing president, Giorgi Margvelashvili, was the driving force behind this decision. Despite the disagreements Margvelashvili hosted foreign leaders in Tbilisi in May this year. The president in his statement on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the independence of Georgia underscored that “such delegations that we see today in Georgia have never visited the country before and I strongly believe that May 26th is a prerequisite for the great victory leading us to our strategic goal – NATO and EU membership”. The president focused mostly on felicitations and the current policy. In all his statements we can find only one sentence referring directly to the historical legacy of Georgian statehood. In greetings to representatives of the Georgian diaspora the president noted that “their ancestors’ contribution brought our country to this day; their ancestors declared the first independence”. And again no specific names were mentioned.  

A few years ago Redjeb Jordania – son of the leader of the first independent Republic of Georgia – asked whether the first republic would be remembered in the modern state. He wondered if there is there any link between the past and present – not only on the level of political declarations. His conclusion was not very optimistic. Despite such symbols as the Zhordania Avenue on the bank of Mtkvari River or the commemorations in the parliament, the political legacy remains widely unknown. Even the three-colour banner that symbolised the social democrats ruling in the short period of sovereignty was shed for newer symbols after the Rose Revolution in 2004.

This lack of historical reflection is not only the case in Georgia. The reason is that the 20th century is still associated with the painful legacy of Soviet times, and during those times any commemorations of sovereignty were forbidden. Today the 100th anniversaries of independence are being recognised, but in general the legacy of 1918 remains elusive in the political and historical comparisons. Instead, only certain elements are cherry-picked and exploited to match the narratives of today. Any close inspection of this legacy would reveal that the visions today are sadly detached from the ideas which inspired these countries’ “founding fathers” 100 years ago. 

Jan Brodowski holds a PhD in political science from the Jagiellonian University. His research focuses mainly on geopolitics, modern diplomacy and democratisation in the post-Soviet countries.