Dr. Beka Chedia is Researcher and Assoc. Professor of Political Science from Tbilisi, Georgia. He is a Country Expert (Georgia) in the several international research programmes, political analyst and writing contributor to several leading think tanks, research centers in Europe in US. He had been a visiting scholar at several higher educational institutions and think tanks in Western and Eastern Europe.

Georgian society is disappointed and irked by the recommendation of the European Commission and subsequent decision  then by the decision of the European Council not to grant EU candidate status to Georgia at this stage. For many years, Georgia was considered a leader among the Eastern Partnership countries, and in fact, it was ahead of other EaP countries in terms of the effectiveness of reforms. The EU made it perfectly clear to Georgia that it was already an outsider among the so-called Associated Trio of EaP countries. However, the EU has not completely closed Georgia's window of opportunity, as it hopes Georgia will make genuine progress.

The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell Fontelles said: “Georgians’ continued aspirations to secure their rightful place in the EU family has made another leap forward possible today. And every step brings it closer to becoming a reality.  With today’s opinion, Georgia is firmly anchored on its EU”.   The country's authorities responded with relative composure to this decision. They tried to push the refusal to obtain the status of a candidate into the background and put the emphasis on the fact of recognizing the country's European perspective.  

On the one hand, the recommendations of the European Commission are the first document where it is recognized the  so-called “European Perspective” of Georgia. For many years, Georgia was incapable of even imagining this. However, the context and circumstances under which such a decision was made are crucial. If Georgia would have received recognition for a “European perspective”, for example, a year earlier, this could have become the cause of a great universal celebration. But at the moment, Georgia had a chance to get not only recognition of its “European perspective”  but  the status of a candidate,  and the country missed this chance – as a result, disappointment (because the goal of candidacy wasn’t achieved) and optimism (because Georgia’s European perspective was acknowledged) about the country's future seized the society. On June 20, demonstrations were held in the cities of the country, especially in the capital, in support of the country's euro-integration. The Georgian civil society claimed that the people deserve the status of a candidate. At the same time, everyone in Georgia understood that the EU measures the readiness of the state and not civil society separately. As a matter of fact, the state is identified with its power and political institutions, which the EU apparently already views with suspicion.

Where is Georgia headed? What will be its development path in the conditions of the refusal of the EU and the consoling recognition of the European perspective?  In order to catch up with Ukraine and Moldova, Georgia must now exert greater effort towards its EU-candidate status.  The scenario could have been worse - the EU could have completely rejected Georgia's candidacy application, which, of course, would have been a complete disaster for a country for which euro integration  has been the main foreign policy guideline and strategic course (together with NATO membership) for many years.

The EU has identified priority issues that Georgia must address by the end of 2022 to reapply for candidate status. In general, there are 12 conditions for Georgia, which it must satisfy in order to continue its European path successfully. Among them are the fight against corruption, organized crime and ensuring the participation of civil society at all levels of decision-making, protecting the rights of journalists, etc.

Theoretically, Georgia has a chance to salvage the situation and achieve candidate status by the end of 2022 if the government and the entire political spectrum of the country learn from their mistakes. Nevertheless, it should also be taken into account that the current wave of euro integration more precisely, the assignment of the status of a candidate is vitally connected with the war in Ukraine. It is currently difficult to say that until the end of the year this window of opportunity will remain open for Georgia or not.

At the moment, there are no prerequisites that the authorities and the entire political spectrum are ready to fulfill all the conditions of the EU. The most challenging task for the country's authorities is the recommendation to “de-oligarchize” the nation. The EU called the Georgian government to implement the commitment to “de-oligarchisation” by eliminating the excessive influence of vested interests in economic, political, and public life. However, the Georgian authorities deny that the recommendation for de-oligarchization concerns the founder of the ruling Georgian Dream party, billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili. They claim that Ivanishvili is a businessman and philanthropist, not an oligarch. Such an interpretation of the recommendation of the European Commission raises doubts. It is not clear if Euro-integration is still a priority for the current government of Georgia? It was notable that when Ukraine submitted an application for EU candidate status, the Georgian authorities were in no hurry to do the same, but after the pressure from civil society, the Georgian government also decided to submit an application.

There is also an uncertainty regarding the existence of a red line beyond which the ruling elite's desire to join the EU would cease. Several days prior to the adoption of this decision, a member of parliament of Georgia from the ruling party stated that: “If Georgia accepts the status of a candidate with the same unfair obligations as the unfair accusations reflected in the resolution, then in return the country should rightly refuse”, meaning that the resolution of the European Parliament would imply possible sanctions against the informal leader of the country.  In reality the current government is based precisely on the oligarchic model of governance. The process of de-oligarchization and the implementation of democratic reforms can inevitably lead to the dismantling of the existing government - therefore, it is unlikely that the current ruling elite will be ready to voluntarily give up power for the country’s European future. It is noteworthy that there is also no guarantee that the entire political spectrum will be able to come to the negotiating table and end political polarization and thereby fulfill one of the main requirements of the EU - to end polarization. 

It is noteworthy that in the assessment of the European Commission on the readiness of all three countries there is no particular difference on the set conditions, and theoretically Georgia could also receive the status of a candidate, but most likely the relatively categorical rhetoric of the Georgian authorities also played a negative role here. For example, even after the positive recommendations for Moldova, the country's leader, Maia Sandu, said that Moldova will do everything to fulfill the conditions. The leaders of Georgia, even before the adoption of the crushing decision of the EU, insisted that they had already done everything and now the ball is on the EU field. According to the recommendation of the European Commission, weak democratic institutions, and the lack of reforms, as well as the presence of oligarchic rule in the country, have already been officially identified as the main barrier to Georgia's euro integration. In order to rectify the situation, the country's authorities must change the political rhetoric in relation to the EU and clearly demonstrate their reform-readiness. Otherwise, this will automatically mean Georgia's rejection of the policy of Europeanization and Euro integration

Despite the consoling propaganda of the authorities that the status of a candidate does not mean anything, after all and this is merely symbolic gesture - Georgian society is well aware that, along with a candidate status, Georgia has lost multi-billion-dollar financial aid, and other opportunities. With such propaganda, the authorities deliberately reduced the importance of the country’s Euro-integration process in general, since, on the one hand, the status of a candidate is a necessary step for joining the EU, and besides this, the status of a candidate itself can give the country real tools, including financial ones, for the complete modernization of the country. At the same time, the status of an EU- candidate would present Georgia in a completely different light on a world stage. Not to mention that it would completely change the geopolitical alignment in the South Caucasus region, as the EU's position as a major player in this post-Soviet region would officially be confirmed.

At this stage, it is impossible to predict, after such a failure of the country on the path of European integration, what will be the future of Georgia - will it continue the European path or take a place behind the iron curtain of Russia, which in return would terrify the Georgian society.

It is good that the answer of the European Commission did not cause skepticism among the society of the country and a turn in the back from the EU. This decision did not weaken the desire of the population to support the Europeanization of the country. On the contrary, it further strengthened and more actualized the topic, but at the same time contributed to the growth of radical moods against the authorities.

For some observers the current situation in Georgia reminds the period of Yanukovych's rule in Ukraine - when the Ukrainians saw the danger of losing the European future of the country (during the vicissitudes over the signing of an associated agreement with the EU) which ended with the so-called ``Euromaidan``. Although there are no prerequisites that events in Georgia can develop according to that scenario, such a dramatic atmosphere is still not welcomed in Georgia at the present time. Ultimately, both on a social level and an officially declared level, Georgia consistently pursues euro integration.

Georgia has no other alternative - either it overcomes internal problems and ensures its European future, or Russia will forcibly include Georgia in its "Eurasian project".  On June 23, after the adoption of a positive decision only on Ukraine and Moldova, the pro-Kremlin   Russian state news agency - Ria Novosti published an article with the headline "Europe betrayed Georgia", signaling that the political elites in Kremlin still keenly follow Georgia’s efforts towards Euro-Atlantic integration. In 2008 at the NATO summit in Bucharest, the alliance did not offer a Membership Action Plan to Georgia or Ukraine. They declared that -"NATO's door will remain open and agreed that these countries will become members of NATO. This refusal was followed by Russian military aggression against Georgia in the same year. So it is no coincidence that ahead of the European Council meeting, the US Helsinki Commission called on the European Council to grant all three countries candidate status. According to the statement „The people of Georgia also have sacrificed much for their European identity over several decades, despite Russian warmongering and the challenges of painful reforms. They have demonstrated that they can rise to the challenge if and when the path is clear``.

According to another scenario, if Georgia nevertheless continues its path towards euro integration but fails to correct the situation by the end of this year, or at the beginning of 2023, it will finally be cut off from the associated trio. In this case, the rapprochement of Georgia with the EU would not be considered as a part of the Trio “Georgia-Ukraine-Moldova”, but in a different regional context. For example, together with Turkey, which has been waiting for its turn to join the EU for many years, while having the status of a candidate. For Georgia, there is a danger that its process of Europeanization in the future will be connected in the same context with the other countries of the South Caucasus - which may seem a very distant prospect.