Leaderless Uprising in Georgia?

Leaderless movements, the role of the left, comparison with Serbia, and where are the workers?

Here are some thoughts about Georgian protests, the situation is evolving so these are still sketches.

One of the main messages surrounding the protests in Georgia, which began on November 28th following the government’s statement that it would halt EU accession talks until 2028 (a move already paused by the EU), is the notion that it is a leaderless movement, with opposition political parties playing a marginal role. Videos show protesters expressing their discontent with the opposition, and numerous social media posts highlight that the protests transcend support for political parties. While the initial protests were sparked by the government's stance on EU accession, they gained further momentum due to police brutality. This escalation led to political narratives framing the government as a repressive state and a police regime.

Before the protests on November 28th, the sentiment that the 2024 elections were rigged was largely marginal. However, after the protests began, it became commonplace to refer to the elections as rigged. The central demand of this leaderless uprising quickly became the call for new elections. Following the police repression, another key demand emerged: the release of all those who had been arrested. While most of the arrested individuals have been released, some still face criminal charges.

The demand for new elections in the context of protests that are allegedly about a wide range of grievances—rather than a specific push for opposition political power—raises important questions about the coherence and long-term impact of the protests. It seems paradoxical for a movement that is critical of the government and its broader repressive tactics to demand new elections, especially if the protesters, who are not aligned with any political party, are not represented in the political process. If opposition parties were to win these elections, and none of the protesters were directly represented, it’s unclear what tangible gains they would achieve from this outcome. In essence, they are advocating for a process that might benefit the very political entities they do not support or trust.

This paradox becomes more pronounced when we consider the role of opposition parties in the protests. While the opposition has largely refrained from taking an overt leadership role—likely aware that doing so could alienate many protesters who are wary of party politics—they have nonetheless managed to capitalize on the protests’ momentum. Just a month ago, it would have been difficult for opposition parties to garner significant public support for such a demand. Yet, the protests’ growing momentum has shifted public discourse to the point where the call for new elections has become a central, unifying demand. This shift in sentiment can be seen as a strategic win for the opposition, even though the protesters themselves may not feel directly represented by them.

A similar dynamic was visible during the large protests earlier in the year against the controversial so-called "Russian law" concerning foreign funding transparency. While the protests were largely driven by youth and new political actors who did not align with the existing political establishment, opposition parties ultimately stepped in to use the momentum for their own purposes. The youth protesters, who were at the forefront of the demonstrations and faced police violence such as tear gas and water cannons, did not support the old, unpopular political figures within the opposition. However, after the protests, the opposition moved to revive their old politicians, many of whom had been out of favor for years. This led to a disconnection between the aspirations of the protesters and the political benefits reaped by the opposition, who were able to stand in elections without fully addressing the issues raised by the protesters.

The protests thus find themselves locked in a cycle where they are demanding new elections, but in a manner that ultimately does not directly benefit the protesters themselves. The opposition, while staying out of the direct leadership of the protests to avoid alienating the protest base, is nonetheless positioned to gain politically from the unrest. In this way, the protests are not translating into the political power that the protesters may have hoped for, and their demands are being co-opted by political forces that do not fully represent the broader, leaderless movement. For those involved in the protests, as their grievances and calls for change are being absorbed into a political system that they have long rejected.

The left in protests in Georgia and the case of Serbia

For many leftists participating in the protests, the geopolitical focus has made it difficult, if not impossible, to organize around social issues. Instead, they are being drawn into narratives framed by a police regime and authoritarianism. When they attempt to introduce social concerns, like targeting banks, it has often been met with resistance, with some protesters even becoming angry. In this sense, the left is peripheral player in these protests. I’m not suggesting that leftists should refrain from participating in these protests. Rather, it’s important to realistically assess their true size and influence within the movement. Understanding their position—whether they choose to participate or not—will offer valuable lessons for future organizing efforts. Regardless of the outcome, this experience will be crucial for shaping the strategies and priorities of leftist groups moving forward.

In contrast to the protests in Georgia, the recent protests in Serbia, largely driven by youth and students, have focused on social issues rather than geopolitics or calls for the government's resignation. The protests were sparked by the tragic deaths of 15 people due to the poor construction of the Novi Sad station. The demands are clear: accountability for those involved in the shoddy construction, and punishment for those responsible. The protests center on social justice and the need for responsible governance, not on political power shifts or new elections.

This focus on social issues is further highlighted by recent events in Serbia, where earlier protests were held against the government's decision to violate the popular will regarding the lithium mining project. In this case, the government’s actions were seen as prioritizing EU interests over the concerns of the people. This contrast emphasizes how Serbia’s protests have remained grounded in social demands, unlike Georgia's protests, which are more tied to geopolitical issues.

In Serbia, students have taken a more autonomous approach, forming strike committees and organizing through democratic means, such as a delegate system for coordination. While some opposition party-affiliated students are involved, the movement’s demands are not geared toward empowering opposition parties wholesale in the way they are in Georgia. The students have blocked faculties and made decisions by vote, ensuring that the movement is not dominated by political activists but driven by the students themselves.

While I can’t speak to the media coverage in Serbia compared to Georgia, it seems that the Serbian protests, which are not focused on re-elections, are better positioned to address issues that could gain wider support across the population. This focus on social and accountability issues allows for more flexibility and potential broad-based support, whereas the protests in Georgia are more locked into a geopolitical narrative around new elections, limiting their ability to address a wider range of concerns.

Where are the workers?

Unions and workers have largely stayed out of the protests in Georgia, which has led to various interpretations. One explanation is that unions are corrupt or tied to the ruling party, while another is that workers, burdened by high indebtedness, cannot afford to strike. However, both of these explanations miss a critical point: for workers, there is nothing to gain if the opposition wins re-election. The focus on new elections doesn’t address the material concerns of workers, and as a result, they have little incentive to participate in a movement that ultimately does not offer them a better future.

As for workers in Georgia, the dominant discourse surrounding the government's alleged authoritarian turn is disconnected from the reality workers face. For workers, the authoritarian conditions they experience in the workplace are already part of their daily lives. They have worked under these conditions for 30 years, and this will likely continue regardless of which political party comes to power. Employers often run workplaces like dictatorships, with workers forced to endure poor conditions simply to survive.

Workers stand to gain much more from strengthening unions and building working-class power than from changes to the government. No current political party is likely to prioritize their issues or have the power to address their needs effectively. Even if the government changes, many of their problems will remain unsolved, as there are no political parties focused on advocating for workers' rights or improving their working conditions.

The workers who have been protesting or striking are mainly urban-based individuals whose livelihoods are closely tied to foreign grants, Western programs, or tourism. This includes professions such as actors, artists, cultural workers, musicians, and journalists. For these workers, geopolitics is a significant concern because their economic stability and cultural capital depend on continued support from the EU and Western countries. If the EU were to abandon Georgia, their sources of income, funding, and status would be at risk, which is why they are more focused on geopolitical issues in the context of these protests.