The radical opposition attempted first to sabotage the work on EU’s 12 priorities, then to smear the Georgian government’s efforts, and, finally, to downplay the importance of the accomplishment, writes the Speaker of the Parliament in his letter.

“This is the most vicious and cynical myth. The opposition, especially its radical part, attempted first to sabotage the work on EU’s 12 priorities, then to smear the Georgian government’s efforts, and, finally, to downplay the importance of the accomplishment. However, once they realized that the candidacy was happening and its political importance was high, the opposition tried to claim a stake in the achievement.

Then, the truth, of course, is not on our opponents’ side. The parliamentary work on 12 priorities was organized along the working groups and the Parliamentary Committees. The opposition’s participation (or, rather, non-participation) in the process can be very easily measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. This simple measurement would only indicate that the opposition’s contribution was modest, to put it mildly. Quite to the contrary, the radical part of the opposition, in fact, tried in earnest to damage the process. Their calculation was that failure to fulfil the 12 recommendations would lead to the failure to get the candidate status. This, in the opposition’s mind, would turn the people against the government and, therefore, their radical part boycotted most of the work in the Parliament. They did not participate in most of the voting either, for passing the legislation presumed by the EU recommendations. Again, this is very easy to verify. Moreover, many of them took pains of travelling abroad extensively to smear the government’s efforts. The opposition did not achieve much in the national capitals or the European Commission itself, but were more ‘successful’ in the European Parliament, which is the EU political body most malleable to political influences and bias.

Unfortunately, some politically biased non-governmental organizations worked in close coordination with the radicals.

So, in cases where it was possible for the ruling party to cooperate with the moderate wing of the opposition (e.g. electing the ombudsman with the parliamentary consensus), progress was achieved and the recommendation was counted as ‘fulfilled’ unequivocally. The same can be said about the electoral reform, which was assessed under the rubric of ‘significant progress’ by the EU.

However, those EU-designated priorities that required involvement of the opposition or civil society proved to be more problematic, to put it mildly. Opposition, especially its radical part, torpedoed the fulfillment of those preconditions. Such were the cases of de-polarization or involvement of civil society in decision-making. Even when the moderate opposition MPs co-operated with the governing party, they were systematically bullied by their radical colleagues and by some politically biased NGOs. This shameful practice was later publicly revealed by those moderate opposition MPs who voted for the consensual election of the ombudsman, as required by one of the EU priorities.

Similarly, in cases where civil society organizations showed interest and intent for cooperation, the ruling party duly involved them in the process (e.g. the Parliament’s cooperation with the Georgian National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum). However, unfortunately, some politically biased NGOs opted out from the process and attacked the government’s efforts from the outside”, - writes Shalva Papuashvili.