FIRST LIVE DEBATE OF TBILISI MAYORAL CANDIDATES
The Georgian Public Broadcaster, with financial support from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hosted the first pre-electoral two-day live TV debates of the Tbilisi mayoral candidates three weeks ahead of the May 30 local elections.
The five major mayoral candidates met on the first round of debates on May 8. Gigi Ugulava, the ruling party’s candidate and incumbent Tbilisi mayor (political slogan: “A Lot Remains to Be Done”), Zviad Dzidziguri, leader of the Conservative Party and candidate of the National Council coalition (political slogan: “Struggle Today”), Irakli Alasania, leader of Alliance for Georgia, (political slogan: “We Will Change”), Giorgi Chanturia, Candidate of the Christian-Democratic Movement (CDM) (Political slogan: “Low tariffs and Employment”), and Gogi Topadze, leader of the Industrialists Party (political slogan: “With deeds I come, deeds I promise”) sought to back their election promises and presented their visions on the most important issues defined through opinion polls: employment, social issues, city infrastructure and communal tariffs.
The 90-minute debate revealed that three of the five major candidates, Zviad Dzidziguri, Gogi Topadze and Giorgi Chanturia, were keen on a protectionist economic policy to deal with growing unemployment in the capital city. In their speeches, they promoted nurturing local enterprises through imposing higher taxes on imported goods that can be produced domestically. If, in addition, foreign markets could be found for Georgian products, the problem of unemployment would be gradually overcome, they claimed.
Through dialogue, the “[Russian] market will reopen for Georgian products; railway, sea and air communication will resume and people will be employed,” Dzidziguri said. However, Chanturia also advocated a state-led economy. He explained that low production costs would enhance commerce and push the creation of new jobs. He therefore promised to reduce gas fees by nearly five times, electricity fees by about three times, and provide water consumption for free.
Alasania took a less protectionist approach, highlighting the necessity to exempt businesses from government pressure. He proclaimed that the allocation of 120 million GEL for municipal funds would employ 50,000 Tbilisi residents in a year. His pre-election agenda also includes the development of healthcare projects involving the formation of municipal drug stores that will cost 117 million GEL. Likewise, Dzidziguri pledged to cover a full health insurance package for pensioners and provide free textbooks for public school students by allotting 150 million GEL from the city budget annually.
In contrast to the opposition leaders, Ugulava outlined the efficiency of a neo-liberal policy in fighting unemployment. He admitted that social assistance programs should be improved but only for those people who need it most. Ugulava listed several projects launched by the Tbilisi municipality last year, such as free computer and English-language courses for Tbilisi inhabitants and soft loans for small businesses. In this way, he said, the local government aimed to increase peoples’ skills to make them more qualified for new jobs. He also promised to fill legislation gaps to facilitate a smooth functioning of small businesses. Ugulava criticized Chanturia’s proposals and called them unrealistic. The implementation of such proposals would require 400 million GEL and would hamper funding for other services, Ugulava said.
Apart from social problems, the debate also focused on problems related to infrastructure in Tbilisi. Topadze accused the Tbilisi municipality of implementing “inappropriate and costly projects”. Alasania even stated that “what is now happening in Tbilisi is violence on the capital city and urban chaos”. In the same vein, Dzidziguri lamented that “there is no strategic vision on how the city should develop”. Chanturia underscored the need for transparency and public scrutiny of municipal projects. Ugulava advocated Tbilisi municipality projects, recapitulating that the construction of new roads would ease city traffic and develop business.
Undoubtedly, the first live TV debate is a significant step toward refining the culture of political debates in Georgia. Though leaders’ pre-electoral promises are more detailed than previously, they still lack a profound understanding of presented proposals. For example, the protection of local business or imposition of new taxes on imports inevitably require a shift in the country’s economic policy and cannot be formulated at the local level. Moreover, protectionism would contradict Georgia’s international obligations as a member of the WTO and would decline the benefits offered by the organization. Furthermore, whereas low communal tariffs may promote business activity, it would also reduce the mayoral budget and limit the municipal agenda.
Interestingly, article 9 of the “Georgian Law on the Georgian Capital city Tbilisi” lists a range of spheres in which the central government and Tbilisi city Hall do have common competences and need a coordinated policy. Thus, a mayor with an economic and social vision differing from that of the government would constrain such cooperation and would more likely use the mayoral chair as a political lever. Whereas Ugulava’s success in local elections would rule out such tensions, his victory will depend on to what extent the urgent social problems will be met. Attracting investment and developing infrastructure are necessary but not enough to counter the overwhelming unemployment. There is a clear need for more comprehensive social and business development programs.
