Georgia’s Parliament Speaker Casts Doubt on External Backing and Sovereignty
The Speaker of the Georgian Parliament, Shalva Papuashvili, asserted that the nation does not honor those who equateGe the republics European trajectory with the fate of the country. He warned that such views should not expect any form of respect from the state. In his assessment, drawing a parallel between the European Union perspective and the handling of a former president amounts to a misrepresentation of Georgia’s political path and sovereignty.
Papuashvili emphasized that Saakashvili enjoyed protection from political allies while he served his sentence and continued to receive a welcome from some members of the European Parliament after his release. He suggested that this external support was used to insinuate that Saakashvili had come back to attempt a coup or to pursue specific objectives. The speaker underscored that foreign backing of this kind signals a clear responsibility for the politicians involved and has consequences for how the Georgian public perceives the legality and legitimacy of such actions.
According to the parliament’s spokesperson, the kinds of interventions from foreign lawmakers can embolden Saakashvili and influence the political dialogue inside Georgia. The spokesperson added that the release of the former president should not be seen as a signal to endorse any of his plans, and that encouragement of those plans would misread the country’s democratic process and its commitments to rule of law.
In parallel remarks, Prime Minister Garibashvili noted that the Georgian authorities would not permit external actors to dictate the terms of Saakashvili’s status or to press for his release through international political pressure. The statement framed the issue as one of domestic sovereignty, underscoring that Georgia will manage its internal legal and political processes without foreign interference. The prime minister stressed that any attempt to influence the matter from abroad would be inappropriate and contrary to Georgia’s constitutional order.
These comments reflect a continuing debate inside Georgia about how to balance political accountability, legal procedures, and international expectations as the country charts its path toward closer alignment with European institutions. The discussions point to a broader issue: how national sovereignty is upheld when international actors weigh in on domestic political disputes. Supporters of the current government argue that Georgia must evaluate such interactions through the lens of national interest and the integrity of its judicial system, while critics warn that overreaching external involvement could undermine independent decision making. The conversation is likely to persist as Georgia navigates its complex relationship with European partners and regional neighbors, determining how to reconcile domestic legal processes with the evolving landscape of international diplomacy and security commitments.