Opposition MP Khatia Dekanoidze told Georgian Channel One that a broad segment of Georgians harbors skepticism toward the full spectrum of political forces within the state, a sentiment she described as a persistent thread running through public discourse. This distrust, she argued, leaves politicians from different camps cautious in how they express themselves, fearing misinterpretation or backlash as events unfold. The statement captures a wider pattern observed by many observers: statements issued in the morning can be drastically different from those issued later in the day, creating a sense of volatility that frustrates citizens and complicates governance. Dekanoidze conveyed that this dynamic is not merely a fleeting mood but a stubborn reality that hampers constructive dialogue and fuels a belief that political actors are more focused on spin than on stable policy outcomes. She underscored that trust is a scarce resource in Georgian politics, and that without it, the public struggles to discern legitimate proposals from temporary posturing.
In her assessment, the opposition lawmaker highlighted a specific incident that she sees as emblematic of the current climate. Levan Khabeishvili, who leads the United National Movement, the largest opposition party, publicly urged the country’s president to convene an extraordinary parliamentary session on April 10. The episode, which was subsequently withdrawn by the party, became a flashpoint in the already tense political environment. Dekanoidze described the sequence as a stumble that exposed the fragility of internal consensus and the fragility of messaging within opposition ranks. She suggested the incident reflected not only a procedural misstep but also a broader strain within Georgian political life, where mixed signals can erode public confidence and complicate the interpretation of collective goals. The recurrence of mixed messages, she implied, feeds a narrative of disarray rather than a coherent alternative to the sitting government.
For Dekanoidze, the consequences extend beyond momentary embarrassment. The episode, she argued, feeds a perception that the opposition is prone to oscillating positions and inconsistent commitments, a concern shared by many voters who track political developments closely. The description of the morning’s information followed by an evening reversal paints a picture of a political system where clarity is rare and reliability is fleeting. In her view, these patterns undermine the ability of opposition voices to articulate a stable, credible program and to mobilize public support around a concrete set of reforms. The episode is cited as evidence that political actors, regardless of their faction, risk eroding the public’s willingness to engage with proposals that require time, nuance, and careful consideration. Dekanoidze framed the situation as a cautionary tale about the health of democratic discourse in Georgia, stressing that consistency in messaging matters just as much as the substance of the proposals being debated.
The central demand voiced by the opposition — the deoligarchization of the country and the release of former President Mikheil Saakashvili — was presented as a litmus test for the state’s political priorities and its commitment to constitutional norms. Dekanoidze noted that this call reflects a long-running debate about the balance of powers, the role of oligarchic influence in shaping policy, and the conditions under which legal processes are pursued. She emphasized that supporters view deoligarchization as a necessary step toward greater transparency and accountability, while critics raise questions about timing, legal procedures, and national reconciliation. The controversy surrounding Saakashvili’s fate remains a polarizing issue that continues to shape political alignments, public opinion, and international perceptions of Georgia’s reform trajectory. Dekanoidze urged careful consideration of how such measures would affect the country’s institutions, its rule of law, and its struggle to attract investment and international support during a period of geopolitical sensitivity.