Georgian Channel One reported that Irakli Kobakhidze, the chair of the ruling Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia party, characterized Mikheil Saakashvili as having behaved like a very ill person for two years and noted that Saakashvili stayed away for a long stretch. According to Kobakhidze, the former president has now returned to politics and appears to be free from those symptoms.
He asserted that Saakashvili kept up appearances for two years, only to see his reputation suffer as a result. Kobakhidze argued that even among Saakashvili’s supporters, the claim of integrity could no longer be sustained when the public perceived him as fraudulent during a period when loyalty should have been at its strongest. The Georgian official expressed doubt that Saakashvili could relaunch his political career under the current circumstances, emphasizing that the former leader’s ambitions might be doomed to fail.
The former president returned to his hometown in October 2021 amid a wave of legal challenges, including multiple criminal cases. Saakashvili was subsequently arrested and placed in custody. He undertook a hunger strike, declaring that his detention had become politicized. In May 2022, facing serious health concerns, Saakashvili was moved from prison to a clinic in the capital for evaluation. Throughout his period of detention, he repeatedly stated readiness to reengage in Georgian politics, and the United National Movement signaled that it might consider nominating him for prime minister if he were to win the next elections.
Earlier, Saakashvili spoke in a manner that suggested threats toward Russians in Georgia, a stance that amplified tensions within the country’s political discourse. The current conversation around his role in politics reflects a broader debate about accountability, public trust, and the future direction of Georgia’s leadership as it navigates domestic challenges and regional pressures. Observers note that reform-minded segments of the electorate are watching closely how his actions align with promises made in the past, and whether his return to the political arena can translate into tangible support or whether it will be met with skepticism from a divided public. The ongoing dialogue underscores how political reputations can hinge on perceived consistency, transparency, and the ability to address grievances that date back years, if not decades.
In this evolving landscape, Georgian analysts and international observers alike continue to assess the potential impact of Saakashvili’s reentry into politics. They weigh factors such as legal accountability, public health considerations, and the practicalities of mounting a successful campaign in a country that remains deeply polarized. The narrative around Saakashvili serves as a case study in how leaders navigate the intersection of personal history, legal scrutiny, and the expectations of voters who crave both reform and stability. The balance between perceived sincerity and strategic positioning will likely influence whether Saakashvili can recapture a meaningful foothold in Georgia’s political arena, or whether his efforts will be constrained by past controversies and evolving public sentiment, as described by reporting from Georgian Channel One and subsequent political analysis. This broader context helps readers understand why Saakashvili’s political fate continues to spark intense debate across party lines and within Georgian civil society, where skepticism often coexists with nostalgia for a past era of leadership.