EUROPEANIZATION AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR GEORGIA’S DEMOCRATIZATION

Abstract

 This paper reviews the European Union-Georgia relations and explores why and how the Europeanization has been a tool for Georgia’s democratization. It examines the notions of Europeanization and democratization, and scrutinizes their linkage in the context of Georgia. In order to prove the research question, the research reviews several major official documents and implemented reforms, mostly in democracy, good governance, human rights, strengthening democratically accountable institutions, justice, freedom and security. The paper argues that democratization agenda has been driven by Europeanization because of three reasons: it was a legitimization factor; they had value convergence; and pragmatic reason – EU provided necessary technical expertise, knowledge and financial resources for facilitating the painful reforms and easing their transitional consequences.

Keywords: Democratization, Europeanization, Georgia, Association Agreement

Introduction

Since the restoration of independence, the intensity of Georgia's European orientation has varied from government to government. However, from a historical point of view, overall, it can be said that the country has been firmly on the path of rapprochement with the West. Since 1995, all Georgian governments have chosen European integration as the foreign policy orientation (at least on rhetorical level), which was due to several major factors. The latter created a demand for European integration across the country, and the authorities used European integration to legitimize their political decisions and actions.

One such factor was the democratic development – the European Union was the main source of financial, technical and expert assistance necessary for the implementation of critical reforms. Also, the implementation of reforms was accompanied by tangible results for the population, which was an opportunity for the authorities to receive additional political dividends in the society.

During this period, Georgia has taken a long and overall quite a successful path towards the EU. The latter has had a decisive influence on the development of institutions in Georgia. With the signing of the Association Agreement in 2014, the EU, Georgia’s foreign policy towards the Union and the country's European integration became an integral part of Georgia’s internal policy.

By EU becoming an integral part of Georgia’s polity, politics and policies, it can be said that Europeanization has become the driving force of Georgia’s democratization and that the border between these two processes has actually been erased (it has becoming ever more challenging to demarcate the borders between these two processes).

Therefore, the research question is as follows – why and how Europeanization is an instrument of democratization of Georgia? To answer it, the paper analyzes official documents signed between Georgia and the EU, including the European Neighborhood Policy, its agenda and progress reports, the Association Agreement, its agenda, and speeches made by high-ranking officials.

Also, for comparing with official documents, important democratic reforms implemented in 2014-2022 are reviewed to demonstrate that Europeanization was the determinant of the democratization agenda in Georgia.

Additionally, in order to fully understand the research and its results and to correctly understand the terms used, the relevant academic literature has been studied.

Following the introduction, the second chapter is devoted to the definition, operationalization and interrelation of the concepts of Europeanization and democratization. The next chapter briefly reviews the Georgia-EU relations, as well as the tools, institutions and mechanisms necessary for the Europeanization of Georgia. The fourth chapter analyzes the relationship between Europeanization and democratization in the context of Georgia. The fifth chapter summarizes the research results, while the last section of the document is a bibliography.

In one part, the paper reviews the Europeanization instruments, institutions and structures, that is, how Europeanization is processed domestically triggered by the interaction with the Union. In another part dedicated to why Europeanization is an instrument for Georgia’s democratisation, the paper argues that democratization agenda has been driven by Europeanization because of three reasons: 1) Europeanization is a legitimization factor for decision makers; 2) Europeanization and democratization has a similar value dimension and thus, complement each other in the Georgia context; 3) the European Union provided necessary political support, technical expertise, knowledge and financial resources for facilitating the painful reforms and easening their transitional consequences, be it financial or electoral, thus, adding pragmatism and feasibility to the cost and benefit calculations of the decision makers.

The paper is prepared in the frameworks of a three-year EU Erasmus+ Jean Monnet module “Europeanization as a Tool for Democratzation of Georgia” (620916-EPP-1-2020-1-GE-EPPJMO-MODULE) managed by European University. The module aims at promoting EU knowledge among Georgian students and young academics by using interdisciplinary approaches for teaching and research with the particular focus on the EU-Georgia Association Agreement and democratization of Georgia. The entire action is designed to stimulate knowledge on the European integration process as an instrument of democratization among the students of various disciplines and ensure developing the research by the young academics. The module also includes the component of the policy dialogue on national level with academics and policy makers regarding the implementation of the current EU obligations that Georgia takes.

Europeanization and Democratization

This chapter is devoted to the definition of the concepts of Europeanization and democratization. Since each of them is a rather broad term, this document will discuss only their main aspects, which are important to understand the example of Georgia.

In order to fully comprehend the Georgia’s case, it is necessary to define and distinguish between the concepts and terminologies of complex fields of Europeanization and democratization, as well as to relate them to the Georgian context.

Europeanization

Europeanization has been a buzzword for Georgia for decades. It is usually understood in the society as an implementation of European values, governance and institutional systems. Indeed, Europeanization in this paper is understood as establishing a “local analogue” of the EU, adapting national social and political principles and mechanisms to the EU standards and practices.

In addition, since the inclusion of Georgia in the European Neighborhood Policy in 2004, Europeanization is associated with Georgia’s European integration and the achievements on this path. In other words, this is the legislation (i.e. acquis communitaire), “ideas, norms, rules, organizational structures and procedures, behavioral patterns, [that] spread intentionally or unintentionally beyond integrated Europe”, in this case in Georgia.

Europeanization as a research topic in academic scholarship has become a growth industry in EU research since the early 1990s when Central and Eastern European countries started a massive transition from communism to democracy. Researchers refered to this ‘Europeanization’ as a process of “EU-driven change of their political and economic systems”[1]. The understanding of Europeanisation was expanded by harmonization of Switzerland and Norway to the EU[2] as well as the transitions of the EU membership candidate states[3]. The Europeanization literature was enriched by the inclusion of more distant EU neighbors in the research[4].

Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier[5] suggest two dimensions of mechanisms of Europeanization. First, they believe Europeanization can be either EU-driven or domestically-driven. Second, they argue that institutional logics (i.e. ‘logic of consequences’ or ‘logic of appropriateness’[6]) also influence the Europeanization process. In any way, the authors believe that the EU’s impact is generated by conditionality and socialization as two main mechanisms.

First, conditionality is based on rewards/sanctions. The “EU provides non-member governments with incentives such as financial aid, market access or institutional ties on the condition that they follow the EU’s demands”. In the conditionality mode, transposition of norms happen because of material or social rewards. The process can be voluntary or non-voluntary – decision-makers may make certain steps without pressure or by realizing that appropriate action will be followed by unwanted EU response or consequences.

Second, socialization is about EU’s effort to ‘teach’ a partner country those norms, values and rules that build an ‘appropriate behavior’. Socialization is a long, gradual and voluntary process of persuasion during which its new participants learn, grasp the deeply rooted ‘acceptable’ rules, norms and values in a step-by-step manner. As Schimmelfennig puts it, socialization “comprises all EU efforts to “teach” EU policies – as well as the ideas and norms behind them – to outsiders, to persuade outsiders that these policies are appropriate and, as a consequence, to motivate them to adopt EU policies”.

For instance, how is Europeanisation made on institutional level? Based on the EU pressure/impact, changes start to happen on national level – establishment and/or transformation of institutions. When an impact of Europeanisation is strong on a country, an institutional architecture is established or the current system is adapted to the new needs in the country. In order to manage the harmonization process, the country needs to transform its regulatory, institutional and legal framework into the EU analogue, harmonize its legislation to the EU acquis communitaire, etc.

Internal situation in the country has a decisive role in such transformation – national administrative culture, traditions, political setup, experience/history of statehood and other factors are critical. It is for this reason that each candidate country has its own approach and experience in the EU accession process.

Schimmelfennig[7] argues that “EU’s impact in candidate countries has resulted primarily from the external incentives of accession conditionality rather than social learning or lesson-drawing”. Or in other words, candidate countries strived for the EU membership and implemented relevant reforms in anticipation of the membership benefits.

Democratization

Democratization is one of the most frequently used legal and political terms in modern Georgia. In this work, democratization is seen as the establishment of democracy, the process of transition from an undemocratic political system to a democratic order.

Democratization has its determinants and factors:

• Social determinants/internal factors (past, traditions and social norms) – democracy has a higher chance of success where there is relevant cultural and historical experience. The more democratic experience, traditions and social norms exist in a society, the greater the possibility of democratization success;


• International determinants/external factors (for instance, international intervention, Europeanization, etc.) – the process of democratization can be hindered or facilitated by international events, foreign intervention, Europeanization, etc.;


• Economic determinants (including modernization, industrialization, level of education, development) – as a rule, the more economically strong and developed a society is, the more there is a demand on the establishment of democratic institutions.

Interdependence of Europeanization and democratization

Democratization and Europeanization do not describe a static, stagnant state. On the contrary, they describe changing processes, constant renewal, constant striving for improvement.

According to the first and most important block of EU membership criteria (the so-called Copenhagen criteria), the state institutions that ensure the protection of democracy, rule of law, human rights and minority rights should function properly in accordance with European standards. Therefore, it can be said that Europeanization (the process of joining the EU) implies the democratization of the country., meaning that Europeanization and democratization (as processes) are closely related.

This was especially evident during the accession process of Central and Eastern European countries to the EU. Their path to membership involved a transition from a communist system to democracy[8]. Similarly, close relationship has existed during the already implemented or ongoing expansion of the Union to the Balkans and the East. Georgia is one of such countries.

Europeanization of Georgia

Europeanization of Georgia: History

The development of Georgia-EU relations was contingent upon various internal and external factors. In the periods when circumstances were promising, there was an opportunity to expand the ties. According to these windows of opportunity, the history of EU-Georgia relations can be roughly divided into three stages: 1991-2004, 2004-2013, and 2014 to date.

During all three periods, the EU had a regional approach. In particular, relations with Georgia were strengthened within a broader approach, in parallel with strengthening relations with other countries – first by using the partnership and cooperation agreements, then the European Neighborhood Policy and Eastern Partnership, and finally the Association Agreements.

1991-2004 – Distanced Engagement

In 1991-2004, for the EU, Georgia was a geographically distant, politically unstable country located in a region with numerous conflicts. During this period, the main tool of the Union was the provision of humanitarian and technical aid[9], which may not have been impressive in absolute numbers, but it gave hope for development to the Georgian society immersed in poverty and lawlessness.

Since 1995, Georgia has been given the opportunity to benefit from the EU’s Generalized System of Trade Preferences (GSP). In 1996, a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement was signed, which entered into force in 1999[10]. Thus, the first steps were taken to regulate and approximate the economic, political and legal framework.

Overall, apart from isolated cases, due to the lack of interest from the EU, the agenda of Georgia-EU relations was quite limited. Accordingly, the years 1991-2004 can be rightfully called the period of “distanced engagement”.

2004-2013 – Growing Engagement

In the early 2000s, internal and external factors changed dramatically: in 2003, through the “Rose Revolution”, a new political force in Georgia came to power initiating radical democratic transformation. Georgia appeared on the radar of the EU, and, from the point of view of its member states, was able to do the unthinkable – despite the difficult regional and internal context, Tbilisi started building a democratic state. Moreover, the accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the EU was in preparation, which would move the borders of the Union further eastward, towards Georgia. First potential, and then new member states (especially Poland and the Baltic states) actively supported the expansion of EU’s ties with Georgia. This prompted EU’s interest in the energy resources of the Caspian Sea, which would allow the Union to diversify its imports. The changing international security environment (campaigns against international terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan) increased the West’s interest toward Georgia[11].

As a result, pragmatic interests and rising needs led to the expansion of the newly created European Neighborhood Policy towards the South Caucasus and the inclusion of Georgia in it from 2004. The EU’s interest toward Georgia grew exponentially: in 2003, it appointed a special representative for the South Caucasus in Georgia, and in 2004, it sent the EU Rule of Law Mission (EUJUST THEMIS) to Georgia.

The 2008 Russia-Georgia war was a turning point as the EU for the first time assumed the role of a security actor in Georgia. For instance, the Union mediated between the warring sides and mediated the process of signing the ceasefire agreement. On September 25, 2008, the EU created the post of the Special Representative for the crisis in Georgia, which was merged with the post of the EU Special Representative in the South Caucasus in 2011. On October 1, 2008, the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) was established in Georgia. The 2008 Russia-Georgia war also accelerated the implementation of the Eastern Partnership Initiative.

On February 25, 2013, an action plan for visa liberalization was officially presented to Georgia, within the framework of which Georgia implemented large-scale reforms in the areas of document security, border and migration management, asylum policy, public order and security, foreign relations and human rights.

No less important was the framework agreement signed on November 29, 2013, which allowed Georgia to participate in the ongoing crisis management operations under the auspices of EU.

Thus, the period of 2004-2013 can be called “growing engagement” within the European Neighborhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership. However, each integration step was more of a response to specific needs and existing challenges than a part of a strategic vision and proactive policy on EU’s part.

2014 to date – Associated Engagement

With the signing of the Association Agreement in 2014, a new stage in Georgia-EU relations began. The Agreement, which also includes a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area component, replaced the earlier Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. Today, relations between Georgia and the EU are legally regulated by this document. It provides for the political, economic, and institutional Europeanization of Georgia and significantly improves the quality of bilateral ties.

Simultaneously with the Association Agreement, several important events took place, which further strengthened Georgia’s European aspirations: on June 23, 2016, an agreement on mutual exchange of classified information was signed: on March 28, 2017, after the successful implementation of large-scale reforms, the visa-free travel regime for Georgian citizens in the Schengen area was launched; from July 1, 2017, Georgia became a member of the Energy Union; on October 11, 2017, the Georgia-EU high-level strategic dialogue on security issues was launched; Georgia participated in several ongoing crisis management operations under the auspices of the European Union; the EU actively continued to participate in the conflict settlement process both at the political-diplomatic level and in confidence-building mechanisms.

Moreover, with the constitutional reform of 2017, Georgia’s aspiration for membership in the EU and NATO was constitutionally enshrined.

Thus, overall, since 2014, the EU-Georgia ties have been completely adjusted to the association agreement and the reforms in it. This period can be described as the era of “associated engagement”.

Russia’s war against Ukraine fundamentally changed the conditions for the EU’s eastward enlargement. On February 28, 2022, Ukraine applied for the EU membership, which was followed by the membership applications of Georgia and Moldova on March 3, 2022. Georgia was able to independently answer 2,669 questions in the two-part accession application and return it to the European Commission in one month. In June 2022, according to the historic decision of the European Council, Georgia was given a European perspective and asked to fulfill 12 recommendations in order to obtain a candidate status. From then on, Georgia is in the process of fulfilling the proposed recommendations.

Presently the Association Agreement remains the regulatory document of the EU- Georgia bilateral ties. In case of receiving the candidate status and initiating the accession negotiations, the associated engagement will end and the foundation will be laid for a new, more ambitious stage, the ultimate goal of which will be Georgia’s membership in the Union.

Europeanization of Georgia: Actors, Institutions

The Georgian model of European policy coordination is as follows: the main decision-making body is the governmental commission for European Integration, headed by the Prime Minister. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the central coordinating institution and the secretariat of the government commission. Within the framework of the government commission, interagency working groups have been created that work on specific topics.

More specifically, the Governmental Commission for EU Integration has the following main functions:

1. Support of proposals and recommendations to support separate directions of Georgia’s European integration process.


2. Discussion of relevant information and facilitation of the National Action Plan implementation process.


3. Facilitation of the process of harmonizing Georgian legislation with EU legislation.


4. Facilitation of the process of implementation/enforcement of the recommendations developed within the framework of separate institutional mechanisms of Georgia-EU cooperation.

Among the other actors operating in Georgia in the process of Europeanization, the following are worth mentioning:

• Information center on NATO and the European Union, the main topics of which are the European Neighborhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership, the Partnership for Mobility, the Association Agreement, visa liberalization, the EU's involvement in conflict resolution and security and stability. The main activities of the information center include seminars, trainings, EU week, publications, regular meetings in the regions, thematic competitions, simulation games, NATO and EU corners.


• The Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development, which is responsible for the preparation and the implementation of the National Action Plan for the implementation of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement.


• The Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for the analysis of the conformity of Georgian legislation with EU laws at the governmental level, before sending draft laws to the Parliament. More specifically, its activities include the following components: 1) study and analysis of the legal framework (acquis) of the European Union, including the decisions of the European Court of Justice; 2) taking necessary measures for the harmonization of Georgian legislation with the legal base of the European Union.


• Sectoral ministries with each of them having structural units related to the European Union (department, division, section), which carry out the following: 1) fulfill the specific obligations undertaken with the European Union; 2) study and analysis of the legal framework of the European Union in accordance with competence. In this structural unit, the so-called liaison officer with whom the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is closely linked. For example, in the Ministry of Justice – EU Law Department (under the first deputy), while in the Ministry of Environment Protection and Agriculture – Department of European Integration.


• Representatives of non-governmental organizations, academia, business circles and media, who also play a critical role in this process with their individual/group programs/reports/researches; through competitions, conferences, awareness raising activities and media programs.

The following institutions are envisioned by the Association Agreement, which within their competences manage and promote the process of Georgia's approximation with the EU and, therefore, lay the basis for the Europeanization of Georgia:

• Association Council (ministerial level).


• Association Committee (deputy ministerial level).


• Association Committee on Trade (deputy ministerial level)


• Association Sub-Committees (Liberty, Security & Justice; economic and sectoral cooepration; geographic indications; sanitary and phytosanitary norms; customs; trade and sustainable development).

Role of Parliament in Georgia’s Europeanization

One of the central institutions of Europeanization is the Parliament of Georgia, which is also the center of democratization in the country. The Parliament has a Committee on European Integration, which prepares the bills necessary for the implementation of the Association Agreement. More specifically, its responsibilities include the following: law-making and providing legal expertise on determining compliance of Georgian legislation with EU standards; monitoring the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken within the framework of the action plan developed within the framework of the neighborhood policy with the European Union; participating in the work of EURONEST PA and Parliamentary Association Committee (PAC). Representatives of the Parliament, including the European Integration Committee, participate in the meetings of the government commission and working groups.

The Parliament of Georgia maintains close contact with the European Parliament through two main platforms: the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (representatives of the European Parliament and the parliaments of the six Eastern Partnership countries; multilateral format) and the Parliamentary Association Committee (representatives of the European Parliament and the Parliament of Georgia; bilateral format).

Overall, within the process of Europeanization, the Parliament of Georgia performs its role by using legislative and supervisory functions, as well as through parliamentary diplomacy.

Apart from strengthening the country’s European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations at the constitutional level (Article 78) within the framework of the constitutional reform implemented in 2017, the Parliament’s resolutions on Georgia's foreign policy (March 7, 2013, December 29, 2016, and December 29, 2020) also played an important role in strengthening the country's western orientation.

The most important process began after the June 2022 summit of the European Council, when the Parliament of Georgia pledged to implement the EU recommendations and coordinate the process. Parliamentary working groups were created in the Parliament with the participation of representatives of state agencies and civil society. Initiatives were jointly prepared for each recommendation, which were discussed and adopted during the committee and plenary sessions. It is interesting that in Ukraine and Moldova the implementation of EU recommendations has been led by the governments, while in Georgia this critical role is played by the country’s Parliament.

Europeanization as an instrument for Georgia’s democratization

Given the above-mentioned information, it is now possible to investigate how and why Europeanization and democratization were interlinked in Georgia, how and why Europeanization was an instrument of Georgia’s democratization?

To begin with, let us see how Europeanization was an instrument of Georgia’s democratization. As already mentioned, Europeanization in Georgia or European integration was connected with implementation of democratic reforms in the country. After Georgia’s inclusion into the European Neighborhood Policy in 2004, Europeanization became an encouraging tool for democratization – Europeanization determined the democratization agenda. To use the words of Emerson and Nucheva[12], for Georgia “Europeanization was a gravity model of democratization”.

Democratic reforms, in turn, strengthened the process and perspective of Europeanization, creating new incentives and opportunities for further progress on the path to Europeanization. Accordingly, Europeanization and democratization in Georgia complemented and facilitated each other.

This cannot be surprising, since the most important part of the Copenhagen criteria is the building of democratic institutions. Therefore, Europeanization – that is, in the context of Georgia, progress on the path of European integration – meant progress on the path of democratization in the country, strengthening of democratic institutions. All important agreements and initiatives in Georgia-EU relations – Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, European Neighborhood Policy, Eastern Partnership, Association Agreement, Visa Liberalization Action Plan, EU recommendations for candidate status – included a large component of democratization. On the other hand, the successful steps taken towards democratic consolidation would strengthen the further process of Europeanization. It is this “closed circle” in Georgia – Europeanization creates pressure for democratization, the progress of democratization strengthens Europeanization – during the last two decades, which created a situation where Europeanization became an instrument of democratization of Georgia.

If we look at the reform initiatives and progress in these years, it is clear that democratization is driven by Europeanization – the democratization agenda of Georgia closely goes hand in hand with and is defined by the Europeanization agenda.

In order to prove that Georgia’s Europeanization and democratization are intertwined, the Association Agenda between the European Union and Georgia, AA action plans, AA’s implementation reports made by European Commission, European Parliament and civil sociaty as well as ENP Action Plans and progress reports will be explored. These policy documents will be compared with the implemented reforms to conclude that Georgia’s democratization is linked to closely to its Europeanization that Europeanization has become an instrument for the country’s democratization process.

European Neighborhood Policy and Eastern Partnership

On June 14, 2004, based on the decision of the Council of the European Union, Georgia joined the European Neighborhood Policy, within the framework of which active Europeanization and democratization of Georgia began. In 2009, with the involvement of six eastern neighbors of the European Union (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine), the Eastern Partnership was created, which further strengthened these processes and made Georgia’s European perspective more realistic with the ideas provided within the mentioned initiative.

Within the framework of the European Neighborhood Policy and Eastern Partnership initiatives, a number of reforms were implemented in the directions of the rule of law, good governance, protection of minority rights.

Before the Association Agreement, the main process of Europeanization and democratization of Georgia was carried out with the help and framework of these two initiatives.

Human Rights Dialogue

Since 2009, within the framework of the political dialogue between Georgia and the EU, a new format of cooperation was created – Human Rights Dialogue (HRD). The HRD is one of the most active annual formats. Within its framework, the current situation in the country and the obligations taken and undertaken by Georgia are discussed in this direction. For example, the 2018 HRD agenda included such issues as “Preparation of the new Human Rights Action Plan”, “Strengthening of national mechanisms of implementation of HR instruments”, “Freedom and pluralism of media”, etc.

The Association Agreement

The Association Agreement is a legal document that regulates the bilateral relations between Georgia and the EU. With the Association Agreement, on the one hand, Georgia undertakes to introduce European values, legislation and practices. On the other hand, in return, the EU undertakes to open access to the EU market, finance and information for Georgia. The purpose of the Association Agreement is (1) to expand the political and economic relations between Georgia and the EU and (2) to gradually integrate Georgia into the internal market of the Union.

The Association Agreement will gradually ensure the implementation of reforms, which will ultimately lead to similarities with the EU member states – in economic, social and political aspects; the basic European values of mutual respect, tolerance, rule of law will be established in the public space. The Agreement will lead to increased predictability and consistency of public life as well as help to improve the quality of life of Georgian citizens[13]. In the end, full Europeanization of Georgia will take place – economically, socially, politically, institutionally.

Association Agreement has around 450 directives and regulations[14]:

• I-III titles – political dialogue democracy, human rights, the rule of law, good governance, peaceful conflict resolution, fight against terrorism, weapons of mass destruction).


• IV title – trade and tra-related matters (Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area - DCFTA).


• V-VI titles – sectoral cooperation (taxation, environmental protection, energy, transport, media, health protection, consumers’ rights, education, etc.).


• VII-VIII titles – institutional, financial and procedural provisions.

There are several provisions in the Association Agreement that clearly acknowledge the central importance of this document and Georgia’s European integration for the democratization process of this country. For instance, the preamble of the Association Agreement states the following: “recognising that the common values on which the EU is built – democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law – lie also at the heart of political association and economic integration as envisaged in this Agreement”. There is also another statement in the Objectives of the Association Agreement that highlights the importance of the document in Georgia’s democratisation: “The aims of this association are: ... to contribute to the strengthening of democracy and to political, economic and institutional stability in Georgia (Article 1, paragraph 2c)”. Moreover, general principles of the AA also provide further foundation for this:

“The Parties commit themselves to the rule of law, good governance, the fight against corruption, the fight against the various forms of transnational organised crime and terrorism, the promotion of sustainable development, effective multilateralism and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. This commitment constitutes a key factor in the development of the relations and cooperation between the Parties and contributes to regional peace and stability (Article 2, paragraph 3)”.

It also underlines that

“[aims] of political dialogue is to strengthen respect for democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance, human rights and fundamental freedoms, including media freedom and the rights of persons belonging to minorities, and to contribute to consoli­ dating domestic political reform (Article 3, paragraph 2h)”.

The following clause lays the foundation of concrete areas for cooperation with the aim of further democratising Georgia based on its EU agenda (i.e. Europeanisation agenda):

“The Parties shall cooperate on developing, consolidating and increasing the stability and effectiveness of democratic institutions and the rule of law; on ensuring respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; on making further progress on judicial and legal reform, so that the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed, strengthening its adminis­trative capacity and guaranteeing impartiality and effectiveness of law enforcement bodies; on further pursuing the public administration reform and on building an accountable, efficient, effective, transparent and professional civil service; and on continuing effective fight against corruption, particularly in view of enhancing international cooperation on combating corruption, and ensuring effective implementation of relevant international legal instruments, such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 (Article 4)”.

Most of the concrete democracy-related aspects are enshrined in the Title III “Freedom, Security and Justice” of the Association Agreement. For instance, Article 13 is dedicated to the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms:

1. “In their cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice the Parties shall attach particular importance to further promoting the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary, access to justice, and the right to a fair trial.


2. The Parties will cooperate fully on the effective functioning of institutions in the areas of law enforcement and the administration of justice.


3. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms will guide all cooperation on freedom, security and justice.”

It also deals with protection of personal data (Art. 14), cooperation on migration, asylum and border management (Art. 15), movement of persons and readmission (Art. 16), the fight against organised crime and corruption (Art. 17), cooperation in the fight against terrorism (Art. 20), and legal cooperation (Art. 21).

This democracy-related agenda has been included in annual Association Committee agendas that translate general Association Agreement terms into concrete operational actions. For example, operational conclusions of EU-Georgia Association Justice, Liberty and Security SubCommittee included the following commitments of Georgia taken to implement the Association Agreement in the following years:

• Georgia will fully address the 12 priorities of the Commission opinion related to the JLS sector as well as the Association Agenda 2022 – 2027 Short-term priorities on Justice Reform.


• Georgia will implement the 2021-2030 Migration Strategy and will approve new Integrated Border Management Strategy in 2022.


• The EU will continue providing support on anticorruption and transparency policies to all relevant institutions through the Public Administration Reform support programme and other relevant projects.


• Equip the Personal Data Protection Service with resources commensurate with its mandate and ensure its institutional independence, in line with visa liberalisation benchmarks; etc.

The earlier Association Committee agendas and other official reports throughout 2014-2021 contained the commitments in judiciary, prosecution, law-enforcement, public administration reform, penitentiary, migration, border management, asylum, preventing and combating organised crime and other illegal activities, etc.[15]

Reforms in 2014-2022

Georgia made significant progress in adopting legislative changes and implementing policy reforms that further consolidated democracy in the country based on the AA/European agenda. Several of them are worth mentioning to demonstrate that Europeanisation was an instrument of Georgia’s democratisation.

The following is neither an exhaustive list of the reforms nor an assessment of the progress or challenges. This is just to demonstrative that Georgia’s Europeanisation process has been a locomotiv of the country’s democratisation by creating pressure, agenda and legitimacy of/for further democratic reforms.

The EU pushed, facilitated or otherwise supported the following reforms and legislative/institutional harmonization in 2014-2020[16]:

• New institutions: such as MIA’s Human Rights Department, State Inspector’s Service (later split in State Investigation Service and Personal Data Protection Service), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Food Safety Agency, Competition Agency, Department of Labor Inspection, etc.


• New legislation: Code of Juvenile Justice; new and expanded labor safety regulations; new law on public service; new gender protection legislation joining the Istanbul Convention; new law on mediation; new Code on Customs; new electoral legislation; new law on Entrepreneurship (‘Company Law’); law on consumer protection; four waves of judicial reform; etc.


• Spillover of the Association Agreement-related reforms: the AA-related reforms also facilitated a successful completion of Georgia’s Visa-Liberalization Action Plan, granting Georgia a visa-free access to the Schengen zone in 2017. The Visa-Liberalization Action Plan contained various reforms, including in democracy area such as human rights protection, anti-discimination and anti-corruption legislation, and the rule of law.

EU recommendations to Georgia

In June 2022, European Council adopted 12 recommendations for Georgia to implement in order to grant candidate status. These recommendations mostly summarize earlier efforts of the EU in further consolidating democracy in Georgia[17]:

1. “Depolarization;


2. Guarantee the full functioning of all state institutions, strengthening their independent and effective accountability as well as their democratic oversight functions; further improve the electoral framework, addressing all shortcomings identified by OSCE/ODIHR and the Council of Europe/Venice Commission in these processes.


3. Judicial reform.


4. Strengthen the independence of its Anti-Corruption Agency; equip the new Special Investigative Service and Personal Data Protection Service with resources commensurate to their mandates and ensure their institutional independence.


5. “De-oligarchisation”.


6. Strengthen the fight against organised crime.


7. Undertake stronger efforts to guarantee a free, professional, pluralistic and independent media environment.


8. Move swiftly to strengthen the protection of human rights of vulnerable groups.


9. Consolidate efforts to enhance gender equality and fight violence against women.


10. Ensure the involvement of civil society in decision-making processes at all levels.


11. Adopt legislation so that Georgian courts proactively take into account European Court of Human Rights judgments in their deliberations;


12. Ensure that an independent person is given preference in the process of nominating a new Public Defender (Ombudsperson) and that this process is conducted in a transparent manner; ensure the Office's effective institutional independence.”

In short, it can be said that the process of democratization of Georgia was increasingly connected with the country’s Europeanization agenda. Today, these two processes are closely interlinked. By signing the Association Agreement and starting the implementation of related reforms, as well as gaining a European perspective and implementing the recommendations of the EU, the topic of the EU and European integration is no longer only a foreign policy issue in Georgia. Rather it became an integral part of the internal political discussions of the country.

Europeanisation as an instrument for Georgia’s democratization

Based on the above-mentioned information, it is clear how Europeanization created the agenda of democratization of Georgia. Now let us consider the reasons why Europeanization was a tool for the democratization of Georgia, why this process was acceptable to the country’s decision-makers. In our opinion, there are three reasons for this:

Firstly, Europeanization (i.e. European integration) was a legitimization factor for all consequent governments to pursue painful reforms that would have otherwise been impossible to implement.

Secondly, Europeanization and democratization have had value convergence – both processes entailed common values that the vast majority of population supported. Thus, it was politically feasible and benefitial for government to pursue Europeanization and democratization hand-in-hand. Public speeches of high-level officials from Speakers of Parliament to Prime ministers of Georgia throughout 2014-2022 explicitly highlight this argument when they closely link Europeanization to value system of Georgia and its society.

Thirdly, pragmatic/materialistic reasons – European Union provided necessary technical expertise, knowledge and financial resources for facilitating the arduous reforms and easening their transitional consequences. In addition, tangible benefits of Europeanization (for instance, visa-free access to Schengen Zone) further legitimized the process and gave credits to incumbent governments.

Conclusion

This paper sought to explore why and how the Europeanization has been a tool for Georgia’s democratization. For this reason, after clarifying the terms of Europeanization and democratization, we reviewed a historic evolution of the EU-Georgia ties, looked at institutions, instruments, agreements and formats of Europeanization in reference to Georgia’s democratization, and demonstrated key EU-driven reforms in Georgia in 2014-2022.

It was clear that democratization agenda has been driven by Europeanization. We believe this has been so for three reasons: it was a legitimization factor; Europeanization and democratization had value convergence; and pragmatic reasons related to Europeanization benefits and democratization costs.

This paper is one of the first attempts to explain the links between Georgia’s Europeanization and democratization in a more systemic manner. We hope it will be useful for reference in future research seeking to shed more light on this issue.

Bibliography

Usherwood, S. & Pinder, J. (2019). European Union: A Very Short Introduction. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Makhashvili, L. & Gokhelashvili, M. (2020). Political History of European Integration. Tbilisi: European University.

Information Center on NATO and EU (2019). Guide to NATO and the European Union. Tbilisi: Author.

Delcour, L. & Duhot, H. (2011). Bringing South Caucasus Closer to Europe: Achievements and Challenges in ENP Implementation. Natolin Research Papers, 3.

EPRS (2020). Association agreement between the EU and Georgia – European Implementation Assessment. Brussels: EPRS.

Emerson, M. & Kovziridze, T. (2021, eds.). Deepening EU-Georgian Relations: Updating and upgrading in the shadow of Covid-19. Brussels: CEPS.

Emerson, M. & Kovziridze, T. (2016, eds.). Deepening EU-Georgian Relations: What, why and how? Brussels: CEPS.

Emerson, M. & Noutcheva, G. (2004). Europeanisation as a Gravity Model of Democratisation. CEPS Working Document, 214, pp. 1-31.

European Commission (2022). Opinion on the EU membership application by Georgia. Retrieved on 15 December 2022 from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_22_3800

European Commission (2016). Association Agenda between the European Union and Georgia 2017-2020.

Government of Georgia (2016). 2016 National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement between Georgia, of the one part and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the other part and the Association Agenda between Georgia and the European Union.

Government of Georgia (2015). 2015 National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement between Georgia, of the one part and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the other part and the Association Agenda between Georgia and the European Union.

Korosteleva, E., Natorski, M. & Simão, L. (2014). EU Policies in the Eastern Neighbouhrood: The practices perspective. Routledge.

Fischer, M. & Sciarini, P. (2014). The Europeanization of Swiss decision-making processes. Swiss Political Science Review, 20 (2), pp. 239-245.

Flenley, P. & Mannin, M. (2018). The European Union and its eastern enighbourhood: Europeanisation and its twenty-first-century contradictions. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Lægreid, P., Steinthorsson, R. & Thorhallsson, B. (2004). Europeanisation of Central Government Administration in the Nordic States. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42 (2), pp. 347-369.

Lavenex, S., Lehmkuhl, D. & Wichmann, N. (2009). Modes of external governance: a cross-national and cross-sectoral comparison. Journal of European Public Policy, 16 (6), pp. 813-833.

March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.

Matlak, M., Schimmelfennig, F. & Woźniakowski, T.P. (2018). Europeanization Revisited: Central and Eastern Europe in the European Union. Florence: European University Institute.

Official Journal of the European Union (2014). Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part. Retrieved on 14 June 2021 from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22014A0830(02)

Parliament of Georgia (2019). 2019-2020 Action Plan for the Parliament of Georgia for the Implementation of the EU-Georgia Association Agreement. Tbilisi: Parliament of Georgia.

Sciarini, P. (2022). How Europe hits home: Evidence from the Swiss case. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (3), pp. 353-378.

Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (2020). The Europeanization of Eastern Europe: the external incentives model revisited. Journal of European Public Policy, 27 (6), pp. 814-833.

Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (2004). Governance by Conditionality: EU Rule Transfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), pp. 661–679.

Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (2005). “Introduction: Conceptualizing the Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe”. In: Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (eds.). The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 1–28.

Schimmelfennig, F. (2007). Europeanization beyond Europe. Living Reviews in European Governance, 7 (1), pp. 5-31.

Sedelmeier, U. (2011). Europeanisation in new member and candidate states. Living Reviews in European Governance, 6(1).

Footnotes

[1] Matlak, M., Schimmelfennig, F. & Woźniakowski, T.P. (2018). Europeanization Revisited: Central and Eastern Europe in the European Union. Florence: European University Institute, p. 6.

[2] Sciarini, P. (2022). How Europe hits home: Evidence from the Swiss case. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (3), pp. 353-378; Fischer, M. & Sciarini, P. (2014). The Europeanization of Swiss decision-making processes. Swiss Political Science Review, 20 (2), pp. 239-245; Lægreid, P., Steinthorsson, R. & Thorhallsson, B. (2004). Europeanisation of Central Government Administration in the Nordic States. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42 (2), pp. 347-369; Lavenex, S., Lehmkuhl, D. & Wichmann, N. (2009). Modes of external governance: a cross-national and cross-sectoral comparison. Journal of European Public Policy, 16 (6), pp. 813-833.

[3] Sedelmeier, U. (2011). Europeanisation in new member and candidate states. Living Reviews in European Governance, 6(1); Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (2005). “Introduction: Conceptualizing the Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe”. In: Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (eds.). The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 1–28; Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (2004). Governance by Conditionality: EU Rule Transfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), pp. 661–679; Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (2020). The Europeanization of Eastern Europe: the external incentives model revisited. Journal of European Public Policy, 27 (6), pp. 814-833.

[4] Flenley, P. & Mannin, M. (2018). The European Union and its eastern enighbourhood: Europeanisation and its twenty-first-century contradictions. Manchester: Manchester University Press; Korosteleva, E., Natorski, M. & Simão, L. (2014). EU Policies in the Eastern Neighbouhrood: The practices perspective. Routledge.

[5] Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (2004). Governance by Conditionality: EU Rule Transfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), pp. 661–679; Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (2005). “Introduction: Conceptualizing the Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe”. In: Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (eds.). The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 1–28.

[6] March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.

[7] Schimmelfennig, F. (2007). Europeanization beyond Europe. Living Reviews in European Governance, 7 (1), p. 8.

[8] Emerson, M. & Noutcheva, G. (2004). Europeanisation as a Gravity Model of Democratisation. CEPS Working Document, 214, pp. 1-31.

[9] Delcour, L. & Duhot, H. (2011). Bringing South Caucasus Closer to Europe: Achievements and Challenges in ENP Implementation. Natolin Research Papers, 3.

[10] Information Center on NATO and EU (2019). Guide to NATO and the European Union. Tbilisi: Author, pp. 140-144.

[11] Delcour, L. & Duhot, H. (2011). Bringing South Caucasus Closer to Europe: Achievements and Challenges in ENP Implementation. Natolin Research Papers, 3, pp. 7-8.

[12] Emerson, M. & Noutcheva, G. (2004). Europeanisation as a Gravity Model of Democratisation. CEPS Working Document, 214, pp. 1-31.

[13] Emerson, M. & Kovziridze, T. (2016, eds.). Deepening EU-Georgian Relations: What, why and how? Brussels: CEPS.

[14] Official Journal of the European Union (2014). Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part. Retrieved on 14 June 2021 from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22014A0830(02)

[15] Government of Georgia (2016). 2016 National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement between Georgia, of the one part and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the other part and the Association Agenda between Georgia and the European Union; Government of Georgia (2015). 2015 National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement between Georgia, of the one part and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the other part and the Association Agenda between Georgia and the European Union; European Commission (2016). Association Agenda between the European Union and Georgia 2017-2020; EPRS (2020). Association agreement between the EU and Georgia – European Implementation Assessment. Brussels: EPRS; Parliament of Georgia (2019). 2019-2020 Action Plan for the Parliament of Georgia for the Implementation of the EU-Georgia Association Agreement. Tbilisi: Parliament of Georgia.

[16] EPRS (2020). Association agreement between the EU and Georgia – European Implementation Assessment. Brussels: EPRS; Emerson, M. & Kovziridze, T. (2021, eds.). Deepening EU-Georgian Relations: Updating and upgrading in the shadow of Covid-19. Brussels: CEPS.

[17] European Commission (2022). Opinion on the EU membership application by Georgia. Retrieved on 15 December 2022 from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_22_3800