Грузинский парадокс

[profi]

Или - кое-что о "диктатуре развития".

Не все на Западе - наивные простачки, которых можно загипнотизировать частым произнесением сакральных слов.

If you bury the democratic shortcomings with the narrative of better governance, you're missing the bigger story," says Columbia University's Lincoln Mitchell, author of Uncertain Democracy: U.S. Foreign Policy and Georgia's Rose Revolution. After the 2003 revolution, he says, Saakashvili and his entourage revised the constitution to tilt the electoral playing field in their favor. The result is a classic example of a system that has all the trappings of a liberal democracy but little in the way of genuine political competition. "The elections are as good as they can be without giving the opposition a chance to win," says Mitchell. He credits Georgia's progress against corruption. But good governance, he points out, is not necessarily the same thing as vibrant democracy. In some cases, indeed, the two may be at odds. "Georgia's elite are modernizers, not democrats," writes Tom de Waal, a leading Georgia-watcher with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

И все бы хорошо (меня лично, как известно, слова "народ" и "демократия" не гипнотизируют), но вот в каком направлении развивается эта диктатура? Что является ее конечной целью? Стали ли люди жить лучше и свободнее в стране, декларативно избавившейся от коррупции?  

Дайджест по-русски - тут. Полностью статья из Foreign Policy - тут.