While Georgia’s road to Europe has rarely been easy, the latest clash between Tbilisi and Brussels highlights how domestic politics shapes the country’s foreign policy trajectory.
At the heart of the debate is visa-free travel, which has been the basis of Georgia’s relationship with the European Union since 2017. The prospect of that suspension caused both rebellion from government officials and uncertainty among ordinary citizens.
Council President Sharva Papushuashvili took the hardline by declaring that “Brussels cannot become a court, not a court.” For him, criticism from EU officials is an attempt to take away Georgia’s judicial role. He defended the country’s judicial system, pointing to acquittal in recent cases, claiming that Georgia is superior to EU members of the international rankings on corruption and the rule of law. In his view, Brussels’ assessment reflects political bias rather than objective standards. Especially when he said that the protests in the EU capital itself are often suppressed by force.
However, the government’s defensive attitude is in stark contrast to the public’s perception. A recent CRRC Georgia survey found that if a visa-free travel is suspended, the majority of 51% of citizens will be responsible, not George Andreem and his founder Bidzina Ivanishvili, Brussels. Only a few minorities will mistake the EU. Young Georgians and Tbilisi residents were particularly likely to have the government emphasised on generational and geographical disparities in political trust and held the government accountable.
But what’s consistent is the overwhelming support for Europe itself. Almost 80% of Georgians say they want to join the EU, making it the best of the under 35 generation. Even among older people, support is not below 70%. This is a rare level of consensus in Georgia politics. For many citizens, Europe is not just a foreign policy choice, but a vision of modernity, opportunity and democratic standards.
This difference shows the broader political landscape of the country, despite the fact that Brussels is positioned as an unfair and overreaching, while the public continues to see Europe as a natural destination for Georgia. The ruling party has framed criticism of the EU as an attack on sovereignty. Meanwhile, citizens increasingly see European integration as inseparable from their future prosperity.
The outcome is a paradox. In Georgia today, supporting EU membership often overlaps with the dreams of its enemy Georgia, but defending the ruling party is sometimes portrayed as resisting “outside interference.” This dynamic transforms foreign policy into a proxy battlefield for domestic politics, complicating the path to Georgia’s membership.
For Brussels, the challenges are equally sensitive. Sanctioning Georgia by suspending visa-free travel risks alienating the very public, who remain overwhelmingly pro-Europeans. For Tbilisi, dismissing EU criticism may work on its foundations, but it runs the risk of undermining the country’s long-term aspirations.
Ultimately, Georgia’s European future may depend more on Brussels’ judgment than how the country reconciles its internal divisions. As long as foreign policy remains hostage in internal political struggles, the path to Europe remains contentious.
tag
