Menu
Election in Abkhazia
The head of the public organization “Akhatsa,” Akhra Bzhania, is part of a group working on proposals for constitutional reform and their promotion. The group has distanced itself from the upcoming presidential election on February 15, stating that their candidate is Reform.
Akhra Bzhania believes that holding the election before constitutional changes is pointless since, afterward, neither the new president nor the parliament will be prepared for a fundamental transformation of the political system. The editor of the newspaper Chegemskaya Pravda, Inal Khashig, discussed this perspective with Akhra Bzhania
Full text of interview:
Inal Khashig: Hello, this is Chegemskaya Pravda. This is our first broadcast of the year, so I want to wish everyone a Happy New Year. Thank God the holidays are over, even if not in the way we would have liked. Today is January 15, and that’s when we are filming. The official presidential campaign has begun. This means we have entered the most crucial stage of our political life at the moment.
Today we have Akhra Bzhania as our guest. We will discuss not only the presidential elections but also the tasks, goals, and challenges facing Abkhazian society.
Akhra, good afternoon! Let me start with a question.
Elections in Abkhazia are nothing new. Many well-known figures and public activists have always taken a stance, supporting one candidate or another. But now an interesting situation has arisen. You and a group of others have officially stated that your candidate is reform. This means you are not supporting any specific candidate and are not directly participating in the election campaign. Instead, you are focused solely on developing and promoting reforms.
What is behind this position? Why did you not support a particular candidate who could have declared their readiness to implement reforms? After all, the success of these reforms depends on who comes to power. How do you explain your stance?
Akhra Bzhania: Thank you for the invitation, and I also wish everyone a Happy New Year.
You mentioned the word suddenly, but in my opinion, this situation did not arise suddenly. If I were to describe the current political landscape, I would use the following analogy: we are like people getting into a boat full of problems, hoping that new rowers will steer it in the right direction. In my view, this is a very short-sighted approach. It would be far wiser to first repair the boat, perhaps even modify its structure, and only then select a crew capable of navigating it.
Moreover, I believe that society strongly demands such repairs at the moment. Moving away from maritime analogies to real politics, let me present some facts.
Some time ago, right after the events of autumn, several public organizations and individuals initiated a call for urgent reforms. Petitions were signed and supported by many—veterans, public figures, scholars, businesspeople, and active politicians. If we summarize their position, it goes something like this: Without reforms, there will be no development. Instead, stagnation is guaranteed. And no election alone will change the situation.
I have the corresponding text here, and I would like to read it.
Inal Khashig: By all means, go ahead and read it if you have it with you.
Akhra Bzhania: Yes, I want to read it to be as precise as possible. The statement says:
“The system of government with a super-presidential authority and a parliament elected through a majoritarian system no longer serves the interests of society. It hinders the country’s development and is a source of corruption and political threats. Only a blind person cannot see the pattern in the political crises that have shaken Abkhazia over the past ten years.
This dangerous trend must be stopped, and now is the time to do so. The changes must affect the Constitution, particularly electoral legislation and the redistribution of powers between branches of government, as well as laws regulating the activities of local authorities and public television. Without these urgent measures, holding presidential elections under a renewed Constitution is impossible. Only this way can we break the cycle of political crises and put Abkhazia on a path of steady and stable development.”
Inal Khashig: But these statements were made back in November, right after the storming of the presidential palace and Aslan Bzhania’s resignation. At that time, the election date had not yet been set. Now the election campaign is in full swing, and the process can no longer be stopped. How does your reform-focused group relate to the current campaign?
Akhra Bzhania: I disagree with the notion that elections are inevitable. The rules by which they are conducted do not serve the interests of the people. I believe that the events of November 15, when people took to the streets, symbolized society’s rejection of the outdated system. People were protesting not just against a specific president but against a system that grants excessive power to a single individual.
But instead of responding to this public demand, we are only hearing calls to participate in elections that will change nothing. In my view, without changing the system, no election can lead to development. Moreover, even if the opposition comes to power, they will face the same structural problems as their predecessors. I urge all responsible participants in this campaign to consider what is more important: securing the presidency, or changing the system to work in the interests of the entire society.
Inal Khashig: But I see this as more of an idealistic vision—a desire for things to unfold in a certain way. However, I think you also understand that, given the current situation, it is practically impossible to change anything now.
Akhra Bzhania: Are you asking me a question, or are you trying to fit me into a particular framework?
Inal Khashig: No, I’m not putting you in a framework. Look, your group talks about the necessity of reforms, stating that this is the primary task—first reforms, then elections. But now things are unfolding differently—the cart is before the horse. The election is happening, and whoever is elected will determine whether they can turn the cart around.
Candidates are already talking about the need for reforms, even though the campaign has just begun. Their rhetoric includes phrases that sound like obligatory mantras: reforms are necessary, transformations are important, and so on.
But we must consider that these leaders represent not only themselves but also specific interest groups. Unfortunately, in our political system, these groups have long functioned as a kind of private club pursuing personal and group interests. State interests remain secondary, regardless of whether those in power are the government or the opposition.
It feels like even if the candidates sincerely want reforms, their inner circle may obstruct those plans in favor of their own agendas.
We already have an established tradition: the elected president resigns early, and the process ends with the storming of the presidential palace. This cycle repeats over and over again. If nothing changes, this tradition will continue. The candidates understand this.
But in your opinion, do they have the ability, as events unfold, to take unconventional steps, reshuffle the deck, unite efforts, and say: We’re in the same boat, let’s transform everything together?
Akhra Bzhania: You mean after the election?
Inal Khashig: Yes, because honestly, before the election, I don’t see any opportunity to change anything.
Akhra Bzhania: First of all, I must point out that the candidates represent a diverse political spectrum. But I have not heard any of them openly declare their intention to carry out large-scale political reforms.
We are talking about changing the political system, redistributing powers, limiting presidential authority, balancing the branches of government, transitioning from a majoritarian system to a mixed one, and other critical issues. To be honest, I have not heard candidates make such statements. And if that’s the case, I have no doubt that these issues will not be raised in the future.
We have developed a strange tradition when it comes to nominating individuals for the highest state offices. I believe that the right to be a candidate for such a position should belong only to those who have actively and publicly expressed their views on the country’s problems, the ways to solve them, and their political positions.
Society must know the candidate, their vision for the state, their economic model—whether it be left-wing, right-wing, or liberal. What kind of army will we have—contract-based or as it is now? How will the security services operate—will they protect the citizens or the interests of those in power?
When someone has never talked about these issues and then suddenly becomes a presidential candidate, it baffles me.
That is why I cannot expect reforms from such individuals. If someone truly seeks change, they must declare it in advance. Of course, some candidates have taken an active public stance. But even from them, I have not heard clear programs for reforming Abkhazia’s political system.
Perhaps they plan to do so after the elections. But the reality is that there are too many problems, and the existing political system has become deeply ingrained in our society. It has literally embedded itself.
Abkhazia’s state system is so inert that even if a newly elected president genuinely wants reforms, the problems overwhelming the country may prevent them from simultaneously addressing these issues and reforming political institutions.
There are several reasons for this.
First, our parliament, formed through a majoritarian system, operates within a framework of loyalty. Even if some deputies personally agree on the need for reforms, their corporate interests take precedence. Such a parliament will never support a reform agenda.
Only a parliament formed on the principles of political representation can become a driver of change. If you represent a party with a specific program, then once in parliament, you will work to implement it.
However, a majoritarian parliament will never do this. That is why attempts to reform the system from within are almost doomed to fail.
Reforms are only possible during revolutionary periods when the initiative comes from below. Currently, the parliament is not under significant pressure from the executive branch, which creates a window of opportunity for pushing reforms forward. If this moment is missed, the parliament will return to its usual model of operation: factions and interest groups will begin to form, making any transformations much harder to implement.
As for the future parliament, which will be formed in two years, it is likely to be structured again based on loyalty. Those in power always seek a more reliable majority to minimize resistance. This will lead to a vicious cycle: the lack of reforms will create new problems, causing dissatisfaction among citizens and the opposition, eventually escalating into a crisis. It will all end with a new ultimatum and yet another early resignation.
Inal Khashig: But there is another way—such as holding a referendum. This is a more democratic method that allows for the redistribution of power between the president and parliament and enables constitutional amendments. Society is already demanding change: people understand that things cannot continue as they are and support reforms. However, the current parliament, which was elected for different purposes, is unlikely to respond adequately to this demand.
Akhra Bzhania: I disagree. It all depends on the moment and timing.
Inal Khashig: But if we miss this moment, the parliament will once again revert to its usual model: the influence of the executive branch, political groups, and factions that block any serious reforms.
Akhra Bzhania: If we miss this moment, parliament will inevitably return to its old practices. Political centers of influence will begin to take shape and exert pressure on parliamentary groups. Pushing through anything significant via such factions will be much more difficult than it is now. As for a referendum, I support direct and democratic forms of public expression, but Abkhazia lacks a political tradition of holding referendums. Throughout our entire period of independence, a referendum has only been held once, in 1999, alongside the presidential elections. And later, there was another attempt to hold a referendum on confidence in [then-president] Khajimba.
Inal Khashig: Yes, and it failed.
Akhra Bzhania: The first referendum was purely formal. It was clear that all citizens of Abkhazia supported the idea, it just needed legal confirmation. The second time was a completely unsuccessful attempt. There was no ideology behind it, nor any real reason to hold a referendum.
Inal Khashig: When the first referendum took place alongside the 1999 presidential elections, its core idea was centered around sovereignty, independence, and the Abkhaz state. This vision was shared by all political forces – both then and now. The second referendum, which you mentioned, about trust or distrust in Raul Khajimba, was personalized. It was just a part of internal political struggles, nothing more. That’s probably why the idea didn’t gain traction, and people have largely forgotten about it. Now, however, the idea of reforms isn’t tied to any specific figures. We’re not talking about reforms driven by one person or another.
We’re talking about the future of Abkhazia and the fact that our current political system is stalling and regularly failing. It’s as if our machine keeps breaking down. Every time we repair it, we barely get a kilometer before another breakdown happens. It’s clear that we need a major overhaul, and by now, everyone seems to agree on that. If we were discussing a referendum about a particular person, people might debate whether to participate. But now, public sentiment is clear: we can’t keep living like this. Something has to change, and everyone understands how important that is. Right now, there may be a real chance to make changes. Perhaps we can even ensure that presidential candidates play by the rules. After all, I’m sure each of them is well aware of how their predecessor’s term ended.
Inal Khashig: When reforms are not tied to a particular figure but concern the country’s future, people are more motivated to support change. Right now, society is ready for reforms because it recognizes their necessity. Even presidential candidates, remembering how their predecessors ended their terms, must understand that without changes, the system will continue to break down.
Akhra Bzhania: I do not believe that the idea of a referendum as a response to public demand will work in our situation. It is more of an attempt to shift responsibility, to avoid the problem, to postpone it. If politicians truly believe that reforms are necessary, they should be actively involved in their implementation now. If responsible politicians are not ready to temporarily set aside their ambitions to respond to society’s demands, then they simply do not need reforms.
The idea of a referendum will turn into yet another “later,” where dozens of reasons will be found not to hold it—internal or external issues, political crises. If you want reforms, you must be ready to take part in the process, to put election campaigns on hold for something greater than the struggle for power. I do not believe in talk about referendums because I see them as an attempt to avoid solving the problem. People who want to see change understand this as well as I do. If this attitude toward reforms persists, it will trigger a backlash, the consequences of which I foresee but prefer not to express.
Inal Khashig: Let me try to predict the situation. One way or another, an election will take place. We will elect a president who will inevitably face reality. The groups that supported the winning candidate, even if they understand the need for reforms, will likely yield to harsh realities and their own interests. One way or another, we will step on the same old rake. It will all end in another coup, which we may call a revolution, but in essence, it is still a coup.
We have already gone through this three times, and no matter how much we try to sugarcoat it, a coup remains a coup if it is not followed by systemic changes. A revolution can only be called such if it leads to a transformation of the political system, a radical shift in the existing order. But that is not happening here. What we see are merely palace coups—one leader is removed, another is appointed, but the system remains unchanged. If we follow this scenario again, elect a president, and nothing changes over time, it will end in yet another crisis. Once again, we will pretend to implement reforms, but in reality, it will be mere imitation: fancy words, empty gestures, proposed laws that no one actually advances.
This reminds me of the case involving the high-profile murder of three people. The Ministry of Internal Affairs’ press service claimed they had conducted large-scale operations and arrested a suspect. But in reality, this person turned himself in. Why pretend that massive efforts were made? It’s just deception. We are moving forward on inertia, like an old train sitting on a sidetrack, overgrown with grass. If nothing changes, we will face yet another coup. Your group has positioned itself as reformers and outlined key ideas. But is there any actual work being done to translate these ideas into legal terms? Are there concrete legislative proposals?
Akhra Bzhania: First of all, I want to point out that history does not follow a linear path. We cannot fast-forward or rewind the tape to see how our actions will be judged in the future. Saying that an event is a revolution if it brings positive changes and a coup if it does not is incorrect. We act out of civic duty, trying to save ourselves, our children, and our country. If we do not take adequate measures to address the challenges of the times and fail to change the system, problems will inevitably accumulate, turning into social tensions.
That tension will lead to a crisis, which will result in yet another resignation. Now, to the main question—are there concrete materials and a legal framework for reforms? Yes, such materials exist. Several expert groups worked on this issue even before our parliamentary term in 2006. They prepared fundamental projects that could have been adopted without prolonged debate. Recently, a meeting was held in parliament where deputies, including the speaker, expressed their willingness to move in this direction.
This can be done quickly. Of course, I cannot say whether we will have time to implement this before February 15. But the election can be postponed to March 15, April or May. For me, as a citizen, it is more important that the draft laws are implemented, that we change our approaches to governance, the quality of political thought and the delegation of power. A new team can be invited to this renewed foundation so that our “ship” does not sink and society does not become disunited. We, citizens, must formulate a request to politicians in order to overcome the cyclical nature of the crises that threaten our state.
Inal Khashig: On this positive note, we conclude our program. Today we discussed why we hold elections and live a political life — for the sake of finding perfect forms of existence, protecting sovereignty and statehood. Let me remind you that our guest was the head of the public organization “Akhatsa”, Akhra Bzhania. You can find our programs on YouTube, Rutube and on the Telegram channel “Inal Khashig. Chegemskaya Pravda”. Happy New Year once again! The holidays are over, weekdays have arrived. I hope these days will be fruitful. Goodbye, until we meet again.
