Menu
The presidential election in Abkhazia has concluded. The current state of the country has been assessed. Possible solutions for finally overcoming the chronic domestic political crisis have been discussed.
Editor of the newspaper Chegemskaya Pravda, Inal Khashig, spoke with historian and political scientist Astamur Tania about the election and the Abkhazian choice, the Central Election Commission and PR technologies, as well as phobias and fakes.
Inal Khashig: Hello, this is Chegemskaya Pravda. The presidential election has finally concluded. This campaign was loud, intense, and nerve-wracking. We have a new president, Badra Gunba, and we congratulate him. Today our guest is our resident expert, Astamur Tania. We will discuss our impressions and reflect on the prospects of this presidential term, as well as on Abkhazian history in general.
Astamur, this election was extremely tense. I had a feeling that something very unpleasant might happen at the end, but fortunately, we got through it.
Astamur Tania: Once again, just barely.
Inal Khashig: Yes, we did. The very next day, society’s perception of the situation became much calmer. But there are a few factors worth noting.
First, for the first time in our history, three presidents resigned early. The forces that stormed the presidential palace effectively became the winners—new elections cemented the opposition leader as president. This time, on November 15, the opposition once again stormed the palace, and it seemed that power was shifting to them. Aslan Bzhania stepped down, but despite that, a member of his team became president.
What does this mean? Can we say that this method of changing power is no longer popular in society? Or did modern electoral technologies play a decisive role? I’m not claiming that they are a perfect tool, but they certainly influenced the election outcome, making the opposition’s defeat inevitable. What do you think?
Astamur Tania: Many reasons. As far as the election outcome, in my view they were optimal. Some may not like this perspective, but if we assess the situation in terms of the interests of the entire society—including international and Russian concerns—this outcome seems the most acceptable.
Moreover, this is not just a victory for those who won the election. I wouldn’t call the opposition the losers because they achieved significant results. Now, much depends on the actions of both sides—the government and the opposition.
Why do I consider this outcome optimal? First, we cannot ignore the Russian factor. Otherwise, serious complications could have arisen. I have said before: Abkhazia and Russia have different governance dynamics. Russia is like a massive tanker—if it changes course, it will still move forward for some time due to inertia. Abkhazia, on the other hand, is more like a motorboat, capable of reacting faster. This gives us room to maneuver—it’s critical not to get caught under the tanker’s keel, but also not to drift too far from its wake. Given the enormous media efforts invested in the campaign, a different outcome may have led to negative consequences for Abkhazia.
That said, I don’t think that Russian decision-makers truly view the opposition as an anti-Russian force. Work with the opposition will undoubtedly continue. It’s important to understand that despite the strong support for the government, 42% of voters who supported the opposition expressed dissatisfaction with the previous administration’s course.
We see the mobilization of active segments of society around the opposition platform and, crucially, around the idea of reforms. Hopefully, these reforms will be real and not just cosmetic. Some discussions about reforms in Abkhazia concern me. Perhaps we should dedicate a separate show to this topic. After all, as Viktor Chernomyrdin once said, “Whatever we try to do, we end up with the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union].”
Right now, we are seeing the right signals—for example, statements from Badra Gunba and Adgur Ardzinba. They have demonstrated their willingness for constructive engagement.
Inal Khashig: You mean their statements about unity? That Ardzinba acknowledged the election result and expressed his readiness to work for the good of the state?
Astamur Tania: Yes, these are generally the right signals. The main thing now—especially for the authorities—is not to get carried away with redistributing positions. Issues of legitimacy remain, and if the government wants to prove its effectiveness, it must act quickly. Look at how Trump launched reforms after coming to power. Sometimes he went too far, but society saw movement. We also need to feel that real changes are happening in domestic politics and the economy.
Now, about coups. Abkhazian revolutions are hard to call revolutions in the full sense of the word. What did they lead to? In the end—to the victory of the bureaucratic apparatus.
This apparatus is not an exclusively Abkhazian invention; it is the heir to the Soviet party-economic system, including its personnel. After the Patriotic War, this system faced difficulties, but gradually it began to regain its position. By the end of Vladislav Grigorievich Ardzinba’s rule, representatives of the old nomenklatura were already regaining control over power. Today, we see the continuity of this system. The bureaucratic apparatus is politically neutral—it doesn’t care who the president is.
We have seen presidents change, often not in the most peaceful way, but the structure of governance itself has remained unchanged. It has become a kind of caste. Without a doubt, the main architect of this bureaucratic mechanism was Alexander Zolotinskhovich Ankvab. But the system will continue to function even without him. In my opinion, this is the main problem: this apparatus is neither elected by the people nor accountable to them.
Inal Khashig: Yes, the apparatus exists on its own…
Astamur Tania: And it keeps functioning, regardless of who sits in the president’s chair.
Inal Khashig: You mean that the bureaucratic apparatus has remained largely unchanged?
Astamur Tania: I don’t think there is a direct connection here. This apparatus is not elected, unlike the president and parliament, yet it largely determines real power. Our system resembles an absolute monarchy, where the presidential administration takes on the role of the royal court. At the same time, it bears no responsibility for decisions, even though it takes part in shaping them.
All our reforms are going to stall. If we don’t recognize the need to de-bureaucratize the state apparatus, to make it more transparent and accountable to parliament—and, through parliament, to society—then no transformation will work out. This apparatus needs a functional change.
Nicholas I once said to Marquis de Custine: “Do you think I am the true ruler of Russia? No, the real ruler is the clerical bureaucrat.” Meaning, the mid-level official.
If we don’t address this issue, everything will remain as it is. Cosmetic reforms that do not touch this system will not yield results—neither the economy nor other spheres will change. And then it won’t matter who holds the presidency, because governance will still be in the hands of the bureaucracy. The opposition and the new president must understand this.
Inal Khashig: But every time a new president appears in Abkhazia, society hopes for change. Yet history repeats itself: over time, it becomes clear that the president is not the leader of the whole country but merely the head of his own team. Within two or three years, it feels like he is isolated in his own fortress, surrounded only by his supporters, while everyone else remains “outside the walls.” This repeats again and again.
Astamur Tania: Moreover, the situation is even worse. The elected president becomes not so much the leader of his voters as the head of his inner circle. Those who voted for him end up left out just like his opponents.
Inal Khashig: So he doesn’t fully use the mandate he officially holds. I remember the situation in 2019 when a crisis arose over the vote count between Raul Khadjimba and Alkhas Kvitsinia. Khadjimba received 50% plus one vote, and the dispute dragged on. At that time, I suggested a way out of the crisis: appointing the opposition leader as prime minister and developing a reform roadmap that would be approved by parliament. In other words, making governance a joint effort.
Some politicians liked this idea—I received calls from Batal Tabagua, Beslan Eshba, and other interested figures. I even went to Khadjimba’s administration (though I didn’t meet with him personally), but his deputies rejected this option. And two or three months later, President Khadjimba was forced to resign early.
Astamur Tania: I remember—we discussed similar ideas back then. It was in the air.
Inal Khashig: But the opportunity wasn’t taken.
Astamur Tania: It’s important not just to negotiate over distributing positions but to discuss the principles of the transformations Abkhazia needs.
Inal Khashig: In 2019, it wasn’t about dividing positions; it was about working together on reforms. Everyone recognized that the country was in crisis, but no one proposed real mechanisms to overcome it. At that time, a roadmap could have been developed, and both political forces could have worked together on its implementation.
Astamur Tania: Yes, but now the situation is repeating itself. If we look at the election result, the numbers do not always reflect the full picture.
Inal Khashig: I believe that even among those who voted for the new president (55% of voters), there are people who are generally dissatisfied with the situation. Analyzing these numbers is extremely important.
Astamur Tania: A deep sociological analysis is now necessary. The election result should not be perceived merely as arithmetic—we need to understand which segments of society supported each side and why. It is especially important to consider the opinion of the younger generation. We are witnessing a change of elites. The people entering active politics differ not only in age but also in political temperament, background, and culture. If these processes are artificially suppressed, we will have a pressure cooker effect, which will eventually lead to a new crisis. We have been lucky several times already, but we cannot rely on luck. This time, fortunately, there were no casualties, but the risk of escalation always remains.
It is crucial that young politicians (both in power and in the opposition) do not engage in behind-the-scenes maneuvering but conduct open public politics. Abkhazian society in many ways resembles an ancient polis—people want to hear what ideas the government is proposing. The old methods of governance no longer work. If the president becomes isolated from society, power will once again be concentrated in the hands of a small circle of close associates, inevitably leading to another upheaval.
We now have a new overseer for Abkhazia (Sergey Kiriyenko), and positive changes have begun. In the ecclesiastical sphere we are also seeing progress—Ierodeacon David (Sarsania) apologized for supporting the schism in the Abkhazian Orthodox Church. Conflicts are being resolved. There is hope that moving forward, the approach will not be based on old templates, but rather on genuine interaction with Abkhazia, taking into account that we are a society with our own interests that must be considered.
Inal Khashig: You’re talking about old conflicts that are now being addressed. But during Bzhania’s presidency, new artificially created contradictions emerged. For example, the opposition was portrayed as an anti-Russian force, and the narrative of “Turkish influence” was aggressively promoted. Adgur Ardzinba and his allies were labeled as “Ankara’s proxies.” This rhetoric was widely disseminated both in Abkhazian society and in Russian media.
Astamur Tania: Notice how, after the two candidates met and signed an agreement, the rhetoric suddenly changed—almost as if at the snap of someone’s fingers. The level of tension dropped by about 90%.
Inal Khashig: Yes, but it’s not just about words. The problem runs deeper—there were concrete actions: revoking citizenship, imposing entry bans to Russia for well-known Abkhazian politicians. These sanctions are completely counterproductive in hindsight. And this is the legacy that Badra Gunba has inherited.
Astamur Tania: If the new president wants to strengthen his position, he must address these issues. People in Abkhazia understand very well that those who were portrayed as anti-Russian forces actually have nothing to do with anti-Russian activities.
Inal Khashig: Absolutely…
Astamur Tania: The people who were stripped of citizenship or sanctioned and expelled were never involved in any anti-Russian activities. This is an issue that must be addressed. I don’t think anything irreversible has happened. It’s clear that there was emotional tension and mistaken decisions were made. But I hope the negative inertia, largely created by the previous government, won’t become entrenched. Attempts to artificially divide society into “pro-Russian” and “anti-Russian” factions to gain external advantages have proven to be a mistake. I think that’s obvious now. And an important signal will be whether the new government takes steps to resolve these issues.
Inal Khashig: On the other hand, that’s just a wish. No one has officially admitted their connection to anonymous information channels, but for the past several years, various Telegram channels have systematically discredited Abkhazia and its citizens, creating artificial conflicts. They spread false narratives about “anti-Russian sentiments,” “Turkish influence,” etc. It was clear that there was some coordination between the Abkhazian presidential administration and these resources. As someone with experience in this field, I can say—it was obvious. It would be good if this practice stopped. In our small society, such manipulations are dangerous. Using these tools to control the political situation means creating a threat to stability.
Astamur Tania: By the way, it would be a mistake to think that the rhetoric about “pro-Russian” and “anti-Russian” forces helped Badra Gunba. On the contrary, it seriously damaged his campaign. This discourse created problems for him both during the elections and in the long run. I believe there’s now an understanding of this, and this issue will have to be addressed to avoid repeating old mistakes.
Inal Khashig: It’s clear that during the campaign, Russian ministers frequently visited Abkhazia with specific proposals and benefits. That kind of support is no longer going to be there, and they will have to work under new conditions.
Astamur Tania: And besides, there needs to be a focus on internal politics. Abkhazia needs a well-thought-out national policy to smooth out existing problems. Special attention should be paid to relations between the Abkhaz and Armenian communities. If we don’t address these issues, it will lead to regression, a rollback to feudal society. When we talk about modernization, we must understand that it’s not just about technological advancements but also political reforms. We need to move toward building a civic nation.
If a part of society feels excluded from national affairs based on ethnicity, that is, first and foremost, the fault of the Abkhazian political elite—after all, they are the ones governing the country. On the other hand, the Armenian community must also recognize its role in governance. If today one group pulls in one direction and tomorrow another group pulls in the opposite direction, it leaves a negative imprint. One of the top priorities right now should be working with media resources and implementing political modernization. It’s crucial to consider all these aspects when discussing reforms. This is a very delicate matter, and it cannot be ignored.
Inal Khashig: But things work differently here. Our authorities typically engage only with the electoral base that supported them. It’s easier that way. Building a civic nation is not a process tied to elections. It’s daily work that requires a systematic approach.
We see that reality is changing. Today’s electorate may no longer align with the ideas upon which the Abkhazian state was originally built.
Astamur Tania: By the way, today is March 4th – the 15th anniversary of the death of Vladislav Grigoryevich Ardzimba.
Inal Hashig: Yes, March 4th has always been an important date for us.
Astamur Tania: It is also the day of the Sovietization of Abkhazia, the day of remembrance for Sergey Vasilyevich Bagapsh.
Inal Hashig: This day for us is always associated with a sense of the past, with a time when “the grass was greener”.
Astamur Tania: Recently, something amusing happened. A friend approached me and indignantly asked, “Why weren’t the problems we face today solved during Vladislav Ardzimba’s time?” This is a strange view of state-building. The state is not a pharaonic tomb, built once and never changed. Under Vladislav Ardzimba, the main principles were laid out, but they must evolve, adapt to new conditions. Today, Vladislav Ardzimba and the fallen heroes of the war have become part of national ideology and mythology. They are now beyond current politics. In current politics, there are living people.
But we must not lose touch with the spirit of the national liberation struggle that Ardzimba embodied. I saw a letter left at his grave online: “Forgive us, Vladislav.” On a human level, this is understandable, but there’s a certain hysteria in this. There has been no catastrophe in Abkhazia – for either side. There is room for work – both politically and economically. We must strengthen statehood, unite society, and improve the efficiency of governance. We need to approach this rationally and calmly, without excessive emotionality. There are grounds for moderate optimism. The question is how those in power will use this opportunity.
Inal Hashig: I hope that we don’t waste the next five years discussing the same reforms that never get off the ground.
Astamur Tania: We should dedicate a separate broadcast to analyzing the reforms and issues currently being discussed in society.
Inal Hashig: These five years can pass very quickly, or they may end earlier – Abkhazian history has seen such examples. The president is elected by the people, but often leaves early, not by their own will. We see how dramatic elections can be. This time, there were shootings, injuries… But we managed to stop in time.
Astamur Tania: Inal, this reflects the people’s concern, their dissatisfaction. In Switzerland, society is less politicized because everything works like clockwork there.
Inal Hashig: But still, when attention to politics becomes excessive, emotional, and sometimes even aggressive, it can be dangerous for Abkhazian society itself. Perhaps we should consider a different electoral system. If reforms had taken place in Abkhazia and there had been a redistribution of powers between the president and the parliament, it would have reduced the tension. Yes, the attitude toward the presidential position would have changed, and it would no longer be perceived as the throne of the king and god. But if that doesn’t happen, we should still think about making changes to the electoral legislation. We see that in these elections, PR technologies, far removed from reality, played too large a role. They created illusions, on the basis of which the president is elected, and this is very dangerous. We need to work out these mechanisms. It was evident that the Central Election Commission essentially distanced itself and did not intervene. But if everything had been controlled from the start…
Astamur Tania: Unfortunately, our CEC doesn’t have a special unit.
Inal Hashig: Yes, there are no special units, but starting from the registration of candidates, we are already turning a blind eye to the laws and rules we ourselves wrote. Here we need to be more responsible. When you overlook a minor violation, then you stop noticing more serious problems, and eventually, you are simply unable to change anything. We need to do a huge amount of work on mistakes. Right now, people are just saying, “Thank God the elections are over.” But the very idea of elections in a society where citizens have the right to choose has been replaced by a simple sense of relief from their completion. This shouldn’t be how it works. The process should meet the initial expectations of society, and we need to align it accordingly.
Astamur Tania: Let’s not forget that we are temperamental people.
Inal Hashig: That’s understandable, but still, we must consider and regulate these processes. We need to analyze the mistakes, involve experts, the public, the authorities, and the opposition in the discussion. This is not a matter of one week, it concerns our entire society, our small country. We must not fall into extremes that could harm the state.
Astamur Tania: I completely agree. The only thing I want to add is that neither team should rest on their laurels or, on the contrary, fall into depression. Many tasks lie ahead. Their solutions must not remain in an informational vacuum – citizens must see what is being done. It is important to move to a serious party-political process, not to engage in politics sporadically. This is not a hobby. Only in this way can a professional political class be formed. I wish all our citizens well-being and good fortune.
Inal Hashig: I hope that we will not waste this stage of our history, but make it productive. We need to strengthen statehood, improve the welfare of citizens, and protect their rights and freedoms. I think that’s it for now; let’s stop here.
Astamur Tania: All the best.
Inal Hashig: Until next time.
