Menu
The New Government of Abkhazia
A new government has been formed in Abkhazia. The positive: there is an unusually high number of new faces among the ministers, with a minimum of toxic figures. The negative: the structure of the executive branch has remained virtually unchanged. The huge, cumbersome bureaucratic machine has stayed the same in size—33 ministries and agencies. For a small republic, this is an unbearably heavy burden.
Editor-in-chief of Chegemskaya Pravda, Inal Khashig,* discussed the prospects of the new-old government, the possibility of constitutional reform, and artificial intelligence as a tool of opportunity with Levan Lagulaa, editor-in-chief of Apsny Khabar.
*Inal Khashig has been included in the register of foreign agents by the Russian Ministry of Justice. Inal Khashig strongly disagrees with this designation and is challenging the decision in court.
Full text of the interview:
Inal Khashig: Hello, welcome to Chegemskaya Pravda. We have an almost fully-formed government now, with the exception of a couple departments. Leaders have been appointed, and we see many new faces. Nevertheless, the structure has remained practically unchanged — a huge bureaucratic apparatus that was a byword even under previous presidents. Today we’ll talk about the current situation with our guest, Levan Lagulaa. One YouTube channel has invited the head of another channel — well, sometimes it’s okay to visit each other. What’s your view, what are your impressions of the new government, of who’s in it? Let’s start with the latter.
Levan Lagulaa: Thanks for the invitation. I do hope the status of “foreign agent” isn’t contagious.
Inal Khashig: But it was Russia that designated me a foreign agent. So this foreign agent should probably carry a note — “Agent of Abkhazia.” You can probably find foreign agents in Abkhazia as well, in those structures that, so to speak, nominated me and said, “Make him a foreign agent.”
Levan Lagulaa: Regarding your question, I’d start from a different angle. We can talk about specific individuals too, but in my opinion, the most important thing is what you mentioned earlier: the structure has remained the same. And that means we’re unlikely to see any reforms — at least the kind we’ve been expecting for decades. I believe that’s the main strategic mistake of all the recent presidents — that they haven’t begun reforms. Regarding the structure of the Cabinet and the government in general, the Prime Minister said they would optimize it, but at this stage — based on the current realities, laws, and so on. Usually we’re promised, “We’ll be more modest, there’ll be fewer of us,” etc. But you and I know, and our society knows, that this doesn’t happen. I think the main problem is that we won’t see these reforms coming from the top. Or there will be attempts to dress things up and call it a reform. But in essence, I don’t think there will be real changes. That’s why the role of the parliamentary commission currently at work is very important; it’s a question of whether it can break this pattern and propose a living, dynamic framework for reform.
Inal Khashig: Regarding the parliamentary commission on constitutional reform, we’ll probably talk about a bit later. For now, I mean the individuals. We’ve always had a kind of portrait democracy. In the absence of any real ideas, the focus is always: “Oh, what a guy! We must vote for him.” Iit doesn’t matter what he says — what matters is him.
Levan Lagulaa: Fair enough. Speaking of individuals, I think in some areas there’s cautious optimism. Yes, there are pessimistic feelings in some directions — so there’s a certain balance. The key thing, in my view, is the absence of notorious, well-known figures. So far we haven’t seen the appointment of former president Aslan Bzhania or former prime minister Alexander Ankvab. I think it’s important that these men are not present. On the other hand, we see, for example, that the former prosecutor general, Adgur Agrba, was recommended by the president again for the same post. In my view, that’s a negative — it’s being discussed in the public sphere. But since our structure functions on the principle that the party line comes from the president’s administration, personally from the president — it’s not so important who holds a position locally, but rather the policy that the president wants to pursue. So maybe even with the same people, you could get slightly different results. But I want to return to my first point: without deep reforms, this won’t work.
Inal Khashig: It seems to me the current government has completed its first task — regarding appointments. Again, based on Abkhazian ideas about what power should be: it should not irritate people.
Levan Lagulaa: I just don’t want to name specific ministers or heads of districts and cities, so as not to stir things up. But there is cautious optimism, especially considering the youth factor. If you talk to people — online as well — they still want something new. Hopefully, “new” doesn’t just mean “young,” though that too is important. The old generation is slowly stepping aside. I think that’s significant, if you understand me.
Inal Khashig: Again, looking at the huge structure: 33 ministries and agencies — and that’s not even counting city and district administrations, the prosecutor’s office, courts, audit chamber, and so on. We’ve got a whole bunch of structures. A massive bureaucratic apparatus. And we’re constantly in crisis. There’s always some crisis going on, and something’s always lacking: roads are in terrible condition, problems with electricity, with water, and so on. Money that could go to social needs is spent entirely on salaries and maintaining the apparatus. It would be another thing if this apparatus actually showed high efficiency.
Levan Lagulaa: By the way, they have their own performance indices which they determine for themselves.
Inal Khashig: But you know, I still don’t understand — we have a complete lack of any kind of performance evaluation. There are no indices for any ministries or agencies. For example, a department head comes in, works for a year or two, gives a report — did the performance improve or not? For the traffic police, it’s easy: number of fatalities, number of accidents. And for other areas analysis could probably be done too. But we never see it. Just recently there was a situation where, at the State Committee on the Abkhaz Language, the staff didn’t let the new head take office. Again, it all happened behind closed doors — the authorities are silent, the staff are silent.
There’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering. But still I’d like to see a report: if the staff are so adamant, show us that you’re doing a good job. This applies to any department. There should be clear logic behind changes. But we don’t see that. Unfortunately, the absence of logic is a huge problem. We live as if in a parallel world. The structures are enormous, the government resigns again and again, a new one is appointed. We’re assembling some kind of LEGO: add a piece here and there and constantly talk about reforms — constitutional reform, administrative reform, local self-government reform, and so on. Right now in parliament they’re talking more concretely about reform. Do we actually have a deadline for the reforms?
Levan Lagulaa: I think they’re supposed to submit their reform proposal by June 1st. Going back to the commission — when was it originally formed?
Inal Khashig: The very first commission was formed in 2005 under Sergei Bagapsh (the second president of Abkhazia).
Levan Lagulaa: All of those were commissions under the president. But this commission is in the parliament. When the former president resigned, the parliament offered its platform for reforms. Because there is no trust in the presidential system. Everyone knows: if the president forms a commission — like the former president did — he alters the draft, and then, if I’m not mistaken, withdraws it from parliament himself. This commission was formed during a crisis. At that time there was a strong public demand for reforms. There were proposals coming from all sides — everyone was offering reforms. But the elite went into election mode.
And here we are again, repeating the cycle. Even if there’s cautious optimism about individual positions — in the government, in the administration — all of it is evolving in such a way that, in my opinion, the authorities will try to seize even more power, just in a different form. Now they’ll try to win control over the district assemblies. The elections were postponed — I think deliberately, to give time to prepare. Everyone is following this same path. Until we break out of it, nothing will change. Presidents come and go, and everything resets. And it’s impossible to assess how successful any given ministry is: they set their own goals, they evaluate themselves. Then people go out into the streets, escorting the president. A new government gets in and the cycle repeats. This is the path we’re on.
Inal Khashig: Based on what I’ve heard about the parliamentary commission, there are two points of view. The deputies support keeping the majoritarian system but want more powers — that is, they want the president to share power with them. The executive branch wants to move to a mixed system, without giving up any powers. So these are two mutually exclusive positions. And I just don’t see any common ground.
Levan Lagulaa: But the commission doesn’t only consist of deputies — and certainly not of representatives of the executive branch. There’s the legal community involved — it’s a kind of mixed group, let’s say. At least I’ve been following the position of the legal and judicial community: they support a move to a mixed system. So they aren’t serving only the interests of the deputies on the commission, and at the same time, they want to give the parliament more powers. It turns out the position of the expert community contradicts both the deputies and the government. And that’s what needs to be figured out. Now the question is — are there mechanisms to implement any of this? That’s a question for you, and for society as a whole.
Inal Khashig: Do you mean the expert community currently meeting in parliament? Those invited individuals? We know that in the presidential Constitutional Commission there were also invited experts. They prepared their recommendations, but in the end the president proposed a version that differed from their conclusion. Won’t it turn out the same way this time — the experts give one opinion, and the parliament adopts its own version?
Levan Lagulaa: And how does it all shake out, in the end? If we go down this road again… Yes, the current government has a certain level of legitimacy. They feel confident — so much so that they avoid publicly discussing sensitive topics like apartments or investment agreements. But looking ahead — without reforms, the likelihood of a serious crisis is very high. And such crises in our case usually end badly. The only difference this time is the new “curator.” He acts differently — he works, the system is being built in a different way. Perhaps this is what will prevent the authorities from making gross mistakes. Maybe it’s thanks to a more balanced and professional oversight that political life will remain stable and the government will complete its term and hand over power legitimately.
Inal Khashig: What I’ve noticed — you’re not the first to appeal to this sort of ultimate authority — the “curator.” It turns out everything depends on him now. In the past, we talked about the president, the elite, some form of consensus. But now, more and more, we hear: “the curator.” Not everything depends on him, of course.
Levan Lagulaa: Not everything.
Inal Khashig: Right, but painful to admit: we have proven incapable of implementing reforms on our own. No matter whom we appoint to key positions, it always ends in crisis. We elect presidents — then we chase them out. Step by step, repeating the same mistakes, we’ve ended up in a situation where the most important decisions are no longer made exclusively by the Abkhaz state. As painful as it is to admit, we are now under a form of external governance. And at the same time, we’re hoping that this governance will help fix what we failed to do ourselves — cleanse the system of discredited figures, of corruption, of those who’ve led us into crisis for years. But relying solely on the curator — “let him handle it” — is also the wrong approach.
Levan Lagulaa: I see it a bit differently. First of all, there was a serious underestimation of Abkhaz society — its ability to stand up for its own interests. The former president assembled a team of sector professionals, but they miscalculated: society, especially under pressure, is capable of resisting. We were perceived the way our leaders portrayed themselves. But the issues with apartments and investment agreements showed that the people considered themselves the rightful owners of this land.
Our real problem lies elsewhere: the political system and the elite. They reinforce each other and hinder development. The system cannot bring a new elite to power, and the existing elite doesn’t want to change the system because it’s convenient for them. They rotate among themselves and remain in power.
But under Aslan Bzhania, the tone changed. Society made its voice heard. After that — if you remember — came improvements like electricity supply, and some social projects started. We were heard maybe not immediately, but eventually. The events of November 15 confirmed this. This means the main force in Abkhazia is the Abkhaz people. Unfortunately, the elite doesn’t meet the demands of society, and society itself still lacks mechanisms to bring to power those who could effectively represent it.
As for the curatorship, I see it as important because previous curators acted differently. Now we see more involvement, a more professional approach. If we are truly being heard, it means decisions will be made with our perspective in mind. I hope there won’t be new initiatives that force us to take to the streets again. But the key factor remains Abkhaz society. Even the recent elections showed it — protest voting is our reality.
If more than 40,000 people voted “against,” despite everything going on — 42,000 plus another 2% voting “against all,” that’s 44,000, right? That’s actually a very large number. If you shake those numbers a bit more, it could even be close to half. This shows that society is responding, is alive. But we lack an elite that will consistently defend the country’s interests — in communication with curators and with the outside world in general. That’s how I’d put it.
Inal Khashig: Unfortunately, we haven’t seen any clear direction from the new government so far. Yes, there are some new faces, but in terms of the actual tasks facing this administration — where they’re leading us, how they plan to solve chronic issues like power outages, water shortages, and so on — there’s still no clarity. I’m not even talking about the problems caused by former president Aslan Bzhania — when lists of undesirable people were sent off, some were stripped of citizenship, others were labeled agents, some were banned from entering Russia for ten years, and some were just stopped at the border. And the authorities remain silent.
Just recently, for example, opposition leader Adgur Ardzinba was detained. The State Security Service issued some vague statement about him being deprived of certain rights, but Ardzinba himself later said that no one asked him anything — they just detained him, and there was no talk of rights at all. Moreover, from that same statement we learned that other opposition figures — who are formally under no restrictions — were also recently stopped at the border. This shows the problem hasn’t gone away.
To be honest, what gave me a bit of hope was that the new foreign minister, Oleg Bartsyts, took the initiative — he was the only one who personally called Ardzinba to clarify the situation. I want to believe that the government will stop staying silent and start at least saying something. Because this silence, this lack of any response, is inexcusable. It only fuels more distrust. It’s better to just be honest: say yes, we’re working on the issue. And if you can’t even say that — then the question becomes, why are you even in power? Why aren’t you responding to what’s happening to your own citizens?
Now, I’d like to switch topics. I know you’ve gotten really into artificial intelligence lately. I recently saw a video of you speaking fluent Arabic. And considering that AI is already performing many tasks with ease, I had this question: how applicable is artificial intelligence to public administration — especially given our bloated bureaucratic apparatus and the many agencies that often don’t produce real results?
Levan Lagulaa: Thanks for bringing that up. I’m not an AI expert — and I think most people aren’t, not just me.
Inal Khashig: Well, at least you’re familiar with the topic.
Levan Lagulaa: Yes, I work with it, and I can say with confidence: it’s applicable absolutely everywhere. In any field you can think of, artificial intelligence can and should be used. It’s like electricity: as important to the modern world as electricity is, so is AI. Even here in the studio, for example — sound enhancement, video processing — and those are just the most basic examples.
Inal Khashig: Not to fire people?
Levan Lagulaa: No, not to fire them. But with its help, you can achieve a lot more. Preparing for interviews, analyzing materials, work done by lawyers, economists, researchers. And of course, one of the key areas is language. The Abkhaz language. That’s exactly what we’re working on at the Bagrat Shinkuba Foundation, and we’ll continue developing this project. AI is applicable to governance as well. But by the way, electricity is critical for AI to work. And we’re having shortages. So developing power generation is also a question of the future. The more energy Abkhazia has at its disposal, the better our chance of entering the digital age.
Inal Khashig: You’ve touched on an important topic.
Levan Lagulaa: Yes, and I’ll say it bluntly: handing energy over to private hands right now — that’s a crime against the future. If it used to be dangerous, it’s even more so now. If you want to harm future generations, give electricity away to private interests. That will 100% affect both our competitiveness and the country’s viability.
Inal Khashig: And AI could help in promoting the Abkhaz language too, right?
Levan Lagulaa: Let me give you an example of a project to make the case clearer. There’s a platform called Mozilla Common Voice, where voice data is collected and processed. The Bagrat Shinkuba Foundation has already recorded around 400 people, about 100 hours of audio. In the first phase, we need to gather around 3000 more examples of spoken Abkhaz. A person reads text that scrolls automatically in front of them; it takes 15–20 minutes. This dataset can then be passed on to, say, Google or similar platforms. They already pull data from open sources — GitHub, various chats, including Chinese and American. Neural networks now already know a bit of Abkhaz, taking video materials from public sources. If we upload enough data they’ll be able to learn the language, and from there, generate anything. Like this conversation we’re having in Russian — it could be instantly translated into English, French, Abkhaz — in any direction.
We could make children’s apps, voice fairy tales. Imagine hearing, for example, Bagrat Shinkuba himself reading The Last of the Departed — not an actor, but the real voice of the author. This opens up tremendous possibilities. Then we’ll be able to create a fully digital environment for the Abkhaz language. All social networks, online games, any digital platform — Abkhaz speech could be present everywhere. And that’s how we’ll build a true immersive system for the language. A person will find themselves in an Abkhaz-speaking environment — comfortable, accessible. That’s how we’ll make the Abkhaz language practically immortal in the digital age.
It will be just like what Dmitry Gulia did over a hundred years ago when he came up with the Abkhaz alphabet and said: here, learn. Only now it’s for the digital world. We need to digitize voices and even more — texts. Then many problems will be solved.
Inal Khashig: And is any government structure working on this?
Levan Lagulaa: We’ve interacted, for example, with the Language Committee when preparing materials for submission to Google. One of our repatriates, Nart Tlysh, was actively involved, but unfortunately, he’s now gone to Jordan — we hope he’ll return. He also worked in the language foundation. To be honest, the state, at least under the previous leadership, ignored this topic. And this should have been a signal from the highest leadership. So I hope that the new leadership — in the form of the president and the Minister of Education — will pay attention to this.
Because this is the answer to the challenges of our time. We literally have one or two years to occupy our niche. Abkhazia hasn’t invested a single ruble to get the Abkhaz language into the digital space yet. But it’s already there — albeit in rough form, but there. I’ve run some tests: if we have the necessary dataset — translated and spoken — we can integrate the language into modern applications. For example, smartwatches: you wear them and they translate from one language to another. Or glasses: you look at an inscription, and it’s instantly translated via voice or on a smartphone. Technology is developing so quickly that we absolutely must jump on this train.
Inal Khashig: I really hope that our government, despite the lack of clear structural changes, will be able to compensate for this at least with interest, at least with a quality approach. The hope is weak, but still, it exists. Especially with new generations — 30, 35, 40 years old. This is not the same generation that held power for 20-30 years and didn’t even have smartphones. I hope that with them, there will be a desire to use the opportunities that artificial intelligence opens up. Let’s stop here. Levan, thank you very much. We always talk about chronic problems in our country that never seem to be solved. But hope remains. Thank you, until next time.
