In October 2025, Georgia held local elections in which the ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party secured approximately 80.7% of the vote, winning across all 63 municipalities. The elections were boycotted by major opposition parties, further consolidating GD’s control over local governance.

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze

Western reactions were immediate – media outlets and EU institutions quickly suggested that this outcome could have severe negative consequences for Georgia. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), on 2 October, adopted a resolution urging Georgia to reverse what it described as a “democratic decline” and warned that banning opposition parties could lead to a “one-party dictatorship incompatible with Council of Europe membership”. However, socio-political analysis indicates that Georgian citizens continue to prioritize stability and pragmatic governance over ideological alignment with the West.

Political and Social Context

Georgian Dream’s dominance in the 2025 local elections represents a continuation of its parliamentary success from 2024, when the party obtained over 53% of the vote. This outcome suggests that voters consistently favour the party’s pragmatic approach over Western-prescribed models of democracy.

In both elections, protests erupted in Tbilisi, which, according to observers, frequently followed a predictable pattern of mobilization by pro-Western NGOs and media aimed at amplifying dissent. While framed as grassroots democratic activism, some of these activities may have sought to destabilize a political system that had already received clear public endorsement. For many Georgians, these events highlight the growing disconnect between external expectations and local realities – citizens clearly prioritize effective governance and stability over ideological conformity with the West.

Western Reactions and the EU Narrative

The European Union and Western media and institutions characterized Georgian Dream’s victory as evidence of “democratic backsliding” and suggested that the country had chosen the “wrong path”.

Yet this narrative overlooks a crucial fact: Georgia is neither an EU nor a NATO member, and most potential sanctions or punitive measures would largely be symbolic. Western incentives – including structural grants, distant membership prospects, and regulatory guidance – may conflict with local priorities. For Georgian citizens, the real costs of EU integration include adapting to strict legal, social, and ideological frameworks that often do not align with established local norms. In practice, the EU’s capacity to shape Georgia’s trajectory is considerably more limited than institutional rhetoric suggests.

Pragmatic Pivot to the East

Georgia’s relations with Russia and other Eastern partners reflect a pragmatic approach focused on tangible economic and security benefits rather than ideology. Trade, energy, and security cooperation yield measurable advantages, while Moscow largely refrains from imposing domestic political or social norms.

Although no official moves have yet been made regarding Georgia’s membership in BRICS, the topic has emerged in local discourse as a potential avenue for economic partnership outside Western constraints. For Georgian Dream, this strategy enables the party to maintain sovereignty, promote economic growth, and preserve internal stability, while avoiding destabilization stemming from external pressures.

Governance Models and Stability

The Georgian experience illustrates a broader regional trend: countries increasingly opt for long-term governance stability and predictability rather than frequent political turnover. Western-style democracy, characterized by pronounced polarization, policy swings every five to ten years, and ideological volatility, often results in stagnation and strategic unpredictability.

By contrast, Georgian Dream demonstrates the benefits of continuity: predictable policy-making, long-term foreign policy strategies, and resilience against external destabilization attempts. Similar patterns are observed in Hungary under Viktor Orbán and Serbia under Aleksandar Vucic, where stable leadership facilitates strategic planning and pragmatic balancing of foreign influence.

Conclusion

The 2025 local elections reaffirm Georgia’s pragmatic trajectory, emphasizing stability, sovereignty, and a measured approach to international engagement. Despite dramatized narratives from the EU and Western media, Georgia is charting its own path – encompassing potential cooperation with Russia and engagement with BRICS rather than strict alignment with Western institutions.

Georgia’s example demonstrates that small and medium-sized states can effectively assert independence, pursue pragmatic policies, and resist external ideological pressures. Sovereignty and stability can take precedence over external narratives, and real-world governance often outweighs theoretical models of liberal democracy.

Adrian Korczynski, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2025/10/23/georgia-2025-pragmatism-over-ideology-why-the-west-cannot-control-tbilisi/