GEORGIA: IRI FOCUS GROUPS PROVIDE INSIGHT ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 TBILISI 000876 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/07/2019 TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL GG SUBJECT: GEORGIA: IRI FOCUS GROUPS PROVIDE INSIGHT ON PUBLIC OPINION RE PROTESTS Classified By: AMBASSADOR JOHN F. TEFFT. REASONS: 1.4 (B) AND (D). ¶1. (C) Summary: The International Republican Institute (IRI) ran a series of focus groups May 4-5 in Tbilisi to gauge political opinion on the ongoing opposition-led protests and domestic political environment. The groups consisted of eight people each with one group being pro-government ("pro") (or anti-resignation),two groups neutral, and one group anti-government ("anti") (or pro-opposition). No focus group member had any affiliation with a particular party and all were self-described. All of the participants were Tbilisi residents. In some cases there was across-the-board agreement among the groups such as labeling the protests as a power struggle and not a demonstration to support democratic values; a general frustration at the current situation although aimed at different actors; a rejection of the non-parliamentary opposition leaders across the board except perhaps for Irakli Alasania; overall agreement that the non-parliamentary opposition has no plan; and a deep dislike of Nino Burjanadze. Lastly, apart from the anti group, the pro and neutral groups could be labeled as "evaluators" who tended to weigh the relative merits of both sides, pro and con. While expressing dissatisfaction with Saakashvili ranging from minimal to strong, the "evaluators" did not view Saakashvili's resignation as a viable option, but instead repeatedly voiced their preference for dialogue. End Summary. ¶2. (C) Comment: The results of the focus groups largely coincided with what we have been hearing from average Georgians and what we have been told of the results of other focus groups, such as those conducted by Rosner and Associates for the ruling United National Movement (UNM) party. The groups do not represent a valid statistical sample and leave out party members, both UNM and opposition. As such, we see focus group observations as a means to identify trends and commonalties rather than as a vehicle for drawing sweeping conclusions. End Comment. This Is About Power - No Mention of Democracy or Democratic Values ¶3. (C) All of the groups agreed that the sole purpose of the protests was to achieve power. Notably, over four groups and eight hours, not one participant mentioned democratic values or democracy as reasons behind the protests. The pro group was the most critical of the non-parliamentary opposition and largely believed their goal was to regain old posts in order to "steal" for personal benefit. The neutral group largely viewed the events as a struggle for power between the government and opposition, but was equally convinced the non-parliamentary opposition only wanted power. The neutrals did not expres support for Saakashvili's resignation and replacement in large part because they see no preferable alternative. The anti group simply wanted to replace Saakashvili; a number even supported armed violence to bring about his resignation. Non-Parliamentary Opposition Has no Plan - Not United - No Acceptable Leaders ¶4. (C) All groups agreed that the non-parliamentary opposition had no plan other than to gain power by demanding Saakashvili's resignation. The pros and neutrals cited the lack of a non-parliamentary opposition plan as a reason why they don't support Saakashvili's resignation. While occasionally an "acceptable" non-parliamentary leader was named (Gamkrelidze, Gachechiladze, Usupashvili were among those who got one vote of support) among the pros and neutrals, any positive statement was quickly countered by the Qneutrals, any positive statement was quickly countered by the rest of the group that found that particular leader wholly unacceptable. Apart from Irakli Alasania (see below),no group formed consensus on any non-parliamentary leader who would be acceptable. The overwhelming majority found all opposition leaders to be unacceptable. Even among the anti group, three of the eight said all of the non-parliamentary leaders were unacceptable, two supported Shalva Natelashvili (Labor),two said they were not sure, and one supported Gachechiladze. In short, even among the anti group, a few non-parliamentary opposition leaders had middling support, but much higher negatives. ¶5. (C) Nino Burjanadze was roundly criticized by all groups. Most often noted was that she was untrustworthy, a criminal, and only joined the non-parliamentary opposition after Saakashvili fired her and her husband. She only wanted revenge on Saakashvili and a chance to steal again. Interestingly, Irakli Alasania got good marks from the pros and neutrals who liked his biography; were supportive of his handshake with Saakashvili; his apparent willingness to start dialogue; and his education. His negatives among the pros and neutrals was that he was inexperienced, not a politician, TBILISI 00000876 002 OF 003 and needed more policy ideas. The general consensus among the pros and neutrals was that he may be a good choice for president sometime in the future, but was nowhere near ready now. Among the anti group, Alasania could only garner a "he seems nice" from one which was quickly denounced by the others. One man explained that Alasania was a duplicitous U.S. agent. Others were disappointed that he had signaled a willingness for dialogue and would soon become a traitor like Giorgi Targamadze and others. (Embassy Comment: The focus groups tended to confirm Post's assessment that Alasania has much to gain by pursuing a dialogue and little to gain by remaining in the non-parliamentary opposition. End Comment.) Saakashvili - Good Enough - Acceptable - Devil We Know - The Devil ¶6. (C) Feelings toward Saakashvili, and to a much lesser extent his government, ran the gamut, although even the pros noted his failures. The neutrals and pros formed a sort of continuum and could probably be labeled as "evaluators" who looked at Saakashvili's record, potential alternatives, and the long term outlook for Georgia if he were to resign. All participants came to the same conclusion that Saakashvili's resignation, at least under the current circumstances, was not a preferable outcome. However, clearly a number of those in the neutral group would not lose any sleep over Saakashvili being replaced if there were a legitimate alternative, but they ultimately preferred the "devil they knew". The pros generally gave Saakashvili more credit than the neutrals for his positive impact on Georgia. The pros thought he should be given more time; in the words of one participant "the problems in Georgia are huge and cannot be solved in one year". Among the neutrals, some were more charitably disposed to Saakashvili, others much less so, but all seemed to take a gray, rather than a black and white approach to Saakashvili and his record. The antis were diverse in their reason to despise Saakashvili, but their anger was palpable. One claimed he was destroying churches like the Soviets; another said he was spending too much money on education; another complained that he opened a factory. Others had more coherent criticisms like being too pro-west; losing Abkhazia and South Ossetia; or pointing to his general incompetence. Notably, not one member of the anti group said the reason for their opposition to Saakashvili was that he was anti-democratic. Protest Views - Break It Up - Doesn't Affect Me Much, Yet - More Violence and Confrontation Needed ¶7. (C) On the protest, one point of consensus emerged: the participants all did not like the language many in the non-parliamentary opposition were using to describe Saakashvili. One anti said: "after all, he is the President". Gia Maisashvili's (Party of the Future) comments about Saakashvili's mother were roundly condemned. The pros were extremely tired of the protests and wanted the GoG to break them up, a number saying that no western country would allow this. The neutrals were generally against the protests, but largely ambivalent because the protests were not affecting them directly. The neutrals were against more street blockages, more cages, and any escalation; however, they did not support the GoG breaking up the protests. The pros and neutrals were appalled at the treatment of journalists outside of the Georgian Public Broadcaster building. The antis were frustrated that "Saakashvili was not listening" and supported more confrontation. QInterestingly, none of the antis expressed any problem with protesters beating a journalist with three expressing strong support for it. The anti group wanted more confrontation with some advocating for violent confrontation to force Saakashvili out. They blamed the GoG for the low turnout at the protests citing oppression, intimidation and other techniques to limit the numbers. When asked directly, all admitted that nobody had stopped them or their family, friends or acquaintances from attending the protest. What They Want ¶8. (C) The pros and neutrals strongly supported dialogue and change, although what change meant to each individual varied widely. A common frustration with politics in the streets, and a desire for politicians to act like adults and engage in discussions, ran through the commentary regardless of what specific changes each desired. Frustration among the pros and neutrals was evident, with the pros squarely blaming the non-parliamentary opposition for the lack of dialogue and the neutrals blaming both the GoG and non-parliamentary opposition. The parliamentary opposition (namely the Christian Democrats) got good marks both from the pros and neutrals for having a plan, supporting dialogue, and acting in a dignified manner although a number added the caveat that they do not necessarily agree with the CDM's plan. The antis TBILISI 00000876 003 OF 003 wanted no dialogue, only Saakashvili's resignation. After that, the antis were unsure of what they wanted; one said new elections, three said that after Saakashvili resigns all Georgia's problems would immediately be solved. The others were unsure what would happen, but expressed confidence that a solution would present itself. TEFFT