“At yesterday’s briefing, Georgia’s Prime Minister called on Georgia’s partner countries to condemn the events that occurred in Tbilisi on October 4, which were announced by the radical opposition as a revolution and, as a result of the storming of the Presidential Palace, were assessed as an attempted coup d’état. The ongoing silence from diplomatic missions repeatedly exposed for interfering in Georgia’s internal affairs is neither new nor unexpected,” wrote Shalva Papuashvili, Chairman of Georgia’s Parliament, on social media.

According to Papuashvili, the parliamentary elections of October 26, 2024, were followed by the opposition’s refusal to recognise them, claims of falsification, street protests, and a complete boycott of constitutional political life.

As the Parliament Speaker notes, these processes were supported by the aforementioned diplomatic missions, as were such radical manifestations as throwing Molotov cocktails, hunger strikes, blocking streets, invading schools, open campaigns of bullying and violence, and more.

“The factual circumstances and actions that were disseminated for all to see through traditional and social media were described and labelled by media public figures as: peaceful demonstrations, the will of the Georgian people, peaceful continuous protest, peace march, the historic choice of the Georgian people, struggle against Russia, and so forth.

Commenting on ongoing events, acting as mediators, providing intellectual support, and other expert activities in support of political actors represent a clear example of propagandist activity, and this is a fact.

Throughout the past 11 months, the unambiguous and declared aim of various-scale demonstrations taking place in Tbilisi has been the undemocratic change of government in Georgia. To achieve this goal, opposition forces have offered us numerous radical acts and processes. Therefore, the existence of a radical opposition in the country today is simply a fact.

If any public figure cannot perceive the marginal forces standing in the street as radicals and the October 4 rally as an attempt to overthrow the government, and baptises this with other, less irritating labels, this cannot cancel the obvious fact, which is reinforced by numerous arguments.

Precisely for this reason, whether it be some university professor who clearly struggles to distinguish the specifics of television media from the walls of a lecture auditorium, or any other speaker who justifies the destructive actions of the radical opposition, any such person represents a propagandist for the radical opposition. Denying this is as much an attempt to obscure the truth as claiming that those who assembled at four o’clock on October 4 were not there to overthrow the government,” writes Shalva Papuashvili.