Georgian Dream ran on a platform of fear-mongering, deploying the slogan “choose peace, not war” paired with images of a flourishing Georgia on one side and on the other a destroyed Ukraine. Their implication was clear; if you vote for the opposition Georgia will end up invaded and occupied by Russia.

Well, duh, everybody can see whats happening in Ukraine. If the far right wing party is the only one convincinly saying, "Hey, you don't want our country to be turned into a warzone. Neithe do we.", the less right wing parties might be fucking up. Joining NATO, or attempting to join NATO, seems like a pretty big step towards paving the way to this reality.

The four main opposition parties coalesced into coalitions to challenge Georgian Dream in the election. They are parties of the technocratic establishment, most of them affiliated to the previous government, and proved unable to address the grievances of the vast majority. Most voters don’t like them ...

I'm a big smooth brained baby about Georgian politics and its recent history, but if this pro-protest interviewee is admiting to this, it really hurts their case that I should believe the claim that the election was stolen or rigged.

The opposition parties play next to no role right now in the movement. They have been sidelined despite what the Western media say. People have been telling a joke that these parties should at least do something like provide hot tea at the demonstrations.

Okay, so, once again. If the opposition parties are so weak and ineffectual, by the admission of the interviewee, should I give a lot of weight to the claims of election rigging by the Georgian Dream party? They're basically admitting that there was no actual opposition to Georigan Dream outside of names on a ballot. Literally giving voters no actual opposition party or platform to vote for, just hoping that voters would vote for anybody else but Georgian Dream and that would result in "victory" or something. Should I hope that I'm just too ignorant of Georgian politics to be able to give the interviewee the benefit of the doubt?

But when you’re on the protests, they are actually a negligible force and are doing very little. (in reference to the political opposition to Georgian Dream)

Some of these politicians have become so self-conscious of their insignificant role that they are now refusing to be interviewed at the demonstrations. As a result, those now being interviewed are young people, many of them in gas masks, and what they have to say makes a lot more sense than anything you’d hear from the politicians.

There's gotta be some kind of translation/interpretation issues that are cutting out context or something right? This interviewee just keeps giving me, an outsider who is supposed to be reading this article to be convinced in the just nation of the anti-government protests, lots of reasons to doubt the claims of election rigging that actually caused the losing party to win.

Demanding that the democratically elected president be ousted is an “uprising for democracy”?

I guess “anti-democracy riots” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.