Giorgi baRaTuria

literatura
References

1. 
   gaz. `asaval_dasavali~ #34 (728) 2008 wlis 25-31 agvisto (Georgia)
   
2. 
   Тичи Н., Деванина М., Лидеры реорганизации, М., 1990, ст. 68 (Russia)
   
3. 
   l.alisoni, `demokratiis Teoriebsa da demokratizaciis Teoriebs Soris gansxvavebis Sesaxeb~, demokratizacia: Teoria da praqtika, saerTaSoriso konferenciis masalebi, Tb., 23 marti. gv.25(Georgia)
   
4. 
   e. SevardnaZe, fiqrebi warsulsa da momavalze, Tb., 2008, gv. 28(Georgia)
   
5. 
   Литературная газета, 1988, №8 (Russia)
   
6. 
   `axali Taoba~ 22.02.2006(Georgia)
   
7. 
   gaz. `rezonansi~, #15, 2006(Georgia)
   

Keti Jijeishvili
Political Portraits (Georgian Presidents’ Different
Opinions on State Administration)
Summary
The article discusses some aspects of political portraits of the three presidents of Georgia: Zviad Gamsakhurdia, Eduard Shevardnadze and Mikheil Saakashvili.
Along with the restoration of state independence there was established the position of president in Georgia. Since then the main focus of Georgian politics is the institute of presidency. There were three persons on this post in Georgia. They came to power as charismatic leaders and accordingly, by this point, they had common features, however their views regarding the state administration were different. They were promoting different approaches towards foreign policy of the country, including “European Vector” of Georgia’s development, its integration into European Union and the instruments of their realization. The major priority of the three Georgian presidents was the construction of the lawful state, though their opinions about territorial integrity, protection of ethnic minority rights, connection between state and church and one of the main problems, about fighting against corruption still remaining strong among the government figures as well as for the opposition representatives, and regarding many other issues, the presidents ideas differed radically. Their attitudes towards the policy-makers and political elite were exceptional as well. If Gamsakhurdia’s ethnocratic ruling profoundly changed the political elite, causing thus instability in the country, Eduard Shevardnadze preserved the same nomenclature of political leadership and rejected the new circulation in constructing the state administration. Mikheil Saakashvili took the orientation towards western, but young and inexperienced staff, which was absolutely unaware of specific directions of Georgia’s ethno-social system. Democratic reforms, conducted by all the three presidents were decorative, determining consequently, the huge troubles on the way of Georgia’s state development.
The specialists of the Mitch Mecconel Centre at Louisville University in US state of Kentucky surveyed the US historians about the fatal mistakes made by US presidents in different times. According to the historians, the best way to improve the experience and knowledge on the issues appears the analyzing not of the achievements, but of the mistakes.
The deeds of all the three presidents of Georgia are becoming a part of history. Nowadays it is much more possible to assess the compatibility of their thoughts with their activities to establish the new directions for the future Georgian politics through analyzing mistakes.
Keywords: Ethcocrathy; Open political elite; Closed political elite; Recruting system; neonomenclature; Charizmatic goverment; Political culture; hierarcy system; Modern society; Confrontation.