Georgia's Way Back

SINCE ITS "Rose Revolution" of 2003, the tiny republic of Georgia in the Caucasus region south of Russia has been the darling of Washington's foreign policy experts lavished with American aid and attention -- and some willingness to ignore its democratic deficiencies. Those deficiencies seemed slight compared with those of most other post-Soviet states until two months ago, when peaceful anti-government protesters were attacked by police, leaving hundreds injured. A state of emergency was declared, and television stations were shut down. Suddenly the target of universal Western condemnation, President Mikheil Saakashvili called elections and, cutting his term short by a year, resigned to seek a new mandate from voters. The elections are taking place today.

Whatever their outcome, the Bush administration should not view the elections as the last step needed to fortify democracy in Georgia. For despite Georgia's admirable traits -- its relatively free and pluralistic media, its openness to foreign investment, its eagerness to engage with the West -- the country has some ways to go to match its stated adherence to democratic principles with reality.

To its credit, Georgia's strategy to repair its tarnished image has been to stage elections that will pass international muster. Western election observers, including parallel vote counters, have been invited. The broadcast media, many of which are state-owned, have reported critically on the government's crackdown on the opposition in November. Opposition politicians have complained that Mr. Saakashvili, a preternaturally energetic and domineering figure, has received disproportionate television coverage, but they, too, have enjoyed considerable air time. Much as Mr. Saakashvili will be judged by the quality of the elections, so, too, will his opponents; both must be prepared to respect the verdict of the electorate.

Mr. Saakashvili has been criticized for a high-handed political style. He has not deigned to debate his opponents, and, although he is technically no longer the incumbent, many observers believe he has availed himself freely of government and administrative resources in the course of the campaign. Those assessments dovetail with the broader critique of Mr. Saakashvili that predated the police crackdown -- that he scarcely tolerated challenges to his authority, left scant political space for opposition parties and failed to cultivate a robust parliament or judiciary.

Georgia's government rightly contends that it has pursued a broadly democratic agenda in the face of an overtly hostile Russian government, which has sealed its borders with the country and intimidated it at every turn, with such tactics as missile attacks. Moscow's bullying rightly has won Mr. Saakashvili sympathy in the Bush administration. But even if Mr. Saakashvili is elected to a second term as president, as many observers expect, Washington will be doing him no favors by ignoring any democratic failings. That would only deepen domestic discontent and create the conditions for further, and possibly destabilizing, protest.