What type of country we become

Dear Debriefers,

My name is Esma Gumberidze. I’m a disabled human rights activist, from Georgia – the country in Eastern Europe.

Next week we will have Parliamentary elections, and a lot is at stake for the country. It’s a pivotal moment in whether authoritarian tendencies win out or the pro-Western opposition can win.

Last year the European Union granted Georgia candidacy status, a victory for Georgian society, its disability community included. But earlier this year the Parliament passed a law on “transparency of foreign influence”. It threatens civil society and is seen as freezing the integration into the European Union. I worry it might stop or reverse progress on disability rights, supported by international partners.

As disabled people, whatever happens in the world affects us. In article I explain how larger geopolitical battles also play out in the disability community. On the one hand the legacy of the Soviet Union is still present. And on the other hand Europe gives us an ideal of what rights can look like, even as they are held out of reach.

The Debrief can commission pieces like these thanks to reader support.

Politics and activism

I was interested in politics since early childhood, and my interest grew even more during the August days of Russian Aggression in 2008.

I enrolled to study law at university but was met with disbelief. The study process was not accessible or inclusive and I had to constantly self-advocate. People did not understand how being blind I managed to pass the exams, go on an exchange program and even attempted to volunteer. I explained to people that I could study, work and move around independently with a disability. I had to engage in disability activism to blaze a trail for myself.

Nevertheless disability rights brought me back to politics, the value of democracy and participation and the experiences of European countries, the value of democracy and participation. Georgia’s decades-long aspiration to join the EU is very important for me as a disabled woman who sees disabled women as members of the European Parliament. It would help build a high quality of life, social recognition for all, and protect us from further Russian aggression.

In 2022, in the first days of Russia’s full scale war against Ukraine, I together with thousands of Georgian activists, sat emotionally frozen in front of the computer screen. I was unable to make any decision or to focus on my assignments. We all believed that if Kyiv would fell, Tbilisi would be next under attack.

We imagined a Russian invasion of Georgia, understanding we would have to leave the country, yet unable to take any steps to prepare. Someone asked me at the time was the Georgian disability community would do. My answer was not much, except that some leaders have probably kept Red flags since Soviet times and they would wave them in demonstration of loyalty.

The “Russian Law”

Even as Georgia applies for candidacy status to join the EU it made a legislative change designed to cut off foreign influence.

From 2022 a faction in Parliament introduced a law requiring all Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) to register as “agents of foreign influence” if they received more than 20% of their funding from abroad. The government quickly supported the proposal, saying that this would improve transparency and accountability of civil society to the wider public.

The campaign was accompanied by anti-Western and anti-NGO rhetoric and propaganda. Civil society quickly responded, saying this was a step in following the “Russian playbook” which has silenced civil society and critical media there.

Mass demonstrations in March 2023 saw the bill voted down last year, but the government returned to it this year. Despite further protests, an adapted version was passed in June alongside smears, harassment and arrests of opponents of the bill. NGO leaders have been presented as traitors.

But Georgia is a low middle income country and does not have the resources to fund civil society actions. Most disability initiatives are funded by international donors, especially those involving pilot services or research.

I’m a member of many consultative councils with different public authorities and public repeatedly tell us that they do not have the money to implement certain reforms. They request, please, the civil society, maybe somehow find a foreign donor who would help.

Singling out disability organizations

On the passage of law, a disabled member of Parliament from the ruling party, Rati Ionatamishvili, promised to discuss the exemption of disability organizations from it. Some types of organizations are already exempted, including sports federations or state-funded nonprofits.

But disability-related organisations aren’t on that list, so such an implementation would be arbitrary. Further, it’s unclear what types of “disability organisation” would be exempted – those led by persons with disabilities, service providers, or others?

At first it can seem a reasonable approach to single out disability. Governments are often afraid of human rights, but not of disability. But in my view this ends in a charity-based approach. Disability-inclusion is seen as providing healthcare, food and other essentials, but not sharing power. Disability inclusion without a rights-based approach means leaving disabled people in the inferior position.

“We will go back to the Soviet Union”

The law brought up many important issues within the disability community. I was among those campaigning vigorously against it.

Together with colleagues I drafted a public statement condemning the bill, subsequently signed by up to 130 individuals and organisations. We argued for the importance of international support to establishing disability rights, including in Georgia’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In our view the disability community is strongly connected to civil society. We warned:

“If the bill on the Transparency of the Foreign Influence is passed into a law, we will be deprived of the vital support services, will be prevented from full and successful integration and political participation in the society, our autonomy and independent living will be stolen and human rights situation worsened.”

At a conference, one activist colleague of mine raised what was at stake:

“If this law is passed, if we deny the help of our international partners, we will go back to the Soviet Union, where we were locked up in the institutions, segregated settings and called ‘invalids’”.

Another statement came from the Georgian Disability Network (GDN), where I am a board member. The GDN is an informal group of over 200 individuals and disability organisations of different types. Its statement expressed concern about the draft law’s objectives and “possible negative impact on the effective functioning of civil society organisations.”

How have we benefited from NGO work?

Many in the disability community disagreed with these points.

When I posted on social media opposing the law I got many comments questioning NGOs, often from people who had applied for foreign grants and not received them. Commenters welcomed transparency, happy to know know where money allocated was being spent. Some asked “How have we, the regular disabled people benefited from the NGO work”?

In April this year there was a demonstration by blind people, many of whom work in government jobs, protesting in favour of the law. They also requested to attend the committee hearings discussing the law but, like disability advocates opposing it, they were not able to participate.

Disagreements within the disability community means that even the reserved statement form the GDN came about only after furious debates. And after it was issued, it was denounced by one of the network members, the Union of the Blind Persons of Georgia. For them, “the passage of this law goes beyond the disability rights scope and is of a wider political nature”.

They pointed to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities who have described the role of representative disability organisations as mostly not being affiliated to any political party and independent from public authorities.

Excluded from consultations

But even though the disability community had such strong opinions on the “foreign influence” law, we were excluded from discussions about it.

The government announced that there would be discussion and civil engagement. But persons with disabilities willing to testify at the committee hearings both in its favour and against couldn’t get in.

Together with colleagues our requests to participate in a hearing were met with the response that the room was over-crowded, with other organisations having secured their spots first. I asked those mainstream organisations if they could reserve a spot for us and they also denied.

This exclusion was experienced directly by one wheelchair-using activist, who told me: 

“I was standing in front of Parliament arguing with the guards insisting they’d let me at least to the entrance, but they would not even turn the lift on, while the representatives of the prominent NGO-s and the Ombudsman’s office were passing by to attend the hearing without even expressing protest or solidarity to me.”

Many of us opposing the law were worried about the consequences of doing so. One activist said to me “they may not beat us physically, but they will do it virtually”. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights’ Defenders noted the online harassment we told her about as well as the wider inaccessibility of the consultation processes around the law.

And as for discussions among elected officials. I would note that while we do have members of Parliament who disclose disabilities, most of them, if not all, are in the ruling party, whichever party that happens to be. A general pattern is that if the opposition raises questions regarding government’s disability policies, the disabled elected official replies he is the one representing the community, not them, therefore his perspectives shall be prioritized.

Struggles within civil society

Something important to understand behind these discussions is the different types of organisations we have in Georgia.

Some of our larger organisations led by persons with disabilities, such as the Blind Union, were founded while Georgia was part of the Soviet Union. These organisations have income derived from property they own, as well as different concessions made by the state. They do not need foreign funding to operate, so the law will not apply to them. Furthermore they need state authorities to be on their side.

It’s not just foreign funding that needs transparency. I’ve been one of the people concerned with how the Blind Union has been using its resources. Investigative journalists exposed potential wrongdoings regarding management of its assets. Both the former and current chair of the Union are being charged with embezzlement.

At the same time as we have these struggles within the disability community we are struggling with the broader civil society. Georgian NGOs working on mainstream issues did not advocate for our presence in discussions about the law. One activist told me that she interprets this as each organisation trying to guard its contacts with foreign partners:

“Everyone is eager to meet the international organizations and diplomats themselves first now […] in case they’d have to flee this country and apply for asylum.”

An afterthought for international organisations

Much as I look towards international organisations and the European Union in securing the rights of persons with disabilities, I know they are far from perfect.

International organisations and embassies repeat the slogan “nothing about us without us” for including persons with disabilities on issues they see as related to disability. Some of them even mentioned how the foreign influence bill will negatively affect disabled people. But they often don’t invite us to these wider discussions that affect all of the country. Disability inclusion still comes across as little more than an afterthought.

Disabled people are often left out of these broader strategic discussions. In the European Commission’s recommendations for Georgia’s key priorities, for example, it mentions women but not disability. It makes things harder in our advocacy with government, but we still try to use these recommendations, saying that they include us as well. I heard from one advocate in Serbia that they face the same challenge that disability inclusion is not prioritized in the EU's foreign policy or accession negotiations.

Where there are grants to promote disability inclusion they often appear unfocussed. And there isn’t an emphasis on organisations building internal democracy or including a wide range of disabled people. The way they are implemented can end up reproducing age or gender discrimination.

Movement and exchanges are one of the most important parts of the European project, but we also face barriers there. For instance even on an exchange supposedly for persons with disabilities I was excluded. The organizers thought – without asking me – that I would need a personal assistant, for which they did not have the necessary funds. They only took participants with so-called “mild disabilities”. In other cases, wheelchair using friends were invited to trainings in venues inaccessible to them.

Fighting on many fronts

I know that every country and organization, including those presenting themselves as being disability inclusive, have a lot of room to improve. I’ve learned from disabled activists in Western Europe that they face considerable challenges. And to me there seems particular need for improvement in foreign policy and in consultation of disabled people.

Even though the situation is not ideal anywhere, going towards European standards can be a tool for betterment, to improve what we have in Georgia now. Many of us disabled people want our country to join the European family for us to live in more progressive and inclusive society.

We fear Georgia’s reoccupation and geopolitical instability. Many of us as younger people or women face challenges even for our internal place in the disability community. As an advocate I feel often feel powerless and exhausted. But I am compelled to fight on different fronts simultaneously.

It is a quadruple challenge. First, to inform the disability community of the gains of European integration. Second, to work with mainstream NGOs to get a seat at the table where the country’s future is being discussed. Third, to work with to get the government to respect disability rights and human rights more broadly. And finally, to advocate with European structures to become more disability inclusive.

Disability advocacy isn’t just a fight with government for social benefits or accessibility legislation. It is a fight for what type of country we become.

Best,

Esma

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Kinanty Andini for the illustration.

This article was edited by Peter.

Thanks to the organisations and readers who support the Debrief.