Categories
Journalistic Survey
Articles
Reportage
Analitic
Photo Reportage
Exclusive
Interview
Foreign Media about Georgia
Editorial
Position
Reader's opinion
Blog
Themes
Children's Rights
Women's Rights
Justice
Refugees/IDPs
Minorities
Media
Army
Health
Corruption
Elections
Education
Penitentiary
Religion
Others

Purposeful Action against Patriarch or Harmless Joke

October 26, 2009

Politics in religion and religion in politics

Roman Apakidze

The video-recordings insulting Catholic-Patriarch of Georgia Ilia II caused serious discontent in Georgian society. It was natural because Georgian society is oriented on traditional faith...the point is how right is the orientation. Many people expressed their opinions about this controversy which demonstrated that the issue is more resonant for the society than any political process or report (including the report of Tagliavini Mission and subsequent processes).

Readers can easily remember the story: The statement of Patriarch about the war in August of 2008 (during his meeting with teachers) irritated Tea Tutberidze. She said the anti-state statement of the patriarch encouraged her to publish a bit scabrous video-recording about the Patriarch though the Orthodox parish considered it was extremely insulting for the holly leader. The topic (we underscore the word “topic” and the meaning of the word in all other articles) turned out profitable for everybody at some extend – the government, political opposition, representative of the Liberty Institute and patriarchate all benefited from it.

Georgian media and representatives of the opposition parties still claim that the Liberty Institute is governed by the government and it was not Tutberidze’s personal initiative to publish the video-recordings on internet; it was part of PR-campaign against the Patriarchate that is run by the authority for a long time. Results of the social surveys prove this opinion because the society trusts the church and Patriarch of Georgia most of all in the country. Representatives of the opposition parties try to benefit from this fact and demonstration on May 26, 2009 was good example of it; opposition leaders led people to the St. Trinity Church in Tbilisi and many experts assessed the fact as an attempt to involve the patriarchate in political processes.  

As soon the government of Georgia was accused in launching anti-patriarch PR-campaign, they condemned the behavior of Tea Tutberidze and supported the patriarchate. Initially, Tutberidze expressed her discontent about these statements, but later when the President’s administration and MPs made statements about her behavior (and called her impolite) she said her action could not be assigned to the Liberty Institute or to the government. Tutberidze said she had demonstrated her personal attitude to the “anti-state” statements of the patriarch. She thinks Russia has found a strong point in the patriarchate in the name of common faith.

It must be noted that the controversy demonstrated the high rating of the patriarchate. Public figures requested to prohibit the activities of the Liberty Institute in Georgia.

It is difficult to say how “healthy” is the discontent caused by posting video-recordings by Tutberidze. Experts made different assessments of the fact. Tutberidze also tried to discuss the fact in the view of liberal democracy and said if everybody could publish similar video-recordings about the president, why it should be permitted about the patriarch. She said the society had undemocratic reaction and it demonstrated non-liberalism of the Georgian society.

“It is not freedom of expression what Tea did. It was purposeful political step against patriarch,” said Levan Berdzenishvili, a leader of the Republic Party. “Everybody can be criticized but not insulted. I am a person who was blamed for espionage of Russia and I know what it means. Tea Tutberidze does not have this problem because she has not experienced it. Those, who have sacrificed part of life to the homeland, can understand this pain. Her behavior insulted the society. It does not have any connection with liberalism.”  
 
Journalist Zviad Koridze had different opinion. He thinks it was “piloted process”. If somebody considered Tutberidze’s action was insulting, s/he shall act in accordance to the law. Those video-recordings shall not become reason for religious war and large-scaled conflicts between Church and Society. It is ordinary for democratic society. We should accept it peacefully. It cannot insult church or the person who posted the recordings. We should not see danger beyond this fact.”

More important issue that originated from this controversy is “reality” of the attitude of Georgian society to traditional values. Evaluating the fact as “threat to the Orthodox Church” shows that society does not have “adequate” attitude towards this fact. The point is that the “PR-Campaign” against the “Patriarch” cannot discredit him. Extremely aggressive attitude of the society to the fact demonstrates that people has surface understanding of the orthodox values (tolerance).

News agency “Interpressnews” has published a very interesting interview with psychologist Nodar Sarjveladze about the issue and readers can see the article on our website.

Former president of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze also commented on the fact and said the worst thing that can be done by Georgian politicians is to request the patriarchate to express its political views. He added it shall not happen and the patriarchate shall maintain its neutral position about political process.

It is unclear whether the topic will be discussed in future too. The most important in this discontent is to find out whether Tutberidze can confirm her accusations on the patriarch and patriarchate. “When a person blames such a famous person or institute to be an ally of Russian Federation in Georgia, s/he should prove it by documents. Tea said Patriarch is an ally of Russia in Georgia; it is serious accusation and as a citizen I request her to provide concrete justifications of her accusation,” said Zviad Koridze.

Nevertheless, apparently the case will not be discussed at the court and it will remain to be ordinary political disagreement from which each party benefited. 

News