Growing up before Saakashvili’s era, I remember studying by candlelight because Georgia lacked electricity; he brought light into every Georgian home, and we could finally enjoy simple pleasures watching television or doing homework under proper lighting. His educational reforms enabled thousands including myself to pursue higher education in Georgia’s top universities. Saakashvili was a committed leader who worked tirelessly for his people. In contrast, Bidzina Ivanishvili entered politics in 2012, founding the Georgian Dream party, which later came to be known as the “Russian Dream.” Though he only served as prime minister from October 2012 to November 2013, he continues to govern Georgia from the shadows. Ivanishvili, the richest man in Georgia, accumulated his wealth in Russia in the 1990s. He cares only about safeguarding his wealth and family and disregards the needs of the Georgian people. He promised to bring prosperity, with “a factory in every village,” but those promises proved empty. As jobs remain scarce, poverty drives many Georgians abroad in search of work. Ivanishvili has brought darkness and despair where Saakashvili once brought light.

Secondly, Saakashvili and Ivanishvili differ in their Euro-Atlantic stances. Saakashvili was pro-Western, forging global alliances and emphasizing Georgia’s goal of joining the European Union and NATO. Under his leadership, the country progressed toward these aspirations. In 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush visited Tbilisi to show support for Georgia’s democracy and reforms. Bush experienced Georgia’s hospitable culture, enjoying traditional dance, food, and music. This historic moment marked a high point in Georgia’s journey toward integration with the West. Conversely, Ivanishvili, a pro-Russian politician and Putin’s close ally, rejects Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations. In June 2019, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, took the seat of Georgia’s parliamentary speaker, sparking protests in Tbilisi. The sight of a Russian official occupying this seat was a painful reminder of Russia’s occupation of 20% of Georgian territory. This incident typifies Ivanishvili’s provocative alignment with Russia. Unlike Saakashvili, who championed Georgia’s independence, Ivanishvili places the country firmly under Putin’s influence.

Lastly, Saakashvili and Ivanishvili hold opposing views on criminal networks. During Saakashvili’s presidency, he restructured the Ministry of Internal Affairs and established the Patrol Police, replacing corrupt officials and implementing a “zero tolerance” policy toward crime. This policy targeted “thieves-in-law,” notorious figures within the Georgian and Russian organized crime world whom Saakashvili detained or exiled. Georgia became remarkably safe during his administration, with people confident enough to leave their car keys in the ignition. In stark contrast, Ivanishvili released these same criminals when he came to power, allowing many to return to Georgia. His tolerance for criminal networks has endangered public safety and revived organized crime in the country. Saakashvili stood as a staunch enemy of corruption; Ivanishvili served as its ally.

In conclusion, Mikheil Saakashvili and Bidzina Ivanishvili contrast in their political ideologies, their Euro-Atlantic aspirations, and their attitudes toward crime. As a patriotic Georgian, I believe my people will persist in our fight for democracy, freedom, and European integration. We need a new revolution, one that will cast Ivanishvili out of power. He and his criminal allies belong in Russia, far from our soil, so that Georgia can truly stand free.