Western promoters of “democracy” around the world have all the reasons to celebrate the results of the May 21 parliamentary elections in Georgia. The United National Movement (UNM), the party of the “pro-Western” president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has won 120 seats in the 150-seat parliament, which is enough to form a constitutional majority. The UNM’s impressive showing justifies the political course — and solidifies the position — of Saakashvili himself, with his prior victory, albeit not as persuasive, in a snap presidential election in January.

The anti-Saakashvili opposition naturally claims that the election results have been rigged. They may well have a point as the evidence of violations is overwhelming. Even professional jerks from the OSCE (The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), who always have their reports written even before arriving in a country, had no other choice as to admit:

“The numerous allegations of intimidation of candidates, party activists and state employees negatively affected the campaign environment. While difficult to verify, particularly in a polarized environment, some of the claims examined by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM were clearly found to be credible. […] These included a number of verified claims of pressure on opposition supporters by local officials to desist from campaigning, and of threats by school principals and UNM officials that teachers would lose their jobs if they continued to work for opposition parties. There were also allegations that people with relatives in pre-trial detention could supposedly secure their release if they collected pledges of votes for the UNM.”

And more:

“The distinction between state and political party was frequently blurred. For example, Government social programs such as the distribution of fuel vouchers in rural areas were at times combined with campaign activities for the UNM. […] Opposition parties further alleged that the UNM enjoyed unequal access to administrative resources. Regional governors engaged in campaigning for the UNM while carrying out work duties, which, as they are public servants, and not political officials, is prohibited.”

And more:

“Most monitored TV channels, including public TV, devoted significant and favorable coverage to activities of the authorities. […] Media coverage of appearances of the President, Government ministers and local government representatives at ceremonial events, often in the presence of UNM candidates introduced as such, indirectly benefited the UNM campaign.”

The opposition now threatens to boycott the new legislative body at all. A parliament composed of deputies of the ruling pro-presidential party only, however desirable to Saakashvili and his cronies, would be an embarrassment to those who have restlessly promoted Saakashvili’s Georgia as a “beacon of liberty.”

(I happen to doubt that these threats are credible. In almost every post-Soviet country — in Georgia, for sure — the “democratic opposition” can be easily bought by money or promises of plush government positions).

No matter what the final outcome, it’s hard to deny that the results of the election reflect the popular will of Georgians, especially in rural areas where UNM’s positions are traditionally strong and Saakashvili is genuinely popular.

So, why all this fuss about the election?

Georgia’s political discourse closely follows the pattern typical for countries in the post-Soviet space: a genuinely popular national leader — an economic liberal with unmistakably authoritarian streak – leads “his” party to an electoral victory amid heavy use of the notorious “administrative resource”, dominance of the state-owned TV, and lack of coherent opposition. Conceptually, Saakashvili is not very different from such successful post-Soviet leaders as Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev.

The fuss about Misha is because he was presented quite differently in the West. In 2005, president Bush, impressed with Saakashvili’s pro-Western rhetoric, called Georgia “a beacon of liberty.” Two United States senators, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ) made fools of themselves by nominating Saakashvili for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The first blow to Saakashvili’s image of a perfect democrat came in November 2007 when the riot police equipped with tear gas and batons were sent to disperse what was called a peaceful anti-government demonstration. The shock from Saakashvili’s actions was so severe that the Western media — incapable as ever to look into essence of things — have overlooked the fact that the “peaceful demonstration” was a deliberate provocation orchestrated by the opposition.

Then came the less than perfect – to say the very least – snap presidential election in January and parliamentary election in May.

So what? Why should the West stop its love affair with Saakashvili?

Nothing that Saakashvili has done in the distant or recent past negates his attractiveness to the world’s “defendants of democracy”: he’s pro-Western, pro-NATO, anti-Russia, anti-Putin, and, apparently, anti-Medvedev. Besides, he studied in the United States and speaks fluent English.

So, for as long as Saakashvili keeps being our man in Tbilisi, Georgia will continue shining as a “beacon of liberty.”

Only those unable to grasp the complexity of the post-Soviet realities could claim that the results of the Georgian election represent a “defeat” to Russia. In fact, Moscow has no problem whatsoever with Saakashvili being firmly in control. First, he’s an economic liberal, with Georgia’s economic policies being highly favorable to the interests of Russian business. For as long as Saakashvili keeps around Kakha Bendukidze, former Russian “oligarch” and currently the head of Georgia’s State Chancellery, the Kremlin would tolerate Saakashvili’s shenanigans in foreign policy. Second, Saakashvili’s chaotic domestic moves and hysteric statements abroad serve as the best deterrent to Georgia’s NATO membership.

In other words, being “our” man in Tbilisi has a dual meaning.