Interview with Adgur Ardzinba

Editor of the newspaper Chegemskaya Pravda, Inal Khashig, discussed the economic situation in the country, budget planning, and how Abkhazia can tackle its energy crisis with Adgur Ardzinba, leader of the Abkhaz National Movement.

The politician and journalist also talked about the Pitsunda estate and the risks of preserving the presidency in its current form. Ardzinba also talked about international contacts, the need for a de-isolation of Abkhazia, and what the Abkhaz political elite’s national agenda should be.

Full interview:

Inal Khashig: Hello, this is Chegemskaya Pravda. At the end of Decembe, we usually sum up the situation, not just for us but the whole country, and today we will try to do the same. Today we have as our guest the leader of the Abkhaz National Movement, Adgur Ardzinba, and we will probably start with the economy. Essentially, the budget has been approved. We have a budget deficit of 1.4 billion. The President of Abkhazia, Aslan Bzhania, along with the executive branch, explains that the crisis we are experiencing has been long-lasting.

A way forward is impossible on our own and we need to share something. This mainly involves sharing our assets: discussions are going on  about energy, the need to build apartments, and, of course, we must transfer the Pitsunda estate, as it was agreed, to Russia, and so on. So, this is the reformist tactic, if you can call it that, of the current government. Regarding the way out of the current crisis, I would like to hear an alternative view on what could be done in the situation we find ourselves in.

Adgur Ardzinba: Thank you for the invitation and the question. Indeed, if we respond to your question, we must first discuss the overall policy of the current government. This is the same set of terms and arguments we’ve heard for the past four years, saying that we cannot do anything ourselves and need to share part of our sovereignty, hand over assets to major oligarchs, and so on. This is the paradigm in which the current government operates.

We categorically reject this notion because these discussions aim to convince the Abkhaz people, who are a victorious nation, that everything is over and to deprive us of the hope that we can sustain and develop our own state. Essentially, it is about dismantling the project of an independent Abkhazian state. I believe we need to call things by their names. You asked about alternatives. If we talk about the current budget—the budget project for the next year, the budget for this year that is ending, and the previous period—all this policy is glaringly evident. There is no prioritization. Returning to the first part, the one and only priority of the current government is to dismantle the Abkhazian state.

The alternative is to establish priorities for the development of our independent, free state. If we set priorities and clearly define tasks, then state budget expenditures and the entire state apparatus will be directed towards achieving these tasks. Priorities should be, first and foremost, demographics, education, national health, defense, the development of the Abkhaz language, and so on. All the critical issues that any state faces to some extent.

We do not see in the budget project or in the work of the government any focus on solving these issues. So the alternative is to clearly establish priorities, develop and adopt a long-term state program, and move forward consistently, step by step according to this document. For example, if we talk about agriculture and farmers in general, the countryside today is left to fend for itself. This is not only about the economy but also about culture and general information coverage. In villages today, people only gather for events related to celebrations or funerals. There is no cultural program.

We don’t visit the villages; we have a large number of ensembles and several theaters funded by the state budget. It’s necessary to set tasks for them. By the way, this was done before under Gennady Gagulia, and the experience proved to be positive. We need to travel to the villages and communicate with people, not just during elections. We all travel constantly on a regular basis. So, the number one priority is that there cannot be a single isolated remedy; they are all interconnected. For example, if we talk about demographics, we must first address the villages.

Our goal is not just to increase the population of Abkhazia; we need that population to have quality of life, with a rich spiritual life. The Abkhazian project of an independent state is primarily aimed at allowing the Abkhaz people to realize themselves on this territory—not just to fill their refrigerators, which is important, but also to develop their culture, their way of life, their unique character. This is essentially our mission. That’s why we need our Abkhazian state. Unfortunately, none of this is being done, and we see no signs that it will be.

Inal Khashig: Well, Aslan Bzhania says that, in principle, we don’t have many resources of our own. These resources are insufficient to make changes in the economy. Therefore investors are required, and he prioritizes large investors, particularly Russian. What is our alternative? How can we earn money? For instance, we don’t want large investors who will come and create their own enclaves where Abkhazian statehood might not even be noticeable. What alternatives do we have? Are there any possible sources we might not have utilized to make some progress in this regard?

Right now there is talk about the energy sector, and the president believes that we must allow privatization and the involvement of large Russian investors. Currently it’s about leasing, but we understand that this is an intermediate stage. There is no faith in our own resources. But we have developed our business sector over the past 30 years. There are even large, relatively large, medium, and small businesses that have relied exclusively on their own resources, considering that our banking sector doesn’t provide good credit lines or long-term loans. Nevertheless, businesses are actively sustaining themselves. On the other hand, the executive branch does not see prospects in this. Do we have any prospects here?

Adgur Ardzinba: Sure we do. When we say the executive branch does not see prospects, we need to look back to before 2014. There will always be a shortage of money; no country in the world has enough money. Even in the United States, if you look at the current debates in the Senate and Congress, everything revolves around money—whether to increase or decrease aid to Ukraine.

There will always be scarcity; it’s a constant and permanent situation. This should not be feared. The real issue is the effectiveness of the money you spend, and that’s where we have a major problem.

For example, the same team that is currently in power, meaning the leadership, government, and economic bloc, received about $1 billion in non-repayable aid from the Russian Federation from 2010 to 2014. This money was spent on some promotional projects, like a stadium, and so on. Yes, some necessary areas were financed, but overall, we did not see a change in Abkhazia. Even the energy issue remains unresolved.

If part of this money had been directed towards the energy sector, we certainly wouldn’t have the problems we have today. Moreover, the energy sector would have generated significant income. For example, consider the Marshall Plan from 1948-1951. It is famous because it was successful. To compare, Germany received only $1,300,000 under that plan. We, a country with a population of 240,000 people, received $1 billion, whereas Germany, with a population of 67 million people at that time, which was completely devastated after the war, managed to use that money effectively, and today it is a leading economy. Even if we adjust for inflation one-to-one or one-to-ten, the population ratio is 270 times smaller than theirs was. So, the comparison is not even close. The issue here is effectiveness.

Let me give you a small example from our current situation. Due to ineffective decisions made by the government, electricity consumption in Abkhazia has increased significantly. When the social tariff ended, our partner [Russia] said, “We won’t supply you with electricity just for your mining operations.”

Right away the government managed to find 935 million rubles. These funds were available and could have been used for a more priority task, avoiding the mistake with electricity and having to come up with all this money.

If we talk about the social side, this would mean at least eight new schools built from scratch. If we don’t steal during construction, this could be 15 kindergartens, roads, and many other areas that could have been invested in by the energy sector. We invested 935 million rubles, and I emphasize, this is in just one year.

If there had been a program planned for 5 years, with a billion per year, that would be 5 billion. I assure you, with 5 billion, we could definitely stabilize the energy sector to a level where we could confidently move forward, not remain in a crisis situation. The same goes for agriculture. If we used this same money… I mention this money because it’s a clear example. Yes, much more could be spent on maintaining the state apparatus, the countless growing ministries, and so on.

We see in the budget project that recently the public learned about the Ministry of Defense’s plans, where a large part of the funds is intended for purchasing expensive SUVs. This is foolishness. When you have a real external armed threat, spending on luxury foreign cars is, in my opinion, just sacrilege.

The absence of priorities, and a lack of understanding that this is our state, is evident not only from the head of state but also from a number of high-ranking officials. Unfortunately, I explain it to myself this way: this reflects the thinking of the Autonomous Republic of that period. These people were formed back when there was a State Planning Committee in Moscow and everything was decided there. Plans and financing came down from above. This was a comfortable environment for them; they didn’t need to think for themselves, and they instinctively cling to that model. This is the problem. Our independent state and its administration are ideologically unprepared for this. I assure you, as long as such people are making key decisions, no matter how much money we have, even billions of dollars, we won’t be able to move forward. That is a fact.

Inal Khashig: Last week, an article by a well-known Russian political scientist was published, possibly one of the leading experts on the former Soviet Union. In this article, which was about Abkhazia, he concludes that there is a trend toward winding down the Abkhazian project. He expresses his thoughts fairly diplomatically, but there is a sense that he could have said more. It seems he is a tactful person and usually doesn’t speak bluntly, but his hints are quite transparent.

Based on his thoughts, I have been trying to recall the agenda of the authorities over the past year or two. It seems to me that this agenda is a copy of the 45 points for harmonizing Russian-Abkhazian cooperation. But where is the Abkhazian agenda? Why harmonize if there is no Abkhazian agenda? I want to hear your view on this problem and am looking for an agenda we could latch onto. The Abkhazian agenda certainly includes the aspiration for an independent, social, and just, Abkhazian state.

Adgur Ardzinba: The Abkhaz people should be able to realize themselves, develop their culture not only within Abkhazia but also share it with the world. We have something to offer the world, and this is our agenda. We are building an independent, social, and just state. There can be no other agenda. You are right to mention various plans for harmonization. While working in the government, I saw many crazy ideas from different sides. The problem is that we live in a basically hostile world. There is no one more interested in the Abkhazian project than we ourselves. That’s human nature.

When you don’t have your own agenda, when you don’t promote it, other agendas inevitably prevail. This is what we are dealing with. Indeed, the idea to wind down the Abkhazian project and the Abkhazian state are not new. They began with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Inside the Soviet Union, we were an independent republic, then we became an autonomy. There are always forces that want to absorb Abkhazia and the Abkhaz people.

This is a normal process; nothing extraordinary about it. It happens all over the world, but our position needs to be clearly articulated. I repeat: the political scientist you mentioned is probably relying not only on your opinion or mine; he is relying on the opinion of the Abkhazian leadership. This is expressed in such epithets as needing to share part of our sovereignty when we cannot do anything ourselves. An investor is, in general, an investor; investments are not bad, they are good.

But an investor is just an investor, whereas an oligarch with a colonial mindset who wants to buy up Abkhazia, our resources, and our people for pennies, leaving us with nothing, is not an investor but a colonizer. We have mistakenly started using this term casually and almost turned it into an insult in Abkhazia, thanks to the current authorities. In reality, an investor is good, but a colonizer is bad. How do colonizers operate? They rely on a handful of corrupt elites within the state. A prime example is almost the entire African continent and its history, as well as certain historical periods in China. So if we do not get our house in order, we will always be at risk. Political scientists, not only political scientists but also certain people in Moscow, Tbilisi, Istanbul, and perhaps even Washington, believe that the Abkhazian project should be abandoned. But that doesn’t mean we should agree with it. On the contrary, we should aggressively and reasonably, based on our positions, move forward, and we will succeed. In fact, we have everything we need for this. We are a country with resources, with a favorable climate, with fertile land, a coastline, our own generation of electricity—which is crucial.

For instance, South Ossetia lacks these opportunities; they cannot even dream about it, whereas we have them. Our task, going back to the beginning, is to establish priorities, clearly outline a plan of action. Without this, no one can develop and move forward. We need to face the villages, address the socially protected segments of the population, and involve the whole nation in building the state. Not as it happens now, with decisions being made in closed circles.

Frankly speaking, I might recommend to parliament and legal experts developing a law that would annul or prevent the enactment of any law, international treaty, or other decision that has not been publicly discussed. This would align with our mentality and spirit. We shouldn’t be afraid of it. There will be no winding down of the Abkhazian state. And what’s happening now is also good if you step back from it. Inal, this is also part of our state-building experience, our own experience, which we must definitely consider in the future.

Inal Khashig: You spoke of energy and the need for us to solve this problem ourselves as much as possible. When there is a recording in the Public Chamber, and a discussion is held with experts who have worked in the energy sector, they are trying to determine the prospects for resolving this crisis. I would like to know your plan for dealing with issues like voltage fluctuations. It is clear that the current discussion is about whether to lease out the three voltage-regulating units or not. There is a lot of interconnection here. Voltage regulation is one stage; the next stage will probably be the networks, and so on. How should our energy sector be arranged to ensure proper generation and reasonable tariffs, to have high-quality energy?

Adgur Ardzinba: Let’s start with the tariff. The tariff adopted by the government is, of course, madness. Two rubles, 70 kopecks is simply unaffordable for our residents. Pensions are not growing, salaries are not growing, and the population’s income is not growing. In these conditions, raising the tariff so sharply is just cruel. By the way, this has led to a sharp drop in the collection rate. It is an absurd decision. What needs to be done while maintaining a social tariff? No one says that people shouldn’t pay for electricity, but with a social tariff in place. It needs to be carefully studied, because a resident of Duripsa or Pakuasha should not pay the same amount as a businessman in Sukhum. These are incomparable situations.

We need to ensure that people can pay without serious detriment to their lives. If people can’t afford it, why would they need electricity? That concerns the tariff. To be fair, today Chernomorenergo is actively working on this. The first steps involve increasing the collection rate. But metering devices—nothing better has been invented in the world. Metering devices increase the collection rate. Then, investments in the energy sector. When we talk about investments, we associate them with the process of privatization, correctly. If we are talking about investments, the current law on investment activities, adopted in 2014, allows for attracting investments, including in the energy sector, without losing state ownership.

There is concessionary law. This means you invest money, state ownership remains, but you have long-term, contract-like relationships with the state, where you are guaranteed a certain period to operate a particular facility. Such a provision can be applied. I believe the energy system should remain under state control. This will ensure that the social component of this service is preserved.

What the current government is proposing, which is increasing the tariff to 2 rubles 7 kopecks, is all aimed at creating a margin for a potential investor or some oligarch, making it profitable for them to start their project in Abkhazia. So first, the tariff should be social, allowing people to pay. Second, we need to increase the collection rate.

Third, when we increase the collection rate to around 2 billion rubles or more per year, the freed-up investment funds, which will be with Chernomorenergo itself, plus possibly subsidies from the republican budget, could be directed towards priorities. For instance, we all talk about the need to restore the voltage regulators. I agree, they need to be restored, but there are also other issues. Losses of up to 20%. If we do the numbers, even the 2 billion kilowatt-hours that we consume, we actually consume less than 2 billion; this is what came from Ingurgas.

In reality, we consume less because losses up to 20% amount to 600 million, 400 million kilowatt-hours. 600 million from 3 billion is a huge amount of electricity. If we direct part of the funds to this, on the high side of about 7%, we lose the remaining 13%—the low side. Money should be invested accordingly; there is a large reserve here.

And of course, the voltage regulators. Regarding the voltage regulators, there is an initiative to attract investments and so on. We are not opposed to this, but again, if we are talking about investors, it is quite mathematically and economically justifiable for any investor to give 50% of the electricity produced to the Abkhazian energy grid.

I assure you, the 50% they retain will allow them to live very well, recoup their project, and earn money in that way. Progress can be made when the people who manage this direction are interested in preserving it within the state. But those in charge seem to want to push it farther, use that as an excuse to sell, and then reap profits.

This is the model. Therefore, those managing these processes need to have appropriate motivations, and solutions are available. I assure you, if approached correctly within 3-4 years, we can stabilize the situation, that is, bring it to a zero point.

Inal Khashig: Let’s move on to another topic, away from energy. Yes, the global situation is indeed complicated, and we Abkhazians have always had difficult relations. The past 30 years have been quite thorny, especially in the early years; the first 15 years were extremely tough, especially during the blockade. But even since our recognition by Russia, though several other states have also recognized us, we face certain restrictions and sanctions. The package against Abkhazia is very large, but we have somehow come to terms with it.

We have always wanted our state to be universally recognized, and while it’s clear that this won’t happen overnight, we need to look at the prospects for 5, 10, 50, and 100 years ahead. However, it seems that our opportunities are being further reduced. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs constantly conducts an isolation policy. International organizations do not allow even leaders or mediators into Geneva discussions. It looks like a harsh policy of isolation. I feel like we are gradually being pushed aside. I would like to hear your opinion on this. Is our position correct? Can we afford to adopt a stance of feeling slighted and say, “They don’t recognize us, and to hell with them”?

Adgur Ardzinba: Well, I believe this is the wrong approach. What you described is even self-isolation. We are beginning to limit our own opportunities. After all, what was the most important weapon of the 20th century? It was information. We are depriving ourselves of the ability to convey information about Abkhazia. I categorically disagree with the notion that we need to self-isolate. We must actively expand these contacts, both in Europe and wherever possible. In the European Union, not all politicians believe that Georgia is right.

There are people, there are forces that think differently. And there are forces that don’t think at all yet because they lack information. We need to work with everyone, build horizontal connections. If we have any opportunity to convey the truth about Abkhazia, we must definitely use it. Self-isolation—what does that lead to?

Here’s what would happen. Talking about Europe, Western countries, and the global world in general, we clear this field of ourselves and leave it to our adversaries. Essentially, they don’t need to refute anything; they just continue to disseminate their own information. If we are discussing this topic, there is also no consistent policy in this direction. I don’t understand why there is so little information about Abkhazia, its history and its culture.

It’s not necessary to talk only in the context of conflict. We can discuss our culture, our nature. There is very little information available in English. Today, English is spoken by one and a half billion people, Spanish by 400 million, Portuguese by almost 200 million, including Brazil, a BRICS member. What is our priority? I still don’t understand what is being done today and where we are headed. There are 250 million Russian speakers in the world, more or less. But it is essential to convey information about Abkhazia everywhere possible, even where we have adversaries. We need to be engaged in this. Why aren’t we taking advantage of this? For example, Georgia actively utilizes this.

Where Georgia’s diplomatic resources are insufficient, they always use the US Embassy in various countries. The embassy of our main partner and ally, the Russian Federation, exists in almost every country in the world. The embassy, by virtue of its activities, must contact local media, including loyal media. I believe the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be happy to support efforts to use this loyal media environment in countries where the Russian embassy is present to convey information about Abkhazia. This is very important work, as information about Abkhazia that reaches citizens of a given country forms a specific political agenda, which can influence election processes in one way or another. That is the first aspect.

Regarding international recognition, the second aspect is the North Caucasus, our brotherly peoples, the diaspora in Turkey. Since 2005, when we closed our representation in Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria, there has been no representation there to this day. Contacts with the diaspora in Turkey have been minimized; information about what is happening in Abkhazia today exists only in Abkhazian and Russian languages. There is no information in Turkish, even though there are many of our brothers and sisters living there. Thus, in this direction, we must not isolate ourselves. This is harmful. In our conditions, it is simply unreasonable because we are effectively abandoning the field to our adversary.

Unlike us, our adversary works systematically. This is evident and easily verifiable. Today, all information is available on the internet. If we take the algorithm of various search engines, the query you make about Abkhazia in one search engine will yield a completely different result compared to London. So we need to be engaged—information, information, information in different world languages, and conveying our truth, our position.

If there are international organizations working in Abkhazia, and if our citizens have the opportunity to convey their truth through these international organizations, then we should definitely make use of this. Maybe, yes, it’s possible that through these international organizations there could be some, well, we have special services for that. And in general, the issue of searching for foreign agents in Abkhazia, frankly, is very displeasing to me. This is something new in Abkhazian history, and I categorically reject it. If we are talking about foreign agents, then based on practice, what we all see and hear in the news, agents are first and foremost formed in corridors of power. That’s where they should be looked for.

If we are discussing this issue, then lately we have been hearing about some anti-Russian forces. Let me give you an example. The current government is propagating the issue of the Pitsunda estate, suggesting that it should be handed over gratuitously and that jurisdiction should be changed, and so on. Meanwhile, the head of state travels around the district telling our citizens that if we don’t do this, conclusions will be drawn—if we want Russia to protect us, if we want Russia to support us. The short-sighted policy of the country’s leadership results in Russia being portrayed as an extortionist in the eyes of our citizens.

I want to ask you: who then is the catalyst for anti-Russian sentiment in Abkhazia? Furthermore, with the upcoming presidential election in the Russian Federation next year, in just two and a half months on March 17, as I hear, the Pitsunda estate will be considered under the pressure of the executive branch in parliament. I ask: those who are currently initiating these processes, when a large part of society, I want to express my gratitude to our cultural, scientific, and intellectual figures who have actively expressed their positions like never before—when all these people have spoken out, and in these conditions, with the added context that Russia is allegedly pressuring and so on, raising this issue in parliament at the end of the year, knowing that elections are in two months, and provoking such a situation—who is the foreign agent?

Let’s get into this, since we’ve started discussing it. We need to draw conclusions and call things by their proper names. I would approach this topic very cautiously. Attempts to stand out or show off in front of others, yes, we also communicate within the Russian Federation. Personally, I have contacts at various levels. Questions always arise, and it’s normal to argue and debate. Sibling disagreements are normal. But if we simply do everything that is said and, moreover, try to guess what is wanted to curry favor, it does not reflect well on our officials. Searching for enemies within one’s own people and setting up the Abkhaz people against external forces is extremely vile, and we have experienced this in Abkhazian history, and you know this.

I believe that it is absolutely wrong to reject the possibility of engaging on the international stage. Various conflicts, history, practically any history textbook shows that any war ends, and peace is restored on one basis or another. I believe that a new world order is forming, but it will be there too. Russia cannot exist in isolation from European countries, or European countries from Russia, or Russia from China. All countries and peoples are interconnected, and this will coexist in some form. History shows this, and to exclude ourselves from this future world is simply short-sighted and foolish.

Inal Khashig: I would like to focus on a final point. We have a chronic situation, and, thank God, we live in a society with democratic traditions. Perhaps we have our own patriarchal democracy, but it exists, so to speak, unwritten. We are used to resolving issues collectively, even though we do have laws written down. Our Constitution enshrines democracy, which we have become accustomed to implementing by resolving conflicts and emerging from crises.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for tension to build up during crises, and despite the creation of platforms for constant problem-solving and discussion, we often wait until everything reaches a critical point before trying to solve the problem collectively. Sometimes Merab Kishmaria explains things to us, but this tendency is still observed. It seems to me that this happens because the incoming team, any team, curtails or privatizes various platforms. The main platform is Abkhazian television, which decides whether to provide airtime to the opposition or other viewpoints.

This has not become a routine matter. Currently, as we speak, representatives of the united opposition are meeting with Alexander Ankvab to decide whether their airtime should be granted. How can we create a situation where our management system corresponds to the traditions established in Abkhazian society over the centuries? It seems we are being portrayed as if we are in some other country with an authoritarian regime, protected by walls, perhaps even with water cannons. This is absolutely alien to us. We understand that there is a crisis, and we need to find ways for our internal state to truly align with the external realities of our country.

Adgur Ardzinba: Well, this is a very broad question, and there is no straightforward answer. This direction needs to be approached from both sides. It is an illusion to think that merely changing the legislation will solve the problem. In reality, it won’t. And if we are talking about legislation, it’s already time to consider electing, for example, the parliament using a mixed system. Because we see certain situations where people talk about a weak or strong opposition. This indicates that people are no longer paying attention to the parliament, the public chamber, the Council of Elders; they don’t even look in their direction. They look at the opposition and ask, where are you, in the end? This means that the institutions established in the Constitution for balancing cannot fully perform their functions. Although the parliament, it should be noted, has not yet voted for any anti-people initiative from the executive branch, society demands more—not just resistance but fulfilling its assigned functions. This is not happening.

In my opinion, we need to move to a mixed electoral system for the People’s Assembly of the Republic of Abkhazia. By the way, almost everyone agrees on this. But nothing changes. Of course, in the future, when we can reform the parliament and make it not only a representative but also a legislative body, we can reconsider the system. The parliament must move forward and drive society. So a mixed system—because a party system is nothing new; it is a global practice that has shown certain results. Why? Because when a deputy is elected from a party, he is accountable to the voters of his district and to all of Abkhazia and to his party.

A deputy has an office, a work car, which allows him to fill his role effectively. Unfortunately, today the parliament’s apparatus is poorly funded, and deputies lack such opportunities. On the other hand, if a deputy deviates from the agenda with which the party went into elections, his party recalls him and replaces him with another deputy. And that’s important. I don’t want to offend those who are currently elected to the parliament—they are all deserving people. But there are many experienced people in society who don’t have a chance under the current electoral system. If there is a party system, parties will seek to include prominent figures and use their names to boost their ratings.

Adgur Ardzinba: That’s also a plus. Now, if we talk about the president’s powers, in fact, the super-presidential country that we are has evolved. These powers originated before the war, when the deputies of the Supreme Soviet were opposing the Georgian side. At that time, strict subordination to the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet was required due to the extreme conditions. And during and after the war, the commander-in-chief needed to make decisions rapidly. After the war, when we received recognition from the Russian Federation, support and assistance began.

At that stage, I think we should have quietly pursued the path through parliament, as I mentioned. By the way, the well-known, now deceased lawyer Zurab Achba warned about this. He directly stated that in the future, under the current constitutional model, there are risks that a selfish, power-hungry individual could come to power, in the literal sense. I quote: “Who will not deviate even a hair’s breadth from the existing law and do whatever he wants, and the people will not be able to stop him.” In reality, this issue needs to be worked on very seriously. There was a constitutional reform recently envisioned by the executive branch, and there was a constitutional commission.

The commission went to work and, in fact, provided certain recommendations. The president had his own recommendations and sent them to the parliament. I don’t understand why this commission was created if its opinion was not taken into account. Overall, this is a serious discussion. If we talk about legislation, there is a second part that is much broader and deeper, and I think it is worth discussing separately. But I’ll just say a few words. If we talk about our state, the independent Abkhazian state, we should not forget the following: no successful state exists in the world without an elite that is focused on national interests.

The formation of our own Abkhazian elite, which intuitively understands national interests, is a major problem for us. Serious investments are needed in the education system, we need to develop personnel and educate people. This is a very broad and lengthy conversation. One aspect cannot function without the other. Why? Because we can change the legislation as much as we want. We can create a structure, but filling it with quality content under current conditions will also be difficult.

Inal Khashig: Let’s wrap up; we have about a minute left. Considering that the New Year is approaching, maybe you have some good wishes?

Adgur Ardzinba: Taking this opportunity, I would like to wish our people a Happy New Year. The year 2024 will still be quite challenging and interesting, with significant events happening in the world, including the presidential elections in the Russian Federation, parliamentary elections in Georgia in October 2014, in the United States, the Middle East, and in Ukraine. I believe there will also be processes of stabilization of the conflict. It is a challenging period where we, the Abkhaz people, need to be more united, friendly, love and appreciate each other. The contradictions and problems that exist today are all actually surmountable. Even the negative things happening in Abkhazia today are also a plus; they are our own experiences that we must take into account and learn from to prevent recurrence. In general, I wish prosperity to every home and every family, good health, and happiness. I want to say once again that we must not be discouraged; we will definitely succeed, and we will build a very successful and developed state.

Inal Khashig: I second these congratulations and wish everyone a Happy New Year. I wish everyone health and happiness, and I hope it will be shared by all. I remind you once again that today we discussed the present day and future prospects with the leader of the Abkhazian national movement, Adgur Ardzinba. You can watch our programs on the Abaza TV channel, on the YouTube channel of the same name “Chegemskaya Pravda,” on the website of the Chegemskaya Pravda newspaper, and on its Facebook page. Goodbye. See you next time.