PoraValit
Home/Politics/Articles

A Monument to Erekle II in Tbilisi Intensifies Dispute Over Georgia’s Course and Its Reading of History

By boriskov · Published on October 3, 2025

A Monument to Erekle II in Tbilisi Intensifies Dispute Over Georgia’s Course and Its Reading of History

The unveiling of an equestrian statue of Erekle II in Tbilisi has triggered a sharp political and historical dispute in Georgia. The ruling Georgian Dream party presented the monument as a tribute to an 18th-century ruler whose policy it describes as pragmatic, while opponents saw it as an attempt to justify the current government’s cautious line toward Moscow.

The statue was installed on Kakheti Highway, near the glass Interior Ministry building that became a symbol of the reform era under Mikheil Saakashvili. Erekle II is remembered as the ruler who united Kartli and Kakheti and as the signatory of the 1783 Treaty of Georgievsk with the Russian Empire. After his death, the Georgian kingdom was abolished and its lands were absorbed into the empire.

Critics focus not only on the political meaning but also on the artistic image: unlike the monument in Telavi, where the king is shown with a raised sword, the Tbilisi version depicts him with lowered weaponry and an open palm. Historian Beka Kobakhidze argues that this image matches the government’s pacifist rhetoric and serves as a veiled message in favor of a pro-Russian course.

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze said Erekle II’s achievement was preserving the country’s religious and national identity, and that the king symbolizes patriotism, pragmatism, and devotion to the homeland.

Later, the prime minister said criticism of the king came in part from foreign forces and their “agents.” His remarks echoed a long-running argument over Erekle II’s decision to seek an alliance with Russia. Philologist and publicist Levan Berdzenishvili had previously called that decision a historical mistake and was later subjected to harassment.

The government’s opponents stress that Russia violated the treaty and in 1801 annexed the Kartli-Kakheti kingdom. Members of the Bagrationi dynasty were then removed, exiled, or placed under imperial control. Against that backdrop, the dispute over the monument has become a broader argument about how the current authorities use the past to explain their political choices today.

Share this article