The founding congress of the new political party *First Georgia*, held on 28 June, may prove to be a far more significant development for Georgia’s domestic political dynamics than it initially appears. Against the backdrop of a prolonged crisis of party representation, deep political polarization, and growing public demand for political renewal, the emergence of a new centre-right political force reflects the gradual transformation of Georgia’s political system. Increasingly, the country's political evolution is being shaped not only by established party brands but also by new centres of intellectual and expert-driven consolidation.
The party elected *Viktor Kipiani*, head of the analytical organization GeoCase, as its chairman. A prominent Georgian lawyer, Kipiani previously represented the interests of Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder of the ruling Georgian Dream party. His appointment deserves particular attention. Kipiani’s professional trajectory illustrates a broader trend within Georgia’s expert community, where policy analysts and legal specialists are increasingly moving beyond advisory roles to become direct participants in political life. Such developments are characteristic of countries undergoing institutional transformation, where public expectations gradually shift from emotionally driven political mobilization toward competent and professional governance.
The party’s leadership includes former diplomats, policy analysts, security experts, and specialists in public administration. This composition indicates a deliberate attempt to build political legitimacy on expertise and professional competence rather than charismatic leadership. In this respect, First Georgia differs markedly from many existing Georgian political parties, whose structures remain heavily centred on individual personalities and confrontational political practices.
Equally noteworthy is the party’s ideological positioning. Viktor Kipiani has declared that First Georgia is a centre-right political force committed to European integration and open to cooperation with all pro-Western political actors. In the current Georgian context, this positioning could resonate precisely because it seeks to move beyond the traditional binary confrontation between the ruling Georgian Dream and the fragmented opposition. In effect, the party is attempting to establish a platform of moderate pro-European conservatism focused not on revolutionary political change but on gradual institutional reform and effective state-building.
The emergence of First Georgia may also reflect broader societal trends. Over recent years, Georgian society has shown increasing fatigue with persistent political confrontation and declining trust in both the ruling authorities and the traditional opposition. As a result, there appears to be growing demand for political projects capable of offering not merely emotionally charged rhetoric but comprehensive and pragmatic visions for the country's future development.
It is also important to recognize Viktor Kipiani’s reputation beyond Georgia. For many years, he has been actively engaged in analytical work and has cooperated with numerous international research institutions. The CASPIA Analytical Center has likewise collaborated with Viktor Kipiani on issues related to regional security and geopolitical developments in the South Caucasus, reflecting his well-established professional standing within the international expert community.
A notable assessment of the party’s prospects has been offered by the distinguished Georgian political analyst *Vakhtang Maisaia. In his view, the creation of *First Georgia comes at a particularly favourable moment for Georgia’s opposition landscape. He argues that the party represents an independent political project distinguished by its strong intellectual foundation, bringing together analysts, academics, former military officers, and security professionals. According to Maisaia, Viktor Kipiani’s British education, professional experience, and effective public communication skills position him well to establish the party as a credible political actor. He further suggests that, over the medium term, First Georgia has the potential to become one of the principal drivers of a new political generation in Georgia.
Naturally, it remains premature to draw conclusions about the party’s electoral prospects. Georgia’s party system remains highly competitive, while deep political polarization continues to create significant barriers for emerging political forces. Nevertheless, the very appearance of a party that prioritizes expertise, institutional development, and the consolidation of a moderate pro-European electorate may itself signal the beginning of a qualitative transformation within Georgian politics. Should First Georgia succeed in maintaining its independence, avoiding entanglement in traditional political conflicts, and presenting a realistic agenda for state development, it could emerge as one of the most influential political projects of Georgia’s next generation.
More broadly, this development may indicate that Georgia’s political system is gradually entering a new phase of elite formation, where professional competence, strategic thinking, and the capacity to formulate long-term public policy will become increasingly important alongside, or even instead of, conventional political mobilization.