Abkhazian apartment law
Abkhazia’s current president, Aslan Bzhania, and his predecessor, Raul Khajimba, engaged in a heated debate over a proposed apartment law that has stirred significant controversy within Abkhaz society.
For the past two years, the Abkhazian government, led by Bzhania, has been attempting to push through legislation allowing foreigners, primarily Russians, to build and buy apartments in Abkhazia. However, opposition and a substantial portion of society vehemently oppose the law, seeing it as a loophole to bypass existing restrictions on foreigners purchasing real estate in the republic.
Opponents of the apartment law argue that it would not only harm local businesses and inflate property prices but, more critically, disrupt the demographic balance. They fear an influx of Russians could lead to Abkhazians becoming a minority again, as they were during Soviet times, potentially reigniting the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. This concern is precisely why selling property to foreigners is prohibited in Abkhazia.
- The new “law on apartments” in Abkhazia: why is it forbidden to sell real estate to foreigners?
- “This is a protest by society against the government” – Political scientist on the law on apartments in Abkhazia
- Why are the Abkhazian authorities lobbying for the apartment law? An economist’s opinion
In an interview with the Russian publication “AiF,” Aslan Bzhania responded to why his opponents label the proposed law as “new colonization,” dismissing such views as “nonsense.” He reminded the opposition that, when in power, they themselves advocated for lifting the ban on selling real estate to Russians:
“It’s nonsense. It’s surprising that some politicians in Abkhazia are uttering such words. Moreover, when in power, they themselves advocated for selling real estate.
Why is it that in tiny Dubai, apartments are calmly sold to foreigners, and no one screams about colonization there? Foreign property owners in Abkhazia have rights only to that property – nothing else.
We have 70,000 unemployed people. To create jobs for them, Abkhazia’s economy needs an investment of 400 billion rubles [around 4 billion dollars], while our annual budget is only 14 billion [around 150 million dollars]. If we build 30,000 apartments, it will attract 400 billion rubles into the economy.”
Bzhania stated that in the case of passing the apartment law, “the state does not risk anything; all risks are taken by businessmen.”
He bluntly accused opponents of this idea of being influenced by Western intelligence services:
“This struggle is the work of intelligence services that seek to spoil our relations [with Russia].”
Former president Raul Khajimba swiftly responded to Bzhania’s remarks. Specifically addressing Bzhania’s assertion that there are no risks for the republic, Khajimba expressed bitter amusement at the claim that this law is needed not for investors but for the residents of Abkhazia, stating: “Altruism and investors are incompatible concepts. Let’s not deceive our people!“
Regarding Bzhania’s suggestion that he supported the idea of selling real estate to Russians during his presidency, Khajimba acknowledged that the issue was discussed but remarked: “This idea did not receive support in our society, and unlike Bzhania, we closed the topic.“
As for the influence of Western intelligence services, Khajimba expressed surprise at Bzhania’s readiness to throw such accusations at his own citizens, stating: “No president, even in the most intense confrontation, equated dissenters with enemies of the people. I want to warn against baseless accusations of treason against people who were part of the national liberation movement, fought and survived, many with combat wounds, who helped build and continue to build our state.”
Terms, place names, opinions and ideas suggested by the author of the publication are her / his own and do not necessarily coincide with the opinions and ideas of JAMnews or its individual employees. JAMnews reserves the right to remove comments on posts that are deemed offensive, threatening, violent or otherwise ethically unacceptable.
