Abolishing Georgian universities? The strangling of Georgian civil society continues

The third pillar is institutional restructuring, most dramatically the announced merger of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University (TSU) and Georgian Technical University (GTU). The government presents this as a rational consolidation that will restore TSU’s “historical role” as the leading multidisciplinary institution and streamline resources. Yet the decision was announced abruptly and has already triggered student protests and public concern. Forced mergers of large universities are rarely neutral technical exercises; they reshape power, budgets, and identities. TSU and GTU have distinct histories, cultures, and academic missions, one rooted in classical research and humanities, the other in engineering and applied sciences. Combining them under political pressure risks diluting both missions, creating bureaucratic complexity, and weakening the specialized strengths that each institution has built over decades. Students and staff fear not only job losses and program closures, but also the erosion of institutional voice in academic and public life.

All of this is happening against the backdrop of accelerated legislative change. Parliament has already adopted amendments to the laws on primary and secondary education and on higher education under expedited procedures, providing the legal framework for these reforms to move forward. The speed and method of adoption are themselves a red flag. Education systems are complex ecosystems; when reforms are pushed through quickly, with limited consultation and little time for impact assessment, the likelihood of unintended consequences rises sharply. Teachers, students, rectors, and independent experts have repeatedly complained that they were not meaningfully involved in designing the changes, and that key decisions appear to be driven more by political calculations than by pedagogical evidence.

The risks of this reform package are therefore layered. At the level of individual students, centrally imposed quotas and restricted institutional profiles may limit access to desired fields, especially for those who cannot afford to study abroad or in private institutions. Regional inequalities could deepen if certain disciplines are available only in specific cities, forcing students to relocate or abandon their preferred paths. At the level of universities, the loss of curricular autonomy and the threat of mergers or program closures can undermine long‑term planning, discourage investment in research, and push talented academics to leave the country or move to more stable institutions. At the societal level, the narrowing of humanities and social sciences, combined with stronger state control over what is taught where, risks weakening spaces for critical thinking, public debate, and independent expertise.

It is also important to consider the symbolic dimension. Universities in Georgia have historically been centers of political thought, dissent, and civic mobilization. When the state redesigns the map of higher education in a way that centralizes control over admissions, disciplines, and institutional structures, it inevitably raises questions about whether the goal is purely efficiency or also the containment of critical voices. Even if the reform is not explicitly framed as political control, its effects may converge with that outcome: fewer autonomous institutions, fewer independent programs, and more dependence on ministerial decisions.