Workers and Labor Policy under the Social Democratic Government: The Georgian Experience (1918–1921)

Irakli Iremazde

The First Social Democratic Government in Europe: Expectations

The Social Democratic movement in Georgia was founded in 1892. In its early stages, the movement had only a weak connection to the working class; its initial members were primarily teachers, students, and lower-ranking civil servants. Beginning in the 1890s, however, the movement gradually strengthened ties with segments of the urban working class, particularly among railway workers in Tbilisi and oil industry workers in Batumi. Social Democrats organized workers’ educational circles, which subsequently evolved into more structured labor organizations. However, it is important to emphasize that the working class in the Caucasus, especially, the Southern part of Russian Empire remained relatively small. It largely consisted of first-generation industrial workers who maintained strong social and economic ties to rural communities. The overall size of the working class did not expand significantly during the 1900s.

In May 1918, Georgia became the first country in Europe to be governed by a Social Democratic Labor Party. In the post-imperial context, the Social Democrats sought to build a democratic and socialist state. The political program, drafted under the leadership of Noe Jordania (or Zhordania), articulated the vision of a republic founded on the principles of democratic socialism, representing an ambitious attempt to establish a proto-universal welfare state.

Following the declaration of independence, the Social Democrats’ political power naturally raised expectations that the new government would dismantle the oppressive legacy of labor policies and working conditions inherited from the Russian Empire, thereby delivering rapid improvements in the status of workers. These expectations were only partially fulfilled. While the government introduced several progressive measures, it could not disregard the existing economic constraints and structural challenges of the post-World War I environment, most notably, severe hyperinflation and the disruption of both international and former imperial economic systems.

Nonsystematic Policies in 1918

Throughout 1918, the Social Democratic government of Georgia pursued labor policy through two distinct directions. The first involved the adoption of fragmented legislative measures, including laws on the eight-hour workday (initially introduced after the February Revolution of 1917), the legal recognition of free trade unions, the establishment of a Ministry of Labor, and the creation of state labor institutions. The second approach was more ad hoc and a reactive “firefighting” policy that sought to address emerging labor disputes. In this context, the Minister of Labor and leading members of the Social Democratic parliamentary faction were directly involved in mediating and resolving industrial conflicts.

Beginning in the summer of 1918, strikes began in the Tkibuli coal mines in western Georgia, a site of major strategic importance as the coal supplies were essential to maintaining the operation of the railway system, vital for a republic continually engaged in military conflicts. During the same period, dockers at the port of Poti also initiated strikes. In both cases, the government intervened immediately, granting wage increases of 50-100 percent in an effort to stabilize production, even though inflation during 1918 quickly exceeded the real value of these increases.

Attempts at Systemic Reforms

In the February 1919 elections to the Constituent Assembly of Georgia the Social Democratic Party gained 81 percent of the vote. More than twenty workers were elected from its candidate list, including prominent leaders of the trade union movement. Beginning in the spring of 1919, the Social Democratic government initiated designing a more systematic labor policy, though its success was often constrained by ongoing economic difficulties.

In April 1919, the General Congress of Trade Unions convened in Tbilisi under the leadership of Social Democratic politicians. At this congress, the government announced the creation of the Tariff Chamber, a key institution designed to regulate labor conditions and adjudicate labor disputes. The Chamber was structured on a parity principle, involving representatives of workers, employers, and the Ministry of Labor. Its mandate included developing wage standards across sectors, determining minimum wage levels by region, researching labor market trends, reviewing and approving collective agreements, examining workers’ demands, issuing recommendations, investigating labor disputes, and submitting legislative initiatives to the Constituent Assembly. From its inception, the Chamber engaged a broad range of stakeholders in its activities.

The Chamber’s work was praised and acknowledged by Karl Kautsky, who visited Georgia in 1920. He assessed the Chamber’s activities in his book “Georgia:A Social-Democratic Peasant Republic.”

“The Tariff Chamber unites workers and employers with ten representatives each. The chairman of the council is the Minister of Labor, who was Giorgi Eradze last winter. The Tariff Chamber is responsible for guiding the subsistence minimum and the salaries of employees; to study workers’ disputes; to consider collective agreements and bring them to agreement; and finally, to act as a mediator in disputes between workers and employers. This agency has managed to avoid all kinds of open conflicts to date. Since May 1919, when it started functioning, the trade unions have not organized a single strike, despite the fact that, unlike Bolshevik Russia, strikes were not prohibited. In this respect, Georgia is unique.

Following the establishment of the Tariff Chamber, numerous labor disputes were resolved through negotiation rather than confrontation. Throughout this period the Chamber reviewed and verified dozens of wage increase proposals in response to the severe inflationary pressures.

Building upon this institutional foundation, in August 1920 the republic adopted a new, comparatively progressive labor code. This legislation reaffirmed the eight-hour workday, introduced special protections for women, particularly for mothers of young children, as well as for adolescents aged fourteen to twenty, and established mechanisms for inspecting workplace conditions. Importantly, it also classified violations of labor regulations as criminal offenses, thereby strengthening the legal enforcement of labor rights.

Results of the Reforms

Professor Stephen Jones, founder of the Georgian Studies Program at Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, argues that the labor policies of the Social Democratic Party, and the government’s broader economic strategy, ultimately deepened the economic crisis and accelerated inflation. These dynamics were in the context of global economic instability and ongoing regional conflicts, including the Russian Civil War and the Armenian-Azerbaijani War of 1918-1920.

A principal driver of inflation was the dramatic devaluation of the national currency. Between April and May 1920, the exchange rate of one pound sterling rose from 600 to 1,000 Georgian Maneti in only twenty-three days; by the end of 1920, it had reached 18,000 maneti.

Between 1914 and 1920, wages in various sectors increased by 50-100 times, while the market prices of staple food products rose by 150-300 times. To alleviate the hardship, the government established special stores where approximately 60,000 workers’ families could purchase goods at discounted prices by late 1920s. However, the material well-being of the workers has worsened (as in other parts of the world). Despite this deterioration in living standards, significant improvements occurred in labor conditions. Average working hours decreased from 12-13 hours per day to 7-8 hours, reflecting the successful enforcement of shorter workdays and labor protections introduced by the Social Democratic government

The Social Democrats had a tremendous impact on the labor movement. While their rule advanced workers’ legal rights, it simultaneously posed challenges for the autonomy of trade unions. During the republic’s existence (1918-1921), trade unions, encompassing approximately 64,000 members, were overwhelmingly dominated by the ruling party; only three or four of the 113 branch-level professional associations were controlled by Socialist-Federalists or Bolsheviks. This hegemony often led trade unions to adopt state-oriented positions in labor disputes, even when these conflicted with the immediate interests of workers. One illustrative episode occurred in spring 1919, when employees of Tbilisi City Hall went on strike, demanding three months of unpaid wages and a salary increase. The trade unions dominated by Social Democrats denounced the strikers as counterrevolutionaries and emphasized their prior service under the former imperial regime, noting also their predominantly non-Georgian ethnic composition. The strike ultimately failed, representing how union loyalty to the government could undermine worker advocacy.

This tension between ideological commitment and material realities was mentioned by Constantine Kandelaki, the Minister of Finance, Trade, and Industry. Reflecting on the period, he said:

“According to many, although the material hardship in independent Georgia was great, because the government was held by socialists, the workers enjoyed great privileges and were therefore in a better material condition compared to the wider circles of society. Unfortunately, … this was not always the case. The situation of the worker in independent Georgia was generally the same as in the rest of the society; they also suffered material hardship. And not because they did not have professional organizations and could not adequately protect their rights and demands, but precisely because they, engaged in professional unions and political organizations, were fully aware of the existing situation. They did not follow demagogy, did not make unfulfilled demands and avoided taking any irresponsible steps. In this regard, the Georgian working class showed such composure and political maturity that its behavior at that time was commendable and worthy of great respect, especially after we saw many examples of workers’ incontinence, even in some European countries, during such crises and transitional periods.”

Kandelaki’s statement captures a key paradox of the period: despite the Social Democrats’ ideological orientation and institutional reforms, structural economic constraints and party dominance over trade unions limited the extent to which workers could materially benefit from the labor policies of the republic.

Conclusion

Despite intense economic difficulties and the numerous challenges inherent in building a modern state, something Georgia had no prior experience of, the Georgian working class developed a sense of ownership towards the republic. They regarded the Democratic Republic of Georgia not solely as a state for workers, but as a state in which the collective working class held meaningful stake and representation. This perception was reflected in their active engagement during 1918-1921 and, significantly, in their actions following the republic’s downfall.

The Social Democratic Republic endured for only 1,028 days. In February-March 1921, it was occupied by the Red Army of the Soviet Russia. Many workers took part in the defense of the republic during the invasion. Following the occupation, the new Soviet authorities dissolved the existing trade unions in March 1921, replacing them with bodies controlled by the Bolsheviks. Nevertheless, the working class continued to resist Soviet rule, participating in underground anti-Soviet activities and playing a role in the Georgian anti-Soviet uprising of 1924. Between 1921 and 1938, Soviet repressions took the lives of thousands of Georgian workers.

Sources:

• Stephen F. Jones., Between ideology and pragmatism: social democracy and economic transition in Georgia 1918-20. Caucasus Survey, Vol. 1, N2 (2014) pp. 63-81.
• Irakli Iremadze, Trade Unions and Labor Issues in the Democratic Republic of Georgia (in the book: Remembering the Georgian Democratic Republic 100 Years On: A model For Europe?)] Tbilisi: TSU, 2018.
• Konstantine Kandelaki, National Economy of Georgia, Second Book, The Independent Georgia: Its Social and Economy Status [Sakartvelos Erovnuli Meurneoba: Ts’igni Meore, Damouk’idebeli Sakartvelo: Misi Sotsialuri da Ek’onomik’uri Mdgomareoba]. Paris: Institute for the study of the USSR, 1960.
• Karl Kautsky, Georgia: A Social-Democratic Peasant Republic – Impressions and Observations. London: International Bookshops, 1921.