ACROSS most of the old Soviet Union, authoritarian rulers keep voters at bay. But in parliamentary elections on October 1st Georgians have a real choice, between the United National Movement of the outgoing president, Mikheil "Misha" Saakashvili, and Georgian Dream, backed by an enigmatic billionaire, Bidzina Ivanishvili.

That a choice exists at all is admirable (in the election in Belarus, last Sunday, the opposition did not win a single seat). Mr Ivanishvili deserves credit for opening the political system. But Mr Saakashvili’s young, pro-Western lot do have an impressive record. Economic reforms have made the Georgia a modern and prospering country

GDP growth this year is an enviable 7.5%. Petty corruption has been all but eliminated from institutions such as the police and customs offices where it is usually endemic. Public services have transformed. The Baltic states aside, Georgia is clearly the best-run ex-Soviet state. Membership of the European Union is distant, but not unimaginable. Only 20 years ago Georgia was wracked by civil war and destitution. Only 10 years ago it was a sleazy, sleepy fief. Only four years ago its very existence as an independent state was at risk, following the war with Russia.

Yet much mars the record too. Mr Saakashvili took the country into that disastrous war in 2008. Albeit sorely provoked by the Kremlin, he miscalculated grossly, costing Georgia the provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as the trust of many friends. The whiff of cronyism hangs heavily over the heights of power. Poverty and joblessness persist.

Part of the problem is Mr Saakashvili himself. Even his fans do not call him a team player: the opposition ranks are full of former allies. Some may (as his camp contends) be motivated by greed or ambition. But many just could not abide "Misha"’s wilful ways. His presidential term ends, thankfully, next year.

The authorities’ thuggish streak has badly polarised Georgia. They tried to disqualify Mr Ivanishvili from the election. Instances of intimidation, snooping and arbitrary arrests are chilling. Other examples of abuse of power include maltreatment of prisoners: a long-standing problem now highlighted by a video, promoted by the opposition, showing rape, beatings and other scandalous behaviour. It arouses justified fury.

A strong opposition should highlight all this. But Mr Ivanishvili’s disparate coalition has failed to dispel the question-marks that hang over it. One is the source of his own money (made in business dealings in 1990s Russia, and held in part via stakes in its big energy companies). That arouses the suspicion, however unfair, that he is part of a Russian plot to swat its pesky southern neighbour. A lavish effort to win over foreign opinion stokes, rather than quells, suspicions. Nastily timed Russian military drills across the border add another menacing note.

The opposition is also too hysterical. It decries the Saakashvili regime as criminal and tyrannical, and threatens mass protests if it loses. It has concentrated on undermining the elections more than winning them. To merit power, it must show more responsibility. For its part, the United National Movement seeks a third term on the simple question: are you better off than four years ago? The answer to that, for most Georgians, is clearly yes. But the big task now for Georgia is to show that it is not just modern but democratic too. Government and opposition alike have a lot to prove on that front.

An earlier version of this article stated that Mr Ivanishvili had made his fortune in dealings with Gazprom. This has now been clarified.