A Mockery of Democracy? Georgia’s Presidential Vote and Its Legal Ramifications
“This was not just a nomination of a puppet… it was also a signal to Europe that… we’ll have a president who is completely opposed to Western values”
Both locally and outside, Mikheil Kavelashvili's election as Georgia's future president has generated controversy. Kavelashvili's uncontested parliamentary victory suggests a possible turn away from democratic principles and European integration amid pro-EU demonstrations and accusations of authoritarianism. The legitimacy of the election and its effects on Georgia's constitutional framework, governance, and geopolitical direction are critically examined in this article along with its legal and political ramifications.
The Change in Election Process: A Legal Analysis
Georgia's president was chosen for the first time using a parliamentary electoral college rather than a popular vote. Although this modification complies with the laws set forth by the Georgian Dream administration, it poses significant concerns regarding democratic representation:
The Opposition Party Boycott: Since the contentious October elections, the four major opposition parties have boycotted parliament, essentially making the election a one-sided contest. The validity of the process was undermined because there was no real competition or debate and only members who were connected with the ruling party participated.
Popular Vote vs. Electoral College: By switching from a national popular vote to a parliamentary process, the presidential election consolidates power within the ruling party. Although this change might be in line with constitutional amendments, it may go against the democratic ideal of direct public involvement in choosing the country's leaders.
The absence of opposition candidates and the consolidation of power by the ruling party point to both a violation of democratic norms and a breakdown of the checks and balances that are essential to a healthy democracy.
Requirements and Meaning: The Presidency's Function
Kavelashvili's lack of qualifications has been emphasised by critics, who have pointed out his football playing past and his inexperience in politics. Even though Georgia's presidency is mostly ceremonial, it has a lot of symbolic significance. Georgia's long-standing desire to conform to European standards is undermined by the appointment of a person who is overtly contemptuous of Western principles.
The choice of Kavelashvili also speaks to more general legal issues:
Proficiency and Responsibility: It is unclear whether Kavelashvili can adequately represent Georgia in international fora or defend its constitutional values given his lack of formal education and political experience.
Signals to the EU: Kavelashvili's staunch anti-Western rhetoric seems to be an attempt to keep Georgia from joining the EU, which could endanger the country's 80%-popular EU ambitions.
The Constitutional Crisis and Opposition Disobedience
Extrovert A constitutional impasse is highlighted by President Salome Zourabichvili's choice to participate in opposition demonstrations and not step down. Although the legal transfer of power is required, Zourabichvili's assertion that he is in control of the "only legitimate institution left in Georgia" highlights the lack of trust in the ruling party's ability to rule.
This disobedience presents a number of moral and legal conundrums:
Is it legal for a sitting president to refuse to leave office?
Although Zourabichvili's opposition has no explicit constitutional support, her activities represent a larger pro-Western faction's rejection of the legitimacy of the administration.
Possible Retaliation from the Government: The Georgian Dream government runs the risk of raising tensions and further dividing its foreign allies if it removes Zourabichvili by force or the judicial system.
Rebuttals: Evaluating the Position of the Ruling Party
Georgian Dream government supporters contend that the opposition's boycotts are self-inflicted wounds and that the election process was legal. They might also defend Kavelashvili's selection by arguing that it was a sensible decision for a position that would primarily be ceremonial. But there are serious problems with these arguments:
Legitimacy against Legality: Even though the election followed the rules exactly, its democratic validity is called into question by the absence of true competition.
Real Repercussions, Ceremonial Role: Even if the presidency is primarily symbolic, choosing an unfit, pro-Russian candidate makes it obvious to audiences at home and abroad where Georgia is headed politically.
The Legal and Geopolitical Repercussions of Authoritarian Drift
An authoritarian turn is shown by the Georgian Dream government's decision to halt EU admission negotiations and its increasing support for Kremlin policies. These behaviours bring up ethical and legal issues:
Using Force Against Demonstrators: International human rights rules are broken by reports of demonstrators being attacked by masked "special forces" and police brutality. Concerns over state-sanctioned violence are only heightened by the Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs' silence regarding these claims.
EU Abandonment: Georgia's constitutional pledge to European integration, a pillar of its post-Soviet identity, is in conflict with its decision to halt EU negotiations. By its actions, the ruling party runs the risk of further dividing the nation and alienating its Western allies.
The Wider Consequences for Georgia's Democracy
The difficulties Georgia's democracy faces are best exemplified by Kavelashvili's election: centralised power, disputed elections, and a widening divide between forces that support Russia and those that support the West. The ramifications go beyond Georgia's boundaries since its course will affect the South Caucasus's power dynamics as well as the larger conflict between authoritarian and democratic forces worldwide.
In conclusion
More than just a political dispute, Mikheil Kavelashvili's election as Georgia's president is a constitutional and legal emergency with significant ramifications for the nation's democratic future. A sombre picture of authoritarian drift is painted by the Georgian Dream government's degradation of democratic standards and marginalisation of opposition voices, despite its claims of procedural legitimacy. In order to protect Georgia's democratic goals and constitutional integrity, the international community and local actors must carefully negotiate this precarious period.
Full article: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/14/europe/georgia-president-vote-mikheil-kavelashvili-intl/index.html