EurasiaNet Organization
July 6 2005
TBILISI ELECTION LAW FUELS GEORGIA’S POLITICAL OPPOSITION
Vladic Ravich 7/06/05
New legislation concerning the election of Tbilisi’s mayor has
sparked a political debate over President Mikheil Saakashvili’s
commitment to democratic reform. Opposition leaders say the new law
skews the electoral framework in a way that could help Saakashvili’s
National Movement maintain a tight grip on power.
Under the legislation, passed on July 1, the capital’s mayor will be
elected by the Tbilisi City Council, or Sakrebulo, rather than
directly by voters. The City Council itself will be elected primarily
under a winner-take-all system, rather than by the previous
proportional system, which allotted council seats to political
parties in accordance to their share of the vote. Under the new
system, registered political parties may nominate two or three
candidates in each of Tbilisi’s 10 districts, depending on the size
of the constituency. The party that receives the most votes in a
particular district will automatically gain all of that district’s
seats in the City Council. This system covers 25 of the council’s 37
seats. The remaining 12 seats will be allotted on a proportional
basis to parties that receive at least 4 percent of the vote in all
city districts.
Council members, in turn, will elect Tbilisi’s mayor. Prior to
passage of the new legislation, Tbilisi’s mayor was a presidential
appointee. The capital’s incumbent mayor is 33-year-old Zurab
Chiaberashvili, a Saakashvili ally who has held the post since April
2004.
Opposition politicians and some local non-governmental organization
(NGO) activists have denounced the new legislation as
anti-democratic. The chief intent of the new election system, some
allege, is to make it easier for the National Movement, which holds a
dominating majority in parliament, to control the country’s political
sphere. The New Rights Party, a leading Saakashvili critic, proposed
a bill that would have provided for the direct election of Tbilisi’s
mayor, but it did not gain sufficient support in parliament.
Opposition legislators were not on hand in parliament for the final
vote on the Tbilisi election law. At the time the vote was taken,
opposition MPs were participating at a rally staged to condemn the
use of riot police to disperse a June 30 street protest. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Saakashvili defended the election law, saying it strengthens the
political voice of elected local assemblies. The president, who
himself served in 2002-2003 as City Council chairman, also indicated
that the law would facilitate closer ties between the mayor, the
council and the ruling party. During the run-up to the law’s passage,
Saakashvili scoffed at the New Rights Party’s advocacy of a direct
mayoral election. “Do not believe claims that a directly elected
mayor of Tbilisi will be a strong figure,” the president told
reporters in a televised June 22 press conference. “No, he will be an
extremely weak figure. Only a mayor that has a council behind him
will be strong.”
One Georgian non-governmental organization – the International
Society for Fair Elections and Democracy – reminded Saakashvili and
his National Movement followers that they advocated direct elections
as a tactic to break then-president Eduard Shevardnadze’s
stranglehold on power. “Only two years ago, opposition political
forces [including the National Movement] considered the direct
election of … local government bodies as one of the most important
democratic values,” the NGO’s statement said. “Unfortunately,
electing the Tbilisi [m]ayor directly by the citizens of the capital
is now unacceptable for today’s revolutionary government.”
[The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy receives
funding from the Open Society-Georgia Foundation, which is part of
the Soros foundations network. EurasiaNet.org operates under the
auspices of the Open Society Institute, also part of the Soros
foundations network.]
Throughout the Caucasus, debate on the nature of local government,
and responsibility for the election/selection of local officials, has
intensified in recent months. For example, Armenia, citing the need
for political unity, long resisted pressure to hold direct elections
for the mayor of Yerevan. In June, however, Armenian officials
relented, succumbing to the wishes of the Council of Europe on
proposed constitutional amendments.
The Armenian example seemed to have little impact on the Georgian
legislative debate. “We do not need anyone else’s recommendations,”
Saakashvili declared during a televised interview in early June.
“What did the leader of the free world [US President George W. Bush]
say? Georgia is an example to everyone, a beacon.” [For background
see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Georgian opposition parties, which have been largely fragmented
during the Saakashvili presidency, have seized on the Tbilisi mayor
issue as a rallying point. Saakashvili opponents now hope they have
an opportunity to inflict political damage on the president. A recent
poll conducted by the International Republican Institute and funded
by the US Agency for International Development, showed that 89
percent of Tbilisi residents favor a direct mayoral election.
The New Rights, Labor, Republican and Conservative Parties have vowed
to boycott by-elections scheduled to be held in Tbilisi expected this
autumn. The Republican and Conservative Parties have also joined
forces with 20 NGOs to lobby for a national referendum that would ask
voters whether or not they want city mayors and regional governors to
be directly elected. At least 200,000 signatures must be collected
for the referendum effort to proceed.
Additional controversy surrounds the Central Elections Committee
(CEC), the body that would be charged with conducting a referendum if
the signature requirement is met. The CEC was recently restructured
to include members that are nominally independent. But the opposition
has charged that the chairman, Gia Kavtaradze, and most of the new
members, have ties to the government, or the National Movement. The
new members were selected by a commission headed by top presidential
aide Gigi Ugulava, and approved by Saakashvili.
“Everyday, they [members of the National Movement] are creating
something new and the only goal of these people is to stay in power
forever,” Irakli Iashvili, a Conservative Party member of parliament,
commented on the boycott decision. “I am very afraid for the future.”
One prominent Tbilisi analyst, however, countered that the
opposition’s concerns are misplaced. The real issue, he said,
concerns the constitutional interpretation of executive authority.
“The president is the only power in this country,” said Devi
Khechinashvili, president of the Partnership for Social Initiative.
“It is his right – it is only logical – that he would fill the CEC
with his people and dictate how to pick the mayor.”
Some opposition leaders are expressing doubt that the CEC would allow
a referendum to occur, even if the necessary number of signatures
were gathered. “The whole election system is controlled by the
government, the top management, the middle, the bottom, everybody,”
said Iashvili, “I am absolutely sure the referendum will not happen,
but I am very much interested in how they will explain the refusal.”
National Movement loyalists, meanwhile, deny that they would use
unconstitutional means to block a referendum.
Editor’s Note: Vladic Ravich is a freelance journalist based in
Tbilisi.