GEORGIA: AGREE ON “RULES OF THE GAME” BEFOREHAND
Noyan Tapan
11.05.2011
(Noyan Tapan – 11.05.2011) by David Petrosian
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs Tina Kaidanow has visited the South Caucasus and had a number
of important meetings in the capital of Georgia – in addition to
meetings in Baku and Yerevan. As is known, parliamentary elections
are due in Georgia in 2012 and presidential elections will be held
there in 2013.
With the approach of spring, a complex political process linked to
harmonization of the main provisions of the Electoral Code has begun
in Georgia. In early April eight opposition parties of the country
presented several proposals for reforms of the Electoral Law to the
Georgian authorities.
According to Georgian news agencies, the opposition’s proposals boil
down to two versions of reforming the Electoral Code. In particular:
– in accordance with the first version, half of the total number of
deputies of the parliament consisting of 150 members shall be elected
in single-seat majoritarian electoral districts, as envisaged by the
current rules. However, in order to win, a candidate has to obtain over
50% of votes instead of 30% as envisaged now, or a second round of
voting shall be held between the two candidates to have received the
best results. At the same time, at the suggestion of the opposition,
the right to present majoritarian candidates shall be given only to
parties rather than to pressure groups; based on OSCE recommendations,
the ruling party insists on the latter option,
-The opposition-suggested second version of an electoral system
envisages that two thirds of parliament deputies shall be elected by
the proportional system and one third of deputies – in single-seat
majoritarian districts with a 50% election threshold. It means that 100
deputies will be elected by the party list system, while 50 deputies
– by majoritarian rules instead of the current 75/75. This version
makes it necessary to revise the existing boundaries of majoritarian
districts.
It is obvious that the Georgian opposition strives to increase the
number of seats by the proportional system in the future composition
of the legislative body. In this sense its demands coincide with
the tendencies in Armenia in recent years when the opposition has
demanded an increase in the number of parliament deputies elected by
the proportional system. As is known, 90 of the 131 deputies of the
Armenian parliament are currently elected by the proportional system.
These demands have to do with the fact that the majoritarian system
is better “tied” to “administrative resources”, i.e. it is the most
convenient one for any incumbent authorities. In each of the South
Caucasian countries, the authorities control most of the information
resources, in addition to financial and administrative resources.
Under the conditions of such a resource imbalance, the opposition
demands holding elections with the predominance of deputies elected
by the proportional system in the future parliament. In this case
the opposition having far less resources hopes to concentrate its
capabilities and to get if not a chance of winning, then in any event,
to try to extend its presence in the parliament.
So in this matter the tendencies in Armenia and Georgia are quite
similar. Azerbaijan is a different matter: its authorities are
unwilling to make any concessions and they intentionally hold
parliamentary elections only by the majoritarian system. The result
is obvious: in the last parliamentary elections, no representative
of the real Azerbaijani opposition got a seat in the parliament.
Besides, during negotiations with the authorities, the opposition
representatives give priority to making voters’ list based on
biometrical ID cards of citizens throughout Georgia, and not only in
Tbilisi – whereas the ruling party insists on the latter option.
On May 5 Georgia’s ruling party United National Movement (deputy Akakiy
Minashvili made the respective statement) and the oppositionists
confirmed that consultations on issues of the electoral reform were
being held individually, but the sides refrained from giving details
of the negotiations. The leader of the Republican Party of Georgia
David Berdzenishvili declared that one meeting with representatives
of the authorities had already taken place.
In the words of D. Berdzenishvili, despite the authorities’ attempt
to conduct separate negotiations with each of the eight opposition
political parties, one person represents “the group of eight” at
the negotiations.
Earlier, from November of last year to March of this year, the
negotiations between the opposition and the ruling party on amendments
to the Electoral Code were conducted in a somewhat different format
with the mediation of the International Foundation for Electoral
Systems (IFES). The negotiations have not produced any meaningful
results.
To judge by the meetings of Tina Kaidanow with the authorities and the
opposition in Tbilisi, also by the statements she made in Tbilisi,
Washington is doing its best to ensure a dialog, and the Americans
consider it important to achieve results of that dialog before the
elections. The U.S. Ambassador to Georgia John R. Bass declared that.
In connection with the above-mentioned and based on the information
received from Tbilisi, we incline to believe that:
-The ruling party and the authorities have taken a tough position in
their negotiations with the opposition, and in fact, the negotiations
are at a standstill. Taking into account the circumstance that the
eight opposition parties constitute a constructive opposition, the
ruling party’s tough position at the negotiations may provoke more
radical political structures in Georgia into mass actions,
– Washington does not want any political upheavals in Georgia and for
that reason it gradually seeks such a situation, in which the main
political players will agree on the “Rules of the Game” beforehand,
– We do not rule out that Mikheil Saakashvili and his supporters will
not be among the favorites of the U.S. at the next parliamentary
elections in Georgia. Getting into a tough political clinch with
Moscow, Saakashvili causes Washington’s annoyance to some extent. For
the U.S., at least at the present stage, it is important to establish
a balanced, pragmatic and constant dialog with Moscow and to have
its support in much more global and crisis affairs, including
with the framework of the United Nations Security Council. The old
and potential conflicts of Georgia with Russia (for example, the
discourse about the possibility of recognition of the Circassian
Genocide in the 19th century by the Georgian parliament, etc)
create prerequisites for further worsening of Russian-Georgian
relations. Naturally, Moscow accuses the Americans as Georgia’s ally
of supporting destabilizing processes in the North Caucasus. It is
possible that in this situation Washington would like to see saner
and less emotional and confrontational leadership in Tbilisi, which
would stabilize, at least nominally, relations with Moscow.