How Does Georgian Dream Plan to Ban Political Opponents?
Date: 20 November 2024
The Georgian Elections Observatory (GEO) is a short-term initiative focused on fact-checking pre-election narratives leading up to the crucial parliamentary elections on October 26. What sets this project apart from traditional fact-checking platforms is that it doesn't just address specific claims but examines entire narratives, offering political analysis alongside fact-checking and media analysis. This project is powered by the Fojo Swedish Media Institute in partnership with Investigative Media Lab (IML) and the UG Security, Politicy, & Nationalism Research Center (UGSPN).
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in these stories do not necessarily reflect those of the listed organizations.
Although the Central Election Commission results show that Georgian Dream failed to secure a constitutional majority, the ruling party’s leaders still spoke of banning the opposition. But what difference would a constitutional majority make when, according to the constitution, only the Constitutional Court has the authority to ban political parties?
One of Georgian Dream’s main pre-election promises was to ban opposition parties. The ruling party called for voter support to secure a constitutional majority, aiming to declare the “collective national movement”—including opposition groups such as the United National Movement, Strong Georgia, Coalition for Change, and Gakharia for Georgia—unconstitutional.
“After Georgian Dream’s convincing victory in the October 26, 2024 parliamentary elections, the era of radicals in Georgian politics must come to an end once and for all. If it doesn’t, then we should consider prosecuting the regime for the grave crime they committed in August 2008, which claimed the lives of our citizens and cost us two historic regions of Georgia,” said Bidzina Ivanishvili, Georgian Dream’s Honorary Chairman, during a campaign event in Ozurgeti.
According to the election results, which have been controversial, Georgian Dream did not secure a constitutional majority. Nevertheless, the ruling party has continued to raise the prospect of banning opposition groups. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze suggested that even without a constitutional majority, the government might still consider pursuing this objective.
“We are considering filing a constitutional lawsuit, which requires only a limited number of deputies. This is more than sufficient. If opposition parties persist in defying the constitutional order, we may need to address this issue. However, given the opposition’s weakened state, such measures may not be necessary, although it would likely benefit the country’s long-term stability,” said Kobakhidze.
How can opposition parties be banned in Georgia?
For constitutional expert Kote Chokoraya, it is unclear how the ruling party intended to ban opposition parties, even if they had obtained a constitutional majority, as such a decision can only be made by the Constitutional Court of Georgia.
According to Article 23 of the Georgian Constitution, “a political party can be banned only by the decision of the Constitutional Court, in cases determined by organic law and according to established procedures.”
Kote Chokoraya states that the ruling party likely aimed to introduce a constitutional amendment to ban opposition parties.
“I don’t understand how political parties could be banned with a constitutional majority. For this to be possible, it would need to be explicitly written into the Constitution, essentially creating a document of anti-constitutional content. Perhaps they wanted to bypass the Constitutional Court and incorporate this directly into the Constitution, which would not be a constitutional process,” Chokoraya said in an interview.
The Georgian Constitution upholds multi-party democracy. Article 3 states that “political parties participate in shaping the political will of the people and its implementation.”
The Constitution of Georgia also states that the activities of parties that aim to overthrow or alter the country’s constitutional structure by force, undermine its independence, threaten its territorial integrity, or engage in propaganda of war or violence, as well as those that incite national, ethnic, regional, religious, or social strife, are not allowed in the country.
“When political opponents call each other traitors or criticize one another, that’s not enough to ban a political party. Limiting parties for this reason would amount to totalitarianism. The Soviet Union did this: it banned parties and dissenting opinions,” Chokoraya added.
The idea of banning political parties in Georgia today reminds many of the Soviet Union. Political repression in the Soviet Union reached particularly large-scale proportions in the 1930s, with the primary goal of maintaining political power at all costs. A significant portion of the population had become disillusioned with a system that trampled on human rights. It was also believed that opposition views posed a major threat to the Soviet regime, and the only solution was to suppress dissenting opinions.
Even if the ruling party were to petition the Constitutional Court to ban opposition parties, Chokoraya finds it hard to imagine how such a ruling could be justified.
“I cannot envision how the Constitutional Court judges would draft such a decision. What could they possibly write?” Chokoraya remarked.
POLITICAL ANALYSIS
The question of electoral legitimacy lies at the heart of democracy, directly influencing both domestic stability and engagement with international institutions. In Georgia’s 2024 parliamentary elections, claims of systematic electoral fraud and intimidation tactics have cast a shadow over the results, raising significant concerns among both local and international observers. With the ruling party, Georgian Dream, securing a majority vote amid these allegations, the local opposition parties rejected the results, while various other countries refrained from recognizing the outcome. In countries like Georgia, where aspirations for closer ties with the West are tempered, the legitimacy of elections transcends local politics, impacting foreign aid, international alliances, and the country’s reputation on the world stage.
Electoral legitimacy is essential for any government’s credibility and authority. In democratic societies, the perception that elections are fair and representative is foundational. Without it, public trust erodes, leading to social unrest, political polarization, and ultimately a weakened state. This legitimacy is especially crucial for Georgia, a nation balancing its aspirations for European Union (EU) and NATO integration with internal polarization, illiberal tendencies, and external pressures, notably from Russia. When elections lack credibility, as has been alleged in Georgia’s recent parliamentary elections, this can lead to isolation from Western allies and provide openings for foreign powers—particularly Russia—to influence Georgia’s political trajectory.
The West, including the EU and the United States, has sometimes shown leniency toward minor election irregularities, particularly in fledgling democracies transitioning from authoritarian rule. However, this acceptance depends on the scope and nature of these irregularities. Marginal administrative lapses or isolated misconduct may be overlooked if the general integrity of the process remains intact, as stability is often prioritized over immediate perfection. Yet, systemic issues—such as media restrictions, voter intimidation and fraud, and misuse of state resources, as reported by OSCE/ODIHR and reiterated by US President Joe Biden—shift the threshold for Western tolerance. In Georgia’s case, the EU and several Western countries have refrained from recognizing the results due to the severity of the allegations.
Instances of Western non-recognition have often had serious repercussions. In Belarus (2020), where elections were marred by fraud and violence, the EU and US refused to recognize the results, isolating Belarus internationally and leading to its near-total dependence on Russia. Similarly, in Venezuela (2018), Nicolás Maduro’s contested reelection led to widespread rejection, sanctions, and intensified political and economic crises, reinforcing international support for the opposition. In Myanmar (2021), the military’s takeover and nullification of election results drew swift Western condemnation and sanctions, exacerbating Myanmar’s isolation. In Zimbabwe (2008), pressure from the West over contested election results led to a power-sharing deal, illustrating how non-recognition can sometimes drive positive democratic outcomes.
In the Georgian case, the ruling party’s actions are viewed by many through the lens of “Kremlin-style” tactics, not only for the systematic electoral fraud and breach of constitutional rights (to secrecy and the right to vote), but also for misusing allegedly nonpartisan state institutions, stoking fears, and framing elections as battles for national identity or sovereignty. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s defense of the election results as expressions of the Georgian people’s will contrasts sharply with statements from Baltic, Nordic, and North American leaders who denounced the process as neither free nor fair.
Contested legitimacy has deep implications. Governments perceived as illegitimate struggle to secure foreign investment, maintain internal stability, and attract international aid, as donors often make their support conditional on adherence to democratic standards. Sweden, one of Georgia’s largest aid providers, has already suspended assistance due to election irregularities, while other nations have hinted at similar actions. This curtails Georgia’s economic outlook and raises the likelihood of further isolation from EU partners, complicating its Western integration. Furthermore, countries like Estonia and Lithuania have voiced concerns that Georgia, without a credible democratic process, risks drifting back toward Russian influence, a prospect that runs counter to the aspirations of many Georgians and pro-Western factions within the country.
Given these high stakes, gathering credible evidence of electoral fraud is essential. Documenting and publicizing irregularities can substantiate claims, support international interventions, and empower civil society to demand accountability. This is especially critical in environments where regime-controlled media may obscure election coverage. Verified evidence helps align international support with democratic initiatives, while pressuring governments to address the grievances of their citizenry.
In conclusion, the 2024 Georgian parliamentary election controversy underscores the vital role of electoral legitimacy in fostering both domestic and international stability. Georgia's credibility, its alliances, and its Euro-Atlantic aspirations depend on transparent and accountable governance. Without these, the nation risks isolation and an uncertain future, jeopardizing its place in the Western-aligned community it seeks to join.