Georgy Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza
Georgia continues to discuss constitutional reform. Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili doesn’t want to share real power not only with the president, but also with any of his successors after the October presidential elections, when the amendments to the constitution begin their operation. They were developed by the constitutional committee headed by the former chairman of the Constitutional Court Avtandil Demetrashvili.
He proposed a model which is called “French," the president is elected by the population, but the government is formed not by the head of the state, but by the parliamentary majority. That is why the president and the prime minister often belong to different political camps, but it doesn’t ruin cooperation due to old democratic traditions, high culture, the developed political system, and strong civil society of France.
But what will be consequences of separation of power in Georgia? In the Georgian situation “the French model” can fail and become a source of constant conflicts as two centers of power replace one center. Moreover, they are equal in influence and capacities. That is why the Republican Party and other groups presented in the ruling coalition of Georgian Dream suggest cancelation of presidential pan-national elections and shifting to a pure parliamentary model when a nominal head of the state is elected by the parliament.
However, this initiative by Ivanishvili and his close supporters doesn’t satisfy not only the party of President Saakashvili, but also powerful groups of the ruling coalition. For example, the minister of defense and the leader of Free Democrats Irakly Alasania is one of them. According to social polls, he surpassed any possible candidates, including pro-presidential candidates and the former speaker Nino Burdzhanadze.
Vestnik Kavkaza asked for comments from the initiator of “the French system” Avtandil Demetrashvili.
- Many leaders of Georgian Dream call for cancellation of direct presidential elections, but it contradicts the model which was developed by you. What do you think about “indirect” presidential elections?
- It is too early to make long-prospect conclusions because it is unclear what they mean under “indirect elections.” “Indirect elections” of president may involve a group of electoral delegates. or the parliament, or participation of regions, and so on. According to previous proposals, the president might be elected by an electoral group – darbazi – which involves MPs and representatives of major municipalities. I don’t know what they mean exactly when they say the president should be elected indirectly. If they mean the president to be elected by the parliament, it is absolutely unacceptable.
- Why? Such a form of elections is common for many countries of the world…
- In Georgia a parliamentary republic with a nominal president would be ineffective and it can lead to permanent governmental and parliamentary crises. Moreover, when the ruling coalition has almost constitutional majority in the parliament, an alternative power center is needed to balance the situation. In other case we will move toward a one-party system, which is disastrous for democracy. It is obvious that if the president is elected by the parliament, it would elect a representative of the ruling coalition Georgian Dream. It means a solid vertical of power would be formed. The solid power structure is never effective either in political sphere or in socio-economic direction.
According to the initial project, this issue had to be solved within a new territorial-administrative structure. I.e. establishing of major territorial entities instead of current districts. In this case it would be reasonable to involve representatives of these territorial entities into presidential elections. Thus, the president will have a high level of legitimacy.
- Two years ago in an interview to Vestnik Kavkaza you said that after the reform the president would still have significant power, but power of the prime minister would improve greatly. Probably supporters of the parliamentary elections are afraid of a permanent competition between power branches and dual power.
- It is not dual power, but cooperation between power branches. As we all know separation of powers means three components. Firstly, the powers should be separated from each other. Secondly, they have to control each other within the system of checks and balances. Thirdly, cooperation is required in favor of supreme state interests. As Georgian Dream almost has the constitutional majority, their control over the president will destroy the system of checks and balances. To tell the truth the balance is ruined under the current system as well, but in favor of President, but Saakashvili cannot use it due to his low level of legitimacy.
- Your model resembles “the French system” of separation of powers. Will it do well in Georgia, considering absence of high political culture and weakness of democratic traditions?
- It is a serious problem. I would also add weakness of civil society and underdevelopment of the party system. In fact we have only two parties: Georgian Dream and the United National Movement. In this context establishing a parliamentary republic is senseless. The system which begins its operation in few months is “a mixed model.” The president will be an alternative center of power. Why do we need a nominal, symbolic president? Then, let’s return to the constitution of 1921 when Georgia had no president at all.
