EurasiaNet Civil Society - Georgian Opposition Cries Foul Over By-Elections

CIVIL SOCIETY

GEORGIAN OPPOSITION CRIES FOUL OVER BY-ELECTIONS
Vladic Ravich 8/08/05

Editors Note: Updated 8/9/05 to note Tina Khidasheli's resignation in the eighth paragraph.

A war of words is gathering steam after Georgia’s Central Election Commission revoked the registration papers for one leading opposition group. The decision, coming on the heels of the commission’s rejection of an opposition-sponsored referendum for direct mayoral elections, has fueled opposition claims that the government has little tolerance for political dissent. The government has dismissed the claims as groundless. Meanwhile, in one of the first attempts at coordinated opposition since the 2003 Rose Revolution, four Georgian opposition parties have announced plans to join forces for this fall’s parliamentary by-elections.

On August 5, the Republican Party, a former member of the National Movement, announced that its registration papers had been revoked. In response, the party has announced that it plans to boycott the October 1 parliamentary by-election, a poll seen by some local observers as a key test for various political reforms introduced by President Mikheil Saakashvili.

The Central Election Commission, reformed in June, revoked the Republicans’ registration after allegedly detecting mistakes in its registration form.

Speaking to reporters, Republican Party chairman David Usupashvili, a constitutional law expert, argued that the decision was designed to prevent the party’s participation in the by-elections. In July, an election alliance was announced between the Republicans and three other opposition groups � the Labor, Conservative and New Rights Parties.

"It is clear that, ahead of the elections, the authorities are trying to get rid of their most dangerous opponent, the Georgian Republican Party," Imedi television quoted Usupashvili as saying. "It is obvious that, instead of preparing for an honest electoral struggle,the authorities are trying to drag the Republican Party into a struggle without rules."

Subsequent attempts to re-register have been "unsuccessful," Usupashvili said, because of flaws that the CEC claims still remain in the party’s documents.

Particular Republican Party ire has been focused on the autonomous republic of Adjara, where support for the party runs strongest. The Adjaran Supreme Council, or legislature, recently passed a law that would bar members from standing in elections for the Georgian parliament. Usupashvili argued that the legislation was intended to target Republican Party activist Giorgi Masalkin, a member of the Adjaran Supreme Council.

Instead of focusing on this fall’s by-elections, the Republicans will concentrate on nationwide local elections in 2006, Usupashvili said. Usupashvili’s wife, Tina Khidasheli, former head of the influential Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, will run the local elections campaign. Upon assuming her new campaign role she submitted her resignation as board chair of the the Open Society Georgia Foundation. [EurasiaNet.org operates under the auspices of the New York-based Open Society Institute, which is also part of the Soros Foundations network.]

Responding on Rustavi-2 television, CEC Chairman Gia Kavtaradze, called the charges "groundless and rather incompetent." The Republican Party’s registration had been revoked, he said, because it had failed to specify the responsibilities of its official representative. A similar problem had occurred with the Conservative Party, Kavtaradze said, but was quickly corrected. If the Republicans amend their registration, Kavtaradze stressed, the party "will have no difficulty registering as far as we are concerned."

Meanwhile, four opposition parties � the Conservative, Labor, New Rights and Freedom Parties -- announced plans on August 5 to hold primaries to select single candidates to run in the October elections. Conservative Party leader Koba Davitashvili stated that the primaries would give "the authorities and society an example of how democratic elections should be held." New Rights leader David Gamkrelidze added, however, that the agreement does not mean the creation of a single opposition bloc. Nominations for the primaries will be made on August 8, though a date for the vote has not yet been announced.

Georgia’s opposition parties have shown increasing signs of unity of late. In mid-July, they took aim at a law passed by parliament that provides for election of the Tbilisi City Council through a "winner takes all" system and the indirect election of the city mayor by Council members.

On July 15, the CEC rejected an opposition-sponsored request to begin collecting signatures for a referendum on the direct election of Georgia’s mayors. The opposition parties have called the decision "absurd," and claim that the CEC acts as an appendage of the presidential administration. The CEC was restructured earlier this year by a committee organized by former Presidential Administration Chief of Staff Gigi Ugulava, recently appointed mayor of Tbilisi. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In an interview with EurasiaNet, however, CEC Chairman Gia Kavtaradze argued that only legal considerations dictated the commission’s decision. The referendum question did not meet Article 10 of "The Law of Georgia on Referendum," which stipulates that the name, surname and residence of each of the members of the sponsoring group be specified and that the question "be formulated . . . clearly and concretely," he said.

The question submitted for the referendum would ask voters: "Do you agree or not that mayors/district heads of all settlements in Georgia should be elected through a direct vote by the residents of these settlements?"

Kavtaradze said the application form lacked several addresses and criticized the question as not being clear and concrete. "The question must be put in a way that there is no possible vague answer," said Kavtaradze, "If I say no [to this referendum], what’s the result? No mayor at all? No elections?"

Kavtaradze also took issue with asking voters who live in areas that already elect their own mayors to answer such a question. "[For example,] [w]e have no capital punishment in Georgia," he said, "So can you ask as a referendum question �Do you want to abolish capital punishment?’"

Kavtaradze claimed that he had discussed these issues with the opposition personally and in writing, but noted that "they were too stubborn to make any [significant] changes." "They wanted us to say �no,’ and we said �no.’," he added. Six of CEC members voted to reject the referendum and one voted to approve it.

Irakli Melashvili, a member of the grassroots movement Forum for Welfare and Democracy who worked on preparing the referendum, took a different tact. Melashvili dismissed the CEC’s legal arguments as "unconstitutional," claiming that the commission was acting beyond its legal mandate "and inventing a lie." The Forum for Welfare and Democracy and the Republican and Conservative Parties are waiting for an official explanation of the rejections and then plan to resubmit a modified question, he said. If the referendum is again rejected, he said, the group will appeal in court.

This is not the first time that such a referendum has come before the CEC. On September 1, 1997, a coalition of parties applied to the commission to register a referendum that asked voters whether "the head of the executive bodies of all local authorities" should be elected or not. The referendum was rejected. Lack of control over Georgia’s legally constituted territory was cited as the reason.

Editor�s Note: Vladic Ravich is a freelance journalist previously based in Tbilisi.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.