Constitutional law expert Chokoraia: ruling party knows well even 1% of emigrants cannot return to vote

Against the backdrop of major shifts in the political landscape, the ruling Georgian Dream party has recently introduced a series of key and controversial decisions that have sparked widespread public debate. These include abolishing the administrative unit created on the territory of the former South Ossetian Autonomous District, restricting voting rights for Georgian emigrants in parliamentary elections and dissolving the Anti-Corruption Bureau along with the Business Ombudsman’s Office. Constitutional law expert Kote Chokoraia evaluates these developments from a legal standpoint in an interview with Front News. He links most of the decisions to political motives and budget optimisation and asserts that restricting voting rights constitutes a gross violation of democratic principles.

Q. Georgian Dream has abolished the administrative-territorial unit established on the territory of the former South Ossetian Autonomous District. From a legal standpoint, what does this decision mean and what does it change?

A. I believe this decision is more political and less legal. The so-called South Ossetia administration, as an institution formed in 2006, did not previously have such a defined legal status. The term “South Ossetian district” existed only in the Constitution. The creation of this administrative unit back then had a predominantly political purpose. I do not know what the Government's motivation is now. However, I believe its existence in this form was important in terms of relations with a legitimate authority. I will not go further into political evaluations, because this is largely a political matter.

Q. Under the ruling party’s decision, Georgian citizens living abroad will no longer be able to vote in parliamentary elections outside Georgia. How do you assess this decision?

A. We also heard claims from the Government that our citizens abroad are allegedly influenced by someone. But we all know that the vast majority live in the free world - EU countries and the United States. No one can seriously argue that they are manipulated. Most left the country for social reasons; some are involved in academic work, others studying. They do not deserve to be portrayed as people under someone’s influence.

The real reason is political, because election results abroad differ drastically from domestic results. The Government cannot falsify results there and external interference is impossible, which is a problem for the Georgian Dream. They see that their results abroad are extremely poor.

Overall, restricting voting rights sets a very dangerous precedent. Democracy and our Constitution is based on public participation in governing the country and elections are the clearest expression of this. Regardless of political difficulty, it must be up to citizens to decide whom they support. All Georgian citizens must have the opportunity to vote.

This means the government has a positive obligation: to consider how many citizens live abroad and take steps to ensure the maximum number of them can vote, opening polling stations wherever possible. In past elections, many polling stations were not opened despite large Georgian communities. Most emigrants are not even officially registered; many lack proper documents. Traveling thousands of kilometers just to vote is unrealistic. Once every four years the government must put aside political interests and ask citizens directly whom they support.

Q. How realistic is it that emigrants will return to vote? What percentage could physically come to Georgia on election day?

A. It is unrealistic for a significant share of emigrants to return on election day. Take Georgians in the United States - most lack legal documents. If you tell them they must come to Georgia to retain their voting rights, you are effectively taking that right away. It is obvious, and the Government knows very well, that not even one percent of emigrants could return to Georgia to vote. The costs and logistical challenges are enormous. The ruling party knows this perfectly well.

Q. The Government is also abolishing the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Business Ombudsman’s Office, saying this will strengthen constitutional governance and improve resource efficiency. What is your view?

A. This is likely a cost-cutting measure. Functionally, whatever the Anti-Corruption Bureau was doing will continue somewhere else. And none of these institutions were independent from the Georgian Dream anyway. No one seriously believes the Anti-Corruption Bureau was independent. The EU demanded its creation so that a truly independent body could investigate corruption within the Government. We have seen nothing of the sort.

Q. The Government claims the Bureau was imposed externally and was not a constitutional body. Is this argument valid?

A. Saying its creation was imposed from outside is absurd. Then let's call things by their real names - who is a partner and who is not? If the US and EU are not partners, then say so openly. If Russia is, then say that. This sounds more like propaganda than a legal argument.

Q. What happens with enforcement of the transparency law, which targets the media and NGOs? Who will oversee it now?

A. Likely the functions will shift to the State Audit Office through legislative amendments. The government has no intention of abandoning supervisory powers. If the Anti-Corruption Bureau had them, they would be transferred to the Audit Office.

Q. Georgian Dream has appealed to dissolve certain parties, while opposition parties have filed separate complaints. What do you expect from the Constitutional Court?

A. Georgian Dream’s lawsuit demands dissolution of certain parties. Prior to that, they amended the law to enable banning individuals from political activity, though this request is not included in the current lawsuit, they are only asking for party dissolution.

The Court legally has nine months to issue a ruling. But we know cases that drag on for years, others resolve quickly. The Court may start reviewing one lawsuit and stall the others. The opposition’s lawsuit will at least demonstrate how groundless the ruling party’s arguments are.