Georgian Gov’t knows it’s adopting stillborn law on banning parties, constitutional expert Alapishvili

In an interview with Front News, constitutional expert Levan Alapishvili discusses the Georgian government’s decision to delay its move to ban the United National Movement, a former ruling party between 2004-2012, and affiliated political groups. He examines the legal flaws, possible political motivations, and implications for democracy in Georgia.

Front News: The government has postponed, by one month, its decision to ban the United National Movement and other affiliated parties, citing the extension of the parliamentary investigative commission’s mandate on alleged crimes by the UNM while in office. What, in your view, is the real motive behind this delay? How credible is the official explanation?

Levan Alapishvili: In a democratic country, it’s unacceptable to make such serious legislative decisions amid gross political interference. This isn’t just a routine legal issue – we’re talking about a major political move. The postponement reminds me of the earlier ‘Russian law’ [a controversial law by the ruling Georgian Dream party on the transparency of foreign influence] attempt. It failed both legally and practically, and I suspect the government is now trying to repackage it as something new – perhaps a different version of a ‘foreign agent’ law. That’s one reason for the delay.

They understand perfectly well that banning a party won’t eliminate its influence. These political leaders won’t disappear from public life. They’ll just rejoin politics under a different name, or through a new party. This legal maneuver won’t stop them – it’s misleading to suggest otherwise.

Front News: The ruling party has indicated that it doesn’t just intend to ban the party but also prevent its leaders – those facing criminal charges – from engaging in political activity or forming new parties. Is that even legally possible?

Levan Alapishvili: No, it’s not. Even if a court bans a political party, that decision applies only to the organization itself – not to the individual citizens within it. For example, if you and I are members of a party that gets dissolved, the decision doesn’t affect us personally. We retain our full constitutional rights to form a new political party, join another one, or run in elections. There is nothing in Georgian law that allows a court to ban individuals from political participation on the basis of party membership.

Front News: To clarify – if Georgian Dream were to ask the court to ban political figures like former President Mikheil Saakashvili, opposition leaders and former officials under the UNM Nika Gvaramia, or Nika Melia from all political activity, would the court have the power to do so?

Levan Alapishvili: Absolutely not. Not in Georgia – and not even in Russia. Even in Russia, while parties may be banned, individual political rights are not formally revoked. Imagine trying to document and ban political activity for hundreds of individual citizens. The government doesn’t even have an exact list of every party member. Only the party leadership would know that. So how would the court prohibit each of these people from future political involvement? The Constitution simply doesn’t allow for that.

The Constitutional Court can rule on the legality of a political association, but it cannot strip individual citizens of their political rights. This would turn into a never-ending game – like Tom and Jerry. People would just reappear under different party names. The government knows this and is likely trying to save face with their base.

Front News: The government is also planning to tighten regulations on how NGOs receive grants. The new law would require government approval for receiving foreign funding. Could such a law actually be enforced?

Levan Alapishvili: This also reminds me of their earlier failed attempt – the original ‘Russian law’. Even Mamuka Mdinaradze [the Executive Secretary of the ruling party] admitted that it didn’t work. NGOs were too well-prepared. The same will happen with this new initiative.

Grants often come from foreign governments or organizations. A Georgian NGO leader can simply go abroad – say, to Estonia or Armenia – sign a grant agreement there, and operate under that country’s legal framework. The Georgian government would have no authority or leverage to interfere. If the funds are transferred and managed outside Georgia’s jurisdiction, what can the government do? Nothing. It’s a legal reality.

Front News: The government claims this law is necessary to prevent politically affiliated NGOs from financing unrest or revolutionary scenarios. How valid is this justification?

Levan Alapishvili: It doesn’t hold up. Take this example: I apply for and receive a grant from Estonia to support democratic development in the region. I sign the agreement in Estonia and open a bank account there. Once the funds are transferred, what can the Georgian government possibly do? Nothing at all. I am operating fully within the laws of another country.

This is so basic that even a first-year law student would understand it. That’s why it’s hard to believe this is truly about controlling funding. It’s more likely about intimidating the third sector.

Front News: If the government knows this, why pursue such legally flawed initiatives?

Levan Alapishvili: There are a few possible reasons. One is intimidation – creating a chilling effect by threatening fines or legal obstacles. Another is political theater. The investigative commission, for instance, has no real legal significance. It’s a way to create an illusion of action and feed a narrative to loyal voters.

They are simply recycling the idea of banning the UNM, dressing it up differently each time. It’s not about legal effectiveness – it’s about maintaining control over the political narrative and keeping their voter base engaged.

 

Interview by: Elza Paposhvili