Democratic Development and Human Rights in Georgia

*Editor’s Note: In view of democracy and human rights, Georgia has made considerable progress since the ‘Rose Revolution.’ The political system in Georgia is in transition to a well-formed, crystalized society, with frequent adjustments to the balance of power between the President and Parliament. The following article on the recent developments of politics in Georgia has been provided by the Embassy of Georgia to the Republic of Korea.

Last year’s parliamentary election resulted in the first precedent of peaceful transfer of power in Georgia. In its work, the new government pays special attention to the rule of law, effective implementation of democratic reforms, and protection of human rights.

Reports by international organizations, local NGOs and the Georgian Public Defender confirm the new government is facing a lamentable heritage from the previous government in terms of democracy and human rights. An utterly grievous situation has been recorded in regards to constitutional balance, justice, freedom of press, torture, violation of property rights, and other directions.

The 2004 constitutional amendments eradicated the system of checks and balances, creating an immensely powerful presidential institution and an executive branch of government, which entailed the dominance of the executive over the parliament and Judiciary. It has been clear throughout the years that the Parliament of Georgia was unable to control the executive branch and Judiciary was under the influence of the Executive.

The constitutional system of checks and balances has deteriorated through the years, instead of serving as a guarantee of democratic development in any country. The United National Movement held a constitutional majority in the previous two convocations of the parliament, triggering frequent and unjustifiable constitutional amendments. There was no political or public actor (civil society) in the country to counterbalance the power of the ruling party even to a little degree. The decision-making process ignored civil society and opposition political parties.

The media were also powerless to have a positive impact on these processes as the three largest television channels, including Public Broadcaster, exclusively carried out government propaganda. The owners of the private TV Channels Rustavi-2 and Imedi TV were registered in offshore zones and have been managed by the former high rank officials. All three reportedly had close ties to the government, generally had a pro-government editorial policy, and were the largest providers of coverage on a national level, while the coverage areas of more or less critical media outlets were extremely limited.

The accountability of the government was infinitesimal despite the eradication of low-level corruption and service delivery improvements. The process of investigation has revealed large-scale elite corruption, as well as cases of money laundering and pressure on business, which has been previously pointed out systematically by non-governmental organizations and political parties.

The political domination of the ruling party was present in all the agencies that were supposed to be free from political influence by authority of the constitution and legislation. Such agencies include the State Audit Office, the National Bank, the Judiciary, the Police, etc.

The Election Code created an absolutely biased and unfair electoral environment in which the ruling political force, as it has been confirmed by all local and international observers, retained the broad ability to abuse administrative resources.
As a result of the 2012 parliamentary election, a new parliamentary majority and a new government have been formed. The Government of Georgia demonstrates clear and unflagging will to respect Democratic Values, Rule of Law and Human Rights. In many decisions and actions of the new government one can find evidences to that. Even superficial analysis of the initiated reforms, condition of Human Rights and governments approach towards the independent institutions will make it clear that Rule of Law and Democracy are the primary values of the acting Government of Georgia.

It has been confirmed by leading international organizations that the state agencies that are supposed to be independent, have been politicized and at some instances acting against law. Numerous violations of law have been noted in the work of the courts, the State Audit Office, the National Communications Commission, and other agencies, therefore providing legal grounds and high public demand for investigating their performance, the government nonetheless exercises caution and prudence, lest a new type of political influence replace the old one, enabling reforms to ensure the independence of these institutions instead. All these agencies continue their work with the same composition as they had before the elections. The goal of the government is to ensure that they never wind up under political influence and that no political processes or election results ever have impact on their performance.

The branches of government reclaimed their functions for the first time in the past nine years. Despite the defective and unjustifiable constitutional regulations, signs of checks and balances have surfaced in practice. The parliamentary majority would not support the principle position of the Minister of Internal Affairs on an important law, which has not happened in Georgia in years. In addition, criticism of particular steps taken by the government is often voiced by the majority, which is an indicator of the empowerment of parliamentary control. The process of formation of a new government naturally brought about main results in terms of ensuring freedom of the judiciary from governmental pressure.
The main problem of the extreme loyalty of the judiciary to the Prosecutor General’s Office was solved instantaneously. Nonetheless, the judiciary faces a multitude of problems, and achieving independence will require reforms.

Constitutional reform is necessary to restore balance between the branches of government. For the first time during last 9 years there is no constitutional majority in the parliament, therefore parliamentarian majority needs consent from the opposition to impose the constitutional system of checks and balances. The parliament is planning to start open and transparent process of drafting constitutional amendments, which will involve all the relevant and interested stakeholders, including representatives of the civil society and international constitutional experts.

Although the judiciary has been criticized most and there has been public demand to carry out dramatic reforms; the government opted for an extremely cautious method of reform that is based on recommendations by non-governmental organizations. This reform will aim to empower democratic processes and individual judges in the judiciary system, so that the previously exercised influence may never reoccur.

The media have been freed completely from governmental pressure which they have been experiencing throughout the years. The private television company Imedi – which was taken away from its lawful owner in 2007 through harsh violations of the law and by means of force – was returned to its lawful owner in accordance with the will of its legal guardians and without any interference. The existence of more pluralistic media and their accessibility is evident. It is important that there are a multitude of media outlets inclined to criticize the government, this fact being more than welcome by the authorities.

The government pays special attention to public engagement and takes into account criticism and comments provided by civil society. A number of formats have been developed with a view to ensure the engagement of the non-governmental sector in this process, including those who now have been provided with the ability to monitor penitentiaries. In addition, previously only formally existing formats that were unable to ensure public engagement have been actively put into practice, including interagency boards. Several initiatives by the government have been halted or modified in compliance with critical public opinion. The parliament unequivocally confirmed its will to take into account recommendations by the Venice Commission concerning important draft laws.

Despite these positive changes that have been recorded within the first 100 days of the new government, numerous problems and challenges remain, including the transitional justice stage which requires a cautious and yet decisive approach, as well as certain unrest at the local level, which has entailed unpleasant processes in local self-governments, and the numerous problems inherited from the previous government. However, the government and the parliament have demonstrated their true and honest will to respect the rule of law, democratic values, and human rights. Accordingly, all problems will be addressed in accordance with this will.

On one hand, impunity from prosecution for various types of grievous crimes has been widespread throughout the recent years. On the other hand, due to the zero tolerance policy and political bias of the judiciary, unsubstantiated and unlawful court decisions used to be frequent phenomena.

As mentioned above, judicial independence has been one of the major problems in the recent years. Political influence has been clearly present, and so has the total loyalty of judges to investigative agencies, which left the citizen absolutely unprotected when facing the state. Although serious steps have been taken to eradicate corruption in the judiciary and improve justice administration, the issue of independence has entailed complications.

When discussing judicial independence, special attention must be paid to the results of analyses carried out by local NGOs, which emphasize the fact of existence of influence groups within the judiciary and the dearth of true self-governance.
In the wake of the results of the 2012 parliamentary election, after a new government was formed, the unlawful link between investigative agencies and courts was naturally broken. The dominance of a different political force naturally resolved the problem of the loyalty of judges to prosecutors.

The judiciary has a lot of ground to cover to reach full independence and professionalism. However, breaking the line of unconditional loyalty between the executive and judiciary is an insufficient, though positive phenomenon in itself.
In addition, having taken into consideration recommendations by NGOs, the Ministry of Justice developed a draft law on changes to be made within the framework of reforms. The whole idea of these changes lies in the empowerment of the self-governance of judges, growth of their role, and improvement of the transparency of the judiciary.

After September 2012, when vast video materials depicting torture in prison were made public, the fact that torture is a systemic problem in Georgia ceased to be contested. This problem had been pointed out by local NGOs, the Public Defender, and international organizations even earlier. No feedback, however, had been provided on this issue in years, which encouraged torture and inhuman treatment in the penitentiary system even further.

According to the Human Rights Watch 2013 Report, “Georgia’s print media presents diverse political views, but nationwide television broadcasting was limited to the state-funded public broadcaster and two pro-government stations, which were often biased in favor of the government.”

The media has been freed from the previously existing governmental pressure. Accessibility to much more pluralistic information is clearly evident, including information containing sharp criticism of the current government.
The private company Imedi TV – which was taken away from its lawful owner in 2007 through harsh violations of the law and by means of force – was returned to its lawful owner in accordance with the will of its legal guardians and without any interference.

Investigation of cases of pressure on journalists and interference with their professional duties has been launched. Unhindered transmission of the signals of various Georgian television channels by cable companies continues.
Nonetheless, the Parliament of Georgia considers the introduction of robust legislative  guarantees(such as must carry and must-offer regulations which were enforced by the prevision government only through the election period), so that television companies may not encounter artificial obstacles in the process of transmitting their signals in the future.