Georgia’s Ruling Party Moves to Ban Opposition: Democracy Under Strain

In a dramatic escalation of political tensions, Georgia’s ruling party, Georgian Dream, has initiated legal proceedings with the Constitutional Court to outlaw several prominent opposition parties. This unprecedented move targets nearly all opposition groups that boycotted parliament after last year’s elections, raising serious concerns about the future of multi-party democracy in the South Caucasus nation.

The push to ban comes despite a recent and significant shift within the opposition landscape. The “Gakharia for Georgia” party, after nearly a year-long boycott stemming from alleged electoral irregularities, recently ended its parliamentary abstention. Giorgi Sharashidze, a leading figure in the party, explained their return by asserting that while Georgian Dream had indeed undermined its own legitimacy through unpopular legislation and alleged vote rigging, the radical opposition inadvertently aided the ruling party by orchestrating unrest. From their perspective, continuing the boycott had become unproductive, and refusing to utilize the parliamentary platform was a disservice to their constituents.

However, the return to legislative duties was met with a mixed reception. While “Gakharia for Georgia” members wasted no time in criticizing the government’s perceived assault on democratic principles, they were simultaneously lambasted by ruling party members, who accused them of betrayal. Irakli Kirtkhali, a Georgian Dream member, provocatively stated, “You must be grateful to every member of the majority for giving you the right to sit here today and be called Members of the Parliament of Georgia… Remember one thing: for three years you will have to justify every day that you are not Nazis,” underscoring the deep ideological chasm and hostile environment.

Despite securing 7.76% of the votes and 12 seats in the 150-member legislature, “Gakharia for Georgia” holds little power to influence lawmaking. Yet, their decision keeps them within the legal political framework, a luxury that may soon be denied to others. On October 28, Georgian Dream filed a suit with the Constitutional Court seeking to ban the United National Movement (which garnered 10% of votes), the “For Change” coalition (11%), and “Strong Georgia – Lelo” (8.8%). The government’s premise is that these parties are detrimental to the state, echoing earlier promises from Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze to reduce the number of political forces to a select few, provided they are not “hostile.”

Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili framed the government’s aggressive stance as a necessary defense of democracy. He articulated a doctrine of “defensive democracy,” arguing that certain parties are being used to harm Georgia, to orchestrate undemocratic changes of power, and to promote military propaganda or undermine territorial integrity. Papuashvili stressed, “Our main goal is those political parties that are the main driving force of anti-Georgian and anti-constitutional actions… Democracy must defend itself from enemies of democracy who try to use democratic instruments against it.” He further justified these measures by citing similar actions in other post-Soviet states, specifically mentioning Moldova, which has also moved to ban opposition parties under similar pretexts.

Adding to this narrative, Kakha Kaladze, Secretary General of Georgian Dream and Mayor of Tbilisi, asserted that the government’s primary objective is to purge the country of “foreign agents.” He contended that some political parties are externally managed and serve foreign interests, presenting this as a complex challenge to national sovereignty.

Unsurprisingly, the targeted opposition parties are vowing to fight back. “Strong Georgia – Lelo” has already filed its own appeal with the Constitutional Court, seeking to declare the proposed ban unconstitutional. Giorgi Sioridze, a representative of the party, expressed little faith in the impartiality of the Georgian judiciary and indicated plans to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

A particularly alarming aspect for the opposition is a provision allowing for the prohibition of individuals “associated with” banned organizations from joining or forming other political parties. While Georgian Dream maintains this applies only to party members, human rights advocates fear the lack of clear criteria for defining “association” could lead to a broad disenfranchisement of anyone perceived as sympathetic to the opposition, effectively silencing a significant portion of the electorate.

With Georgian Dream having secured 53.93% of the vote in the 2024 parliamentary elections amidst a 58.94% turnout, critics argue that banning major opposition parties would effectively strip a substantial segment of society of their political representation and voice.

Political analyst Petre Mamradze acknowledged the problem of disenfranchisement but urged caution against exaggerating the scale, noting that the influence of figures like former President Mikheil Saakashvili and his allies has waned significantly since 2020. He suggested that while banning hostile organizations might be insufficient, the government must actively engage with the populace, especially the youth, to educate them on past perceived harms.

Conversely, analyst Nika Chitadze warned that these actions would inevitably strengthen authoritarian tendencies and force the Georgian opposition into further radicalization by denying them legitimate avenues for seeking power. Viktor Kipiani, head of the Geocase analytical center, echoed these concerns, predicting an exacerbation of the political crisis and potential increased pressure from Western partners. He also doubted that parties like “Gakharia for Georgia” would benefit from the clearing of the opposition space, arguing that their return to parliament had already cost them the trust of a critical segment of the public.