The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) has responded to a draft law registered in Parliament, which aims to amend the Organic Laws on “Citizens’ Political Associations” and the “Constitutional Court of Georgia.”

According to GYLA, the draft law initiated by the one-party Parliament of "Georgian Dream" seeks to eliminate political opponents, intensify recent rhetoric and propaganda, destroy healthy opposition in the long term, and establish a one-party authoritarian regime in the country.

"The proposed amendments contradict the principle of pluralistic democracy and disproportionately restrict not only the current but also newly established parties in the future. Furthermore, with vague legislative criteria and the Constitutional Court—subject to political influence—being granted unlimited interpretative powers, the amendments will weaken opposition parties, create artificial barriers for the formation of future political forces, and ultimately lead to their abolition in the current political context.

A modern free democratic order includes multi-party systems, political pluralism, and equality among parties. In a democracy, the existence of political actors—parties—with different ideologies and views is an essential feature of political pluralism.

Given the importance of political parties, interference in their activities, banning, or dissolving them poses one of the greatest threats to democracy. Although democratic systems do allow for party bans as part of what is known as ‘defensive democracy,’ such actions are among the most dangerous and consequential. Banning a party automatically leads to the suspension of its political activities, exclusion from elections, and disconnection from the electorate. According to the Venice Commission, banning a political party is an extreme measure and should be used with maximum caution. In democratic states, very high standards must apply, including impartial court decisions with proper justification, and the process must be as free from politics as possible.

The proposed legislative changes would allow banning so-called ‘successor’ parties that essentially replicate the goals or core activities of a party already banned by the Constitutional Court. Notably, the ‘core activity’ of a party includes its personnel, including the list of party representatives in the election commission. However, similarity in personnel to a banned party does not automatically imply identical goals—further context is necessary to determine this. Additionally, the amendments set specific timeframes for reviewing constitutional complaints: 9 months under ordinary circumstances and 14 days during election periods.

Under the current legislation, the Constitutional Court can ban a party if its aim is to overthrow or violently alter the constitutional order, harm the country’s independence, violate its territorial integrity, promote war or violence, incite ethnic, regional, religious, or social hostility, or if it creates or has created an armed formation. The standard timeframe for reviewing such cases is 9 months. The new amendments introduce the concept of banning “successor” parties whose activities essentially mirror those of their predecessors.

Furthermore, GYLA notes that the initiative to abolish parties serves to "purge" the political field, remove opponents, and strengthen anti-democratic propaganda.

"Given that 'Georgian Dream' has captured virtually all democratic institutions, including the Constitutional Court, it is expected that the party will be able to ban political parties easily, without the necessary legal justification, factual evidence, or adherence to international standards on freedom of association. The banning of ‘successor’ parties and the wide interpretative scope of this concept will hinder the emergence of new political forces. The Constitutional Court, equipped with limitless interpretative authority and guided by political agendas, will be able to prohibit activities of any new party under the umbrella of a ‘successor’ party—even if that party does not actually fall under this definition—if it is deemed undesirable for the ruling party’s narrow political interests.

There is also a risk of interpretation regarding what constitutes a ‘successor’ party and the criteria the Constitutional Court will use to make such a determination. The law explicitly refers to the party’s 'personnel,' which could become a tool not only for banning parties but also for persecuting specific individuals.

Moreover, it is particularly questionable whether the Constitutional Court will be able to conduct a complete and fair review of a constitutional complaint regarding a party ban within just 14 days during the election period. As stated, banning a party is a complex and multi-faceted issue that requires a reasonable timeframe to evaluate all evidence thoroughly, hear all parties, and make such a significant decision only after proper deliberation," the statement concludes.