“The grounds for the Constitutional Court to accept a case for review are formal, so this does not mean a final decision has been made. However, in Georgia’s case, it is clear that Georgian Dream has sufficient leverage over the Constitutional Court to make it deliver whatever ruling the party wants,” said Vakhushti Menabde, a member of the political movement Social Democracy and a constitutional law expert, on PalitraNews’ program "Day’s Newsroom". He was commenting on the Constitutional Court’s decision to begin reviewing a constitutional lawsuit seeking to ban opposition parties.

According to him, banning political parties is one of the most difficult decisions a democracy can make. Menabde said that, regardless of public attitudes toward particular political parties, very strong arguments are required to justify a ban.

“Political parties represent groups within society in the political arena. When you ban a party, you prohibit the political activity that a segment of citizens considers appropriate. In other words, you tell citizens that their political views are incompatible with the Constitution and that they have no right to participate in politics.

“One of the influential courts in this field is Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, which has two very well-known cases: the case involving a neo-fascist party and the case involving the Communist Party. Both cases date back more than half a century. The court provided several hundred pages of reasoning explaining why those parties were incompatible with the Constitution.

“The fundamental requirement for banning a party is that it must pose a threat to the Constitution.

“This is not about whether you recognize the government or Parliament, whether you consider the judiciary to be controlled by a judicial clan, or even whether you demand the government’s resignation. The issue must be that you reject the fundamental constitutional values and seek to overthrow them by force. This must also be part of a party’s platform, rather than the position of individual members. Therefore, the lawsuit as filed does not meet any of these standards.

“I am a harsh critic of the years when the United National Movement was in power. But even if you believe that every party promotes the wrong ideology, that its views are harmful to the country, or that it employs unacceptable and unethical methods in politics, none of this is sufficient grounds to ban it,” Menabde said.

He also argued that Georgian Dream’s goal was to undermine civil peace.

“Georgian Dream’s objective is to undermine civil peace. It threatens the country’s security not only externally but also through domestic politics - deepening hostility and polarization. This is the only way it can remain in power. The support Georgian Dream enjoys is built on public-sector employment, administrative resources, violence, and intimidation.

“In effect, Georgian Dream is tearing apart and destroying the social fabric of our country because it has no other way to remain in power. Even if the ruling party left office today, we would be left with a deeply damaged society. Polarization has penetrated so deeply that people have been turned against one another. Georgian Dream managed to achieve all this very quickly, driving polarization deep into society within just two years,” Menabde said.

According to him, under the current circumstances, every judge appointed to the Constitutional Court is part of the judicial clan and the judicial establishment controlled by it. He suggested that an agreement between Georgian Dream and the clan appears to ensure that the clan is represented not only in the ordinary courts but also in the Constitutional Court.

“Under Georgian Dream’s rule, there have been several stages. Initially, it did not control the Constitutional Court. Then, in 2016, it began winning judges over, followed by a period of appointments. However, because the President was no longer pursuing Georgian Dream’s policies, and the relationship between Parliament and the judicial clan had not been fully settled, the three branches responsible for appointing Constitutional Court judges were each pursuing their own agendas.

“The President appointed people she considered independent. Parliament appointed people who would advance its interests, while the judicial clan appointed people it believed would ultimately help consolidate its power. One of their calculations failed in the case of Mr. Tugushi, who was one of the independent judges. His dissenting opinions played a particularly important role in recent years,” Menabde said.

Commenting on Constitutional Court judge Manana Kobakhidze’s decision to leave office before the end of her term, Menabde said her departure should not be interpreted as a pursuit of independence. Instead, he attributed it to internal and external pressure, including fear of potential sanctions.

“We saw Judge Manana Kobakhidze’s resignation after she had requested to recuse herself from the case several days earlier, but her request was denied. Only one judge, Gotsiridze, agreed with her; the others effectively told her that she had to participate in the decision-making process.

“She had three options: to join a decision whose substance was already clear to her, to write a dissenting opinion, or to leave - which is what she ultimately did. She had to either sign off on the decision or resign.

“In my view, the main concern was the reaction of Georgian society and the international community. If she had the strength to defend her independence, she should have done so by issuing a dissenting opinion. However, we already know of many other cases she has signed off on that have helped consolidate Georgian Dream’s power in this country.

“That is why I would not explain her resignation as a pursuit of independence. It is much more closely connected to internal and external pressure, including fear of sanctions,” Menabde said.