The absurd and unconstitutional lawsuit seeking to ban political parties is Bidzina Ivanishvili’s attempt not only to remove all opposition parties and political opponents from his path, but also to deprive a large part of Georgian society – nearly a million Georgian citizens – of their political choice.

A political party and its electorate cannot be separated from one another. Therefore, this is an act of violence against the will of the electorate, aimed at excluding Georgian citizens from the political process. Historically, the banning of virtually the entire opposition has been a feature of totalitarian systems. Consequently, this process represents an attempt to consolidate a dictatorship.

However, beyond the ban on political parties and its grave consequences for democracy and pluralism in Georgia, the Georgian Dream lawsuit contains other dangerous implications as well. For instance, the lawsuit advances a dangerous line of reasoning by claiming that the actions of the Georgian government in 2004–2008 “themselves created the soil for occupation” and helped “consolidate the political positions of the occupying force.” This is not merely an assessment – it is an attempt to shift responsibility from the aggressor to the victim.

If the Constitutional Court upholds this claim, it could establish at the constitutional level that the 2008 war was not an independent act of Russian aggression, but rather the “logical consequence” of Georgia’s domestic political decisions. In such a scenario, Russia’s military intervention would be presented as a reaction to a “provocation,” while political and legal responsibility would be shifted onto the Georgian state.

This creates an extremely dangerous precedent: any attempt by Georgia to restore its territorial integrity – if it does not align with Russian interests – could be portrayed as facilitating aggression. This would effectively mean the legal consolidation of the existing occupation and the legitimization of the status quo.

The Constitution of Georgia explicitly establishes that a defensive war is Georgia’s sovereign right. This provision does not constitute an incitement to war; rather, it is the minimum constitutional guarantee of the existence of our sovereign state.

In the Georgian Dream lawsuit, strengthening the country’s defense capabilities is characterized as “militarism” and “confrontation.” Under this logic, the state is being told not to defend itself in order to avoid “provoking” the aggressor. If the Constitutional Court accepts this view, it would mean effectively abandoning the state’s defense function and replacing genuine security with an illusion.

Article 78 of the Constitution of Georgia obliges the state to pursue integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. This is the country’s strategic security choice and a guarantee of peace and future development, not merely a decorative provision.

It is well known that this path is unacceptable to Russia. If the country’s foreign and security policy is assessed solely on the basis of whether it might “provoke Russia,” then the Constitution becomes nothing more than an empty facade on paper, while the real veto over the country’s policy is transferred to the Kremlin. This is neither caution nor pragmatism; it is the voluntary surrender of sovereign decision-making to another state.

The lawsuit repeatedly invokes the concept of the “peaceful restoration of territorial integrity.” However, neither the lawsuit itself nor the government’s official statements provide a single concrete definition, plan, or mechanism explaining what this concept actually entails.

This concept is merely rhetorical and serves a single purpose: to constitutionally prohibit any deterioration of relations with Russia.

If the Constitutional Court rules in favor of the lawsuit, the policy of “non-provocation” toward Russia would become a mandatory constitutional rule.

A democratic state cannot exist without criticism of the government. Yet the lawsuit portrays international criticism of the ruling party’s policies as “state sabotage.”

When criticism of the government is treated as treason, the boundary between the ruling party and the state is erased, leaving democracy formally intact but substantively abolished.

Giorgi Sioridze

Strong Georgia – Lelo