Georgia: Constitution Changes Cause Uproar

Georgia’s new leader, Mikheil Saakashvili, has overridden objections in parliament and from many of his own allies to force through constitutional changes giving him strong presidential powers.

On February 5, after long debate, the Georgian parliament passed a package of constitutional amendments which give the country a cabinet and a prime minister for the first time, and which passes power from the legislative to the executive.

“Georgia needs a single energetic government team to impose order in all spheres of society and implement deep economic and social reforms,” Saakashvili said of the changes.

But deputy Vakhtang Khmaladze, one of the authors of the 1995 constitution, condemned the amendments, saying, “It would be better if we adopted the model of the Roman Senators straight away and just handed over power to a dictator for six months.”

The constitutional changes were kept secret until the last minute before going quickly through parliament.

The new structure now operates as follows: the president appoints a prime minister after consulting with leaders of parliamentary factions; the prime minister then appoints ministers with the agreement of the president.

The president retains the sole right to appoint the “power ministers” (of security, defence and the interior). The parliament then votes on a motion of confidence in the government, and can dismiss it with a majority vote - something which will be very difficult to achieve in Georgia.

If parliament fails to approve the government three times in a row or does not approve the state budget, the president can also dismiss the assembly.

This sudden transformation of the Georgian political system can be explained by the extraordinary way in which Saakashvili came to power in last November’s so-called “Rose Revolution”.

The three leaders of the revolution, Saakashvili, Nino Burjanadze and Zurab Zhvania, all expected to reap dividends from it.

Saakashvili was elected president – and Europe’s youngest head of state – on January 4 with more than 96 per cent of the vote. Burjanadze served for 45 days as acting head of state and is now once again speaker of parliament. Next it was the turn of Zhvania, who has been serving as “state minister” - a lesser post to that of prime minister, and which does not include the right to appoint ministers.

Zhvania is now being named Georgia’s first prime minister under the new constitution.

Although Saakashvili has achieved what he wanted to, he is now suffering considerable political fallout from the changes.

The most dramatic attack on the new proposals came from a man who used to be one of Saakashvili’s closest comrade-in-arms, Koba Davitashvili, who quit his post as head of the president’s party the National Movement.

Davitashvili said he had been offered the post of defence minister, but said, “I cannot keep silent when an authoritarian regime is being put in place. Democracy is coming to an end in Georgia and a process of clamping down on freedom of speech is beginning. This is all being done as a sacrifice to the ambitions of future prime minister Zurab Zhvania.”

Another former ally, deputy Akaky Asatiani, accused the new president of double standards. “Saakashvili used to say that Shevardnadze had unlimited power but he himself is now getting the right to dissolve parliament,” he said.

“And why are the power ministers not subordinate to the new premier? And why, contrary to what is done in the rest of the world, were such important changes not put to the citizens of the country, why was there no public discussion?”

Another complaint in parliament was that the changed constitution does not specify who will be the acting leader of the country if the president steps down early. Before, this has been the role of the speaker of parliament.

Some of the non-governmental organisations, NGOs, that vigorously supported Saakashvili are also voicing their doubts. David Zurabishvili, a writer who works closely with the Liberty Institute – which was described as the ideological base of the “Rose Revolution” – said he was surprised that the new president had deemed it necessary to formalise his powers when he had such strong public backing.

“To carry out radical reforms presidential rule can be suitable, as can a parliamentary republic, a monarchy or even an authoritarian regime, as in Chile or Malaysia,” said Zurabishvili.

“The main thing is political will, not the form of government. What did Saakashvili have against the existing model? Why did he not listen to the opinions of civil society but chose to ignore what they had to say?”

Saakashvili has dismissed these criticisms and said he is busy reinvigorating the country by bringing in young people and women to govern it. “The new appointments will be young but that does not mean that the government will turn into a kindergarten,” he said.

On February 11, while Saakashvili was in Moscow, his new candidates for the posts of justice and infrastructure minister were presented to parliament.

Zurab Adeishvili, who has been serving as justice minister in the transitional government, argued that Georgia is acquiring a “semi-presidential system” with a strong president and prime minister.

However, Zurabishvili said that the new structure had been built to allow each of the three leaders of the revolution to share power, saying, “Each member of the trio wanted to formalise his or her post-revolutionary power, but the existing system did not include any division of power.”

He summed up the changes as giving Georgia a “weaker parliament than before, a prime minister who duplicates the president on many issues and a president with greater powers than before.

“This would never have happened if the revolution had had two leaders instead of three. Then the first would have become president and the second speaker. Three do not fit, one of them is surplus to requirements, and unity requires sacrifices. But it was the constitution that was sacrificed.”

Mikhail Vignansky is correspondent in Georgia for the Russian newspaper Vremya Novostei.