Georgia's new constitution: for democracy, for Saakashvili, or for both?

The constitutional changes are intended to introduce a balance between the centres of power. Such a move would reduce the power of the presidency. Thus, the state’s development will not depend on the president’s whim. The prime minister and parliament will gain in importance, and become a serious check on the possible impulses of the next head of state. The danger will be averted that Georgia – like some post-Soviet countries - will again waver between the West and Russia.

The basis of the opposition’s criticism of the constitutional amendments is the allegation that the president is preparing the ground to become Prime Minister. According to the changes introduced, as of 2013 the head of government will be elected by a majority in parliament, where at the moment the President’s United National Movement has an unchallenged majority. Recent opinion polls also indicate that the UNM will not lose its dominant position after the parliamentary elections in 2012. This means that Saakashvili has a real chance to become prime minister. To prevent this, the opposition would have to knuckle down win more seats in parliament. But instead of political methods, the opposition prefers the streets.

The problem lies not in the strength of the government, but in the weakness of the opposition. By its lack of professionalism, they have themselves contributed to strengthening Saakashvili’s role. The lack of a serious opposition, which fights its battles by political means, is detrimental to the state. So far, the opponents of the ruling camp are a small, fragmented group of shouters who play politics on the streets. Their radicalism also makes it hard for them to act. The same old song of ‘Government bad, we’re good’ passed its sell-by date years ago. People want new faces and new slogans.

Saakashvili has caused much controversy both in Georgia and abroad. His behaviour causes allergies in many Western leaders who are allies of Russia. No wonder – Saakashvili lays bare the hypocrisy of the West, and accuses it of double standards. As for internal affairs, there is no doubt Saakashvili has done much for Georgia. He has introduced effective economic reforms. His rather authoritarian tendencies are actually the domain of his party, which understands that the introduction of such painful economic changes requires a strong hand. The government, headed by the president, is de facto creating a new state from the ground up, which means that the white gloves must be laid on the shelf. When the authorities liquidated corruption in the police, almost all the former militiamen lost their jobs. No wonder that some people are outraged. However, most Georgians understand that he is the only realistic choice for leader. At this stage of the country’s development, it is the government’s political will to act which is crucial. There are some inconveniences, but Georgia has made great progress. Not only is the country aware of that, but international institutions are as well.

The constitutional changes which will come into effect from 2013 were introduced in order for Saakashvili to continue to rule the country at his ease, but just as Prime Minister and not President. Parliamentary government is theoretically a better solution for Georgia, where since 1995 [that is, after the current constitution was adopted – eds.], the presidential government assumed increasingly authoritarian forms. But the devil is in the details – the details which mean that the place of the strong president will be taken by an extra-strong prime minister with near-absolute power.

Saakashvili’s party currently has about 80 percent of the seats in parliament. To choose a prime minister, just 51 percent are needed. Even if the United National Movement loses a lot of support after the parliamentary elections next year, the party can make a deal with the opposition and come to a compromise on the composition of the cabinet, in order to make Saakashvili head of government. After taking office, the new head of government will be able to change the composition of the cabinet completely without asking the opinion of parliament. Members may of course dismiss the prime minister in an extreme situation, but 60 percent of the parliament’s votes are needed for that, which is 9 percent more than the amount needed to approve him.

The problem does not lie in the system, but in the person of Mikheil Saakashvili, who has authoritarian tendencies. This is the reason for the success of the reforms he has carried out. All the institutions of power, both in Tbilisi and the regions, are subordinated to him, which means that he can jail anyone who interferes in his reforms without too much trouble. The judiciary fell under the control of the president when the anti-corruption purges began. The biggest TV stations in the country are also under his control, which ensures that the appropriate national mood is created.

Fear has become the main instrument in the current government’s hands. It is this combination of fear and power over the media which provides Saakashvili with his support in the nation and calls into question all the steps towards democracy which Georgia has taken. This information blockade prevents the opposition from gaining broader support.

Saakashvili’s ideal and example – as he has often admitted – is Singapore, where high economic indicators go hand in hand with an autocratic regime. Democracy has been sacrificed on the altar of economic development.