A question of power or democracy?

Georgia debates about a new electoral system. And therefore the country debates about Germany as well.

The fronts are hardened and time is running short in Tbilisi. The debate between the ruling „Georgian Dream“ party and the opposition about a new electoral system is ongoing and no consensus could be reached yet. And the next parliamentary elections are scheduled for October 2020. In fact, blaming rivaling factions for the faltering reform process became a prominent go-to argument for the politicians involved. But one thing at a time: What does the current electoral system look like and what proposals for a reform were proffered so far? And most importantly, what is the ratio behind the so far introduced proposals?

The current system is a hybrid of a proportional and a majoritarian electoral system. 77 of the 150 seats in the parliament are filled via party lists. The party lists apply nationwide so there are no separate lists for several provinces or states. For the remaining mandates the country is divided into 73 single mandate constituencies. In each constituency the eligible voters elect their delegates directly in the frame of a two round majoritarian system. If a candidate receives more than 50% of the valid votes in the first round, this person will be sent to the parliament without a second round of voting. Otherwise the two most successful candidates compete in a second ballot.

Generally, for a reform of the electoral system three legislative ways can be pursued: If the modification involves constitutional changes there are two alternatives: Firstly, the constitution could be amended with a qualified majority of 75% percent of the valid parliamentary votes. Secondly, amending the constitution is possible with a two thirds majority of the members of the current and subsequent parliament. Though obviously this option would imply electing the next parliament with the current electoral system. If the modification falls inside the frame of the electoral system set by the constitution, electoral law can thirdly be amended by the standard procedure, which is a simple majority of the members of parliament. This third option is especially relevant in terms of the so called German model, which will be characterized soon.

But foremost the important events associated with the initiation of the reform process shall be mentioned: After heavy protests in June 2019, the Georgian government signaled its willingness to reform the electoral system for the upcoming parliamentary elections. A reform of this system had already been on the political agenda but until then not a priority of the ruling „Georgian Dream“ party. Due to the heavy domestic political pressures of the last summer the „Georgian Dream“ claimed to introduce a fully proportional system in the near term. According to the constitution such a system has to be implemented by no later than 2024 anway. But the „Georgian Dreams“ proposal of last fall failed since a qualified majority of 3/4 could not be reached. Almost the entire opposition voted in favor of a proportional system while the majority of the „Georgian Dream“ delegates blackballed. According to Irakli Khorbaladze, a former member of the Georgian Central Election Commission and chairman of  the  Good Governance Institute, this move reflected a good cop/bad cop strategy. The „Georgian Dream“ had no interest in reforming the electoral system since it encourages polarized two party systems and therefore also benefits the ruling party. The „Georgian Dreams” split vote in favor of the reform can therefore be interpreted as cover-up with the intention of appeasing the public.

After this incident, various alternative electoral systems were discussed in and among the Georgian parties. The last proposal brought up by the „Georgian Dream“ intends maintaining the principle mechanisms of the current system. Still, eligible voters would vote a direct candidate for a certain constituency and a separate party list. But the number of direct candidates would decrease to 40 while the number of party list mandates would increase to 110. This option would require a modification of the Georgian constitution though members of the country’s opposition rejected the proposal and alternatively suggested a stronger increase of the proportional mandates.

Irakli Khorbaladze believes the opposition should consider the suggestion of the „Georgian Dream“ more strongly. Further concessions of the ruling party seem not likely because it benefits from a political deadlock. If no consensus is reached, the current system will be maintained till 2024. And this system clearly displays a disproportionality giving the stronger parties like the „Georgian Dream“ or the „United National Movement“ an advantage in the next elections.

Another broadly discussed electoral system is the German model. Political scientists in Germany gave it the snappy name „Personalisierte Verhältniswahl“ (personalized proportional election) because it is a proportional system in principle but also links parliamentary mandates to certain constituencies. Eligible voters in German federal elections have two votes. With the first vote a direct candidate from a constituency is elected with a bare majority in one round of voting. The second vote is directed to a party list and determines the distribution of mandates between the parties in the parliament. It therefore is the more important vote of the two. In order to maintain this distribution of mandates without disregarding the legitimacy of directly elected candidates overhang seats and leveling mandates are allocated as well. Because of the many overhang seats and leveling mandates the Bundestag became one of the largest parliaments in the world with currently 709 delegates. Therefore a slight reform of the electoral system is currently on the German political agenda too. In Georgia overhang mandates and leveling seats have no electoral or constitutional tradition. So a consideration of this element of the German model is unlikely.

One reason for the attractiveness of the German model is that it could be implemented with a majority of 50% and one vote although this model implies broader changes in the electoral system’s structure. The Georgian constitution does not prescribe whether a proportional or hybrid electoral system has to be maintained. It only prescribes the amount of delegates sent to parliament via party lists or constitutional elections (77/73). So modifying electoral law would be sufficient as long as this proportion remains unaltered. Depending on the exact design, the lacking overhang seats and leveling mandates would imply a certain disproportional effect. However, the implementation of this system is not likely in the current situation since it would signify a disadvantage for the „Georgian Dream“.

And even without an advantageous electoral system the party will most likely face a significant decrease of parliamentary mandates in the next election’s aftermath. The newspaper „Qronika+“ published an article quoting the so called „Georgian Dream secret research“ in the beginning of February. This research estimates the party to lose the parliamentary lead after the next elections with 25% of the parliamentary mandates against the „United National Movement“. Currently the „Georgian Dream“ holds 106 of the 150 seats in the parliament. After the publication, representatives of the party claimed that up to 75% of the parliamentary mandates could still be won in the next elections. Obviously this statement was rather ridiculous than bold. However, the party faces serious issues and one might believe it is over the hill. In a poll of the „National Democratic Institute“ its politicians received the worst grades in national comparison. The performances of Salome Zurabishvili, the current Georgian president, and Bidsina Iwanischwili, oligarch, chairman and leading force in the „Georgian Dream“, were perceived to be the worst of all relevant politicians in the country. Still, the party is predicted to benefit from the disproportional electoral system in the next elections. And stronger representation could surely contribute to preventing the parties downfall.

In the end of January, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) addressed the Georgian government in a resolution. The resolution concerned the monitoring of Georgia as well as other countries for the year 2019. Therein PACE expressed concerns about the failed implementation of a fully proportional system. Moreover, it postulated the involvement of all stakeholders in the development of a new electoral system and emphasized Georgia’s sovereignty in this process. However, the resolution did not create significant momentum. Instead clashes about the interpretational sovereignty arose. „Georgian Dream“ related actors underlined the necessary sovereignty for the process while the opposition demanded a stronger involvement of additional stakeholders.

After the conviction of Gigi Ugulava, leader of the „European Georgia“ party, in February many observers expected a next nadir in the negotiations about the reform. Ugulava was found guilty of misappropriating 48 million GEL (approximately 15,5 million EUR) and was adjudged to three years in prison. The conviction caused a wave of critique from domestic as well as international actors, with representatives of the the European Union, the German Bundestag and the US Congress among them. Ugulava already underwent punishment for the offenses between 2014 and 2017. Therefore, many critiques questioned the independence of the Georgian judiciary. According to some observers, it might be possible the „Georgian Dream“ tried to provoke snap elections with this move. That way a reform of the electoral system before 2024 would have been off the table.

Nicos Poulantzas understood the state as a „condensation of social power relations.“ So the design of a political and also electoral system reflects certain power constellations as well. This also counts for Georgia. The „Georgian Dream“ and the social forces allied with it are not willing to accept an electoral system undermining their political weight. The electoral systems proposed by the opposition display significantly fewer democratic deficits. But the opposition is in a position in which it benefits from such a system. The believe that a political or electoral system is primarily designed according to norms and values and not according to interests is arguably illusive. Concerning a reform of the electoral system the fronts are hardened in Tbilisi but there is a ratio behind that. The currently ruling „Georgian Dream“ party wants to profit from a less proportional system as long as possible.

*Shortly before the publication of this article, Hubert Knirsch, the German ambassador to Georgia, stated a valid compromise could be achieved throughout the next days. Most probably this potential consensus draws on “Georgian Dreams” proposal of a 110/40 system introduced in the end of February.