Irakli Kobakhidze: the preliminary opinion by Venice Commission is extremely positive

“Today, the Parliament has received the preliminary opinion by Venice Commission which gives extremely positive estimation to the Constitutional reforming”, - the Speaker stated at the briefing. 

He introduced the preliminary opinion and stated that Venice Commission has no remarks regarding the principal issues. “The final opinion provides: the process of the Constitutional reforming completes transformation of the political system of Georgia into the Parliamentary system and it is the positive step made in terms of consolidation and improvement of the Constitutional system of the country. The Constitutional reform is based on democracy, legal state and fundamental human rights principles. The opinion gives the positive estimation to the recommendations the Parliament has shared. It is noteworthy that the Commission gives positive estimation to transition to the indirect elections of the President and provides that the draft complies with the European standards. Besides, the opinion underlines that the proportional electoral system with the 5% threshold to be applied for the forthcoming Parliamentary elections is in full compliance with the legal standards and serve the significant progress – the step that none of the preceding Governments have made.

The Venice Commission has no remarks regarding the principal issues, such are the Presidential election, Presidential status and authorities – we shall underline that all these issues, annulment of the Security Council, regulation of defense issues, the Chapter regulating the Government etc. – no remarks have been issued regarding these issues by the Venice Commission”.

The Commission maintains sundry recommendations valid concerning non-principal issues.

“It is prohibition of the regional parties. We had our own position regarding this issue. we consider that formation of the political parties on the basis of the territories shall be prohibited on the Constitutional level. We know Georgian context and naturally, it might not be easy to due acknowledge Georgian context for such experts without direct experience with Georgian reality. We consider that the regional parties established on the territorial basis shall be prohibited under the Constitution.

Another recommendation concerns the fact that the Parliament shall not participate in appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court. For us, this recommendation was unacceptable deriving that the judges shall enjoy the high legitimation and it is not expedient for us to prevent the Parliament for this process. Hence, the recommendation was not shared.

The third recommendation concerns liquidation of the public unions – here we might encounter the translation discrepancy and liquidation and prohibition might be confused and this recommendation might be based on this. We consider and are assured that this issue is due regulated under the Constitution.

Another recommendation concerns freedom of religion and the recommendation provides that the state security interests shall not serve the basis for restriction of freedom of religion. We consider that our new regulations comply with the standards and hence, we maintain introduced norms valid.

Moreover, the Constitutional Court has the authority to recognize the elections as non-Constitutional restricted. In this term the Venice Commission issued the recommendation. In this case, we know Georgian reality, practice and risks we remember from the latest period and taking all these facts into account, we introduce the respective changes to the Constitution. Hence, we have revised the respective norm in the Constitution.

Yet another recommendation was concerning establishment of the upper chamber of the Parliament. Here, we have our solid arguments. The function of the upper chamber in the country like Georgia can serve guarantee for regional representation under the conditions when two regions of Georgia are occupied. Naturally, the upper chamber loses all senses. Hence, the recommendation was no in full rational volume shared.

And the last recommendation was concerning the land regulation issue. We know importance of regulation of this issue for Georgian society as it is regulated under the new norms and hence, we maintain the norms restricting alienation of lands to non-Georgian citizens valid”. The Speaker underlined that the final opinion of the Commission evaluates Constitutional reform as the most significant step made for consolidation and improvement of the Constitutional system.

“There are sundry recommendations provided by the Venice Commission. None of them bears key importance for democratic system operation and I would like to underline the final opinion of the Commission stating that the Constitutional reform is the most important step forward made in terms of consolidation and improvement of the Constitutional system. I also would like to thank the Venice Commission for productive cooperation and we naturally will further successfully cooperate with the Venice Commission”.

In response to the question whether the Venice Commission opinion provided the consensus about the Constitutional reform, the Speaker stated that unfortunately, wide consensus is not yet achieved but the document underlines the roles of both parties. “We speak about the ruling party and Minority. We once again can underline that nothing was done by the Parliamentary opposition for the consensus. Our offer was simple – provision of the list of the issues in case of reflection of which they would support the Constitutional changes. They refused even to this minor offer and thus, majorly impeded to achievement of the consensus. Venice Commission speaks about importance of the consensus and we absolutely share this aspiration, though as to the merit of the parties in non-achievement of the consensus, Venice Commission has no clear position expressed”.

The journalists asked whether the opinion provides the proportional electoral system. The Speaker responded that the opinion provides that the Venice Commission would like the proportional system to be applied in 2020. “I share this aspiration. I always was and still is the active supporter of the proportional electoral system, though it appeared impossible due to the negative role of the opposition. After we left Venice, we offered the opposition to support the Constitutional changes under the conditions that the system would apply for 2020, though they refused and thus, it appeared impossible to apply the Parliamentary proportional system for 2020”.

As to the III reading date, the Speaker noted that it will be held in next week. “The date will soon be specified but likely the III reading will be held next week in the Parliament. We will vote for the draft Constitutional changes for the III reading and this will accomplish the procedure related to the Constitutional changes. However, let me reiterate my yesterday’s statement: we noted that now it is impossible to introduce the non-editorial changes to the Constitution. Hence, we assumed to initiate the new draft envisaging annulment of the so-called bonus system and in a single manner maintaining the blocs under the 3% threshold for the forthcoming elections. The respective draft shall be submitted to the Parliament and adopted within the respective term”.

Regarding the single authority to the blocs for participation in the Parliamentary elections, the Speaker stated that the ruling party does not consider it expedient, thought the decision was made upon compromise. “We constantly strived to achieve consensus. I can reiterate that in my personal opinion and in opinion of the majority in the ruling party – maintenance of the blocs is not expedient. We also can review the current practice. Today, we have registered sundry blocs all of which are fictitious. One bloc is established by one of the opposition parties unifying two one-member parties and another bloc, which unifies another party established two months ago the name of which is unknown to the society and three parties gain state financing the amount of which exceeds million GEL. It means that the tax-payers will pay million GEL excessive annually in favor of the fictitious parties. It is vicious. In our opinion, it was expedient to annul the blocs for the forthcoming elections, though we constantly strived to achieve consensus and the decision was made under hereof conditions on maintenance of the blocs”.