Irakli Kobakhidze: today we adopt the Constitution to endure time

The Speaker in his speech echoed the statements by the opposition and their protest. He noted that the boycott is an accepted form of the protest, though now it is an escape.

“It is an escape. It is the third time we witness this escape. Everything started with the State Constitutional Commission. The opposition escaped from the hall when the draft envisaged enactment of the proportional system in 2020. Today, they state that it was the milestone of the consensus. So, you can judge it whether it was boycott or escape.

The second time they escaped was in August when we asked them to provide the issues in case of reflection of which in the Constitution they would support the changes. They never provided this list. It was an escape from the dialogue.

Third time they escape is today. Why we call it escape instead of the boycott? Because it has its particular reason: when the opposition asks the questions, they are afraid of the answers. They escape when it is time to answer the questions. The same is with the President. I have many times offered him to meet in the air not to debate but to speak about the Constitutional changes. He escaped from the offer. It is the main characteristic of our opposition, they escape as they are afraid to hear the answers, they are afraid of the dialogue and the discussion. We stand with our backs straight backed with the improved document developed by us”.

He stated that response of the opposition to the Venice Commission opinion is the best answer. The Commission gave positive estimation to the changes and hence, the opposition has nothing to say. The Venice Commission did not share the remarks by the President and 20 political parties: “you can re-watch the air time to see that the second day the opposition was mute. It was confirmation that the Venice Commission estimated the document as positive and hence, gave nothing to the opposition to say. You remember that the President and so-called 20 parties developed their own Constitution they offered for consideration. Venice Commission shared none of these remarks. The only issue they shared was the bonus system and we have already expressed our position stating that we will initiate the draft, and another issue with similar positions was postponement of the term, which the Venice Commission also mentioned and we have our own positions expressed. None of the issues is negatively estimated by the Venice Commission.

Moreover, indirect election of the President is positively evaluated. As to the authority of the President, it is as well positively estimated. We have none of the remarks regarding the Government that the President has criticized along with other opposition parties. None of the remarks have been issued on annulment of the Security Council. Defense issues are positively estimated. 5% threshold is also positively estimated. It is reality. There are the opposition parties joining the President with their negative and destructive agenda envisaging rejection of the Constitutional changes regardless of how improved it is. We have our positive agenda and naturally act under it”.

As to the opposition stating that the ruling party shared none of the Venice Commission remarks, the Speaker noted that the Parliament rejected only some of the non-key remarks.

He echoed the statement that the ruling party submitted the document to the Venice Commission after the II reading. “It was stated that we deceived the Venice Commission and sent the document after the II reading when it was impossible to adopt non-editorial changes. It is wrong. We sent the document to the Commission as soon as it was developed by the Constitutional Commission. We asked the Venice Commission to submit the opinion, which it did. After the II reading, the recommendations were reflected in the document. My personal appeal to the Venice Commission was to submit the opinion not only to the draft but to the adopted document. This appeal was an exception as usually the Venice Commission issues the opinion to the draft solely. However, they promised to provide us with the opinion to the law as well”.

The document developed during 4 months by the Constitutional Commission is the document of consent unlike the draft developed by the President and 20 opposition parties. “The President called the document – “document of consent” he developed along with 20 parties. There are no 20 parties in Georgia. They called the Constitution the document of consent which they developed in a couple of days. It was they who used to teach us that the process was accelerated when the Constitutional Commission worked for 4 months along with the qualified experts. It is the document rejected by 117 MPs out of 150.

It is the document of consent, though 5 Parliamentary Factions out of 8 refuses to support it similar to the majority of Georgian population as I want to underline and as it is confirmed with the plebiscite to be held in Georgia on October 21. On that day, Georgian population will confirm intact support to Georgian Dream and it will be support of the Constitution we adopt today. And at last, the draft submitted by the President and 20 opposition parties is not supported by the Venice Commission as an neutral observer as it completely deviates from the estimations provided in the Venice Commission opinion. When the State Constitutional Commission was voting for the draft, it was supported by majority of its members, including NGOs and high rank experts”.

He emphasized the proportional system and the consultations with the Minority. The opposition strived to reject the changes. “We can inquire the minutes of the Commission sittings where it was numerously reiterated that the position on the proportional system was achieved within the ruling party. The opposition asked about it and we frankly responded that it was the position of the leadership of the ruling party which required consent of 116 members. After we were back from the Venice Commission, you remember that the document provided 2020 for the proportional system. We had consultations with the Minority offering them to support the document which was refused. The reason was the ultimatums related to the land, taxes and some vague issues with no key value in the document. So, the opposition appeared to strive to reject the Constitutional changes and when you initially set this goal, it is naturally easy to reject a very improved document. Against these conditions, it appeared impossible to apply the proportional system in 2020 so it will apply after the Parliamentary elections in 2020”.

He thanked all the parties involved in development of the Constitution.

“I would like to thank all the parties involved in this historical process. Not all convocations have the opportunity to participate and contribute in development of the historical document and fulfillment of historical mission. We had this opportunity which is the greatest honor for us. We have the opportunity to create the new foundation for our state system and administration.

Today, we adopt the Constitution to endure time and ensure long-term democratic development of the country. No big deeds are done without the big impediments. We had to overcome impediments. The Constitutional changes were attacked, though we addressed this problem with one particular reason – we were driven with our faith in correctness of our actions, in development of the document to endure time. We remember the consequences of the distorted Constitutions.

We have been through the autocratic and semi-autocratic regimes using the non-democratic Constitutions as the pillars adopted in 1995 and 2004 and inherited to us in 2010 from the National Movement. Our historical mission was to substitute this distorted Constitution with an improved document”.