15 Mar, 2022
Respecting the Constitution and acting in accordance with it is the primary duty of all constitutional bodies. This is especially true of the President of Georgia, who is directly obligated to protect the Constitution by the text of Constitution itself.
Unfortunately, a clear negative trend is evident in this regard, and it is our duty to issue a political response to this trend from the outset, so that it does not create any excessive difficulties for the operation of the constitutional system.
Before we begin discussing the details, first of all, we would like to call on the President of Georgia to familiarize herself with the Constitution of Georgia, in particular, with the constitutional powers of the three main constitutional bodies – the Parliament, the Government, and the President.
In her address yesterday, the President of Georgia proposed a number of new rules of the game related to the operation of the state system. It is obvious that she wishes to act beyond the Constitution. However, we would like to remind the President that the rules of the game of the state system are determined not by the President but by the Constitution, and no one can allow the President to rewrite the Constitution.
As it is known, the current version of the Constitution of Georgia grants the Government of Georgia the exclusive authority to conduct foreign policy. In accordance with the principles of the parliamentary republic, the President of Georgia may engage in the implementation of foreign policy only in exceptional cases, with the extraordinary consent of the Government of Georgia. It should be additionally noted that no state agency connected to the implementation of foreign policy is subordinate to the President of Georgia, which makes it impossible for her to be effectively involved in the exercise of these powers. As mentioned, these peculiarities are derived from the principles of a parliamentary republic.
The appointment of ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives is one of the most important tools precisely for the implementation of foreign policy. The relevant act is co-signed by the President and the Prime Minister, and according to the Constitution, political responsibility for the said act rests solely with the government. This means that the material authority to appoint an ambassador is vested in the government by the Constitution, while the President is endowed solely with legal and ceremonial powers in this area. At the same time, even if the clause on co-signing were not established, the power to appoint an ambassador is defined in the following way in all parliamentary republics: The President formally appoints ambassadors, while the government is responsible for their selection in political and practical terms. Over the past year, there have been a number of cases in which the President refused to appoint an ambassador or diplomatic representative nominated by the government, which flagrantly contradicts the Constitution of Georgia. During the past months, a number of meetings were held between representatives of the government and the President, during which the content of the Constitution of Georgia was clearly and repeatedly explained to the President, unfortunately – to no avail. In these circumstances, the Government of Georgia is forced to apply in the near future to the Constitutional Court within the framework of the procedure for the dispute of competencies, and to request the confirmation of the violation of the Constitution by the President of Georgia.
In accordance with the exclusive power of the Government of Georgia in the field of foreign policy implementation, the Constitution of Georgia gives priority to the government in terms of conducting international negotiations and exercising representative powers as well. According to the Constitution, the President of Georgia can conduct international negotiations and exercise representative powers only with the consent of the government. The President of Georgia, as she herself admitted during yesterday’s session, made several visits to various countries without the consent of the Government of Georgia, in violation of this constitutional clause. It should also be noted that these visits were planned by the President without any prior consultation with the government, and the government was only subsequently informed of the visits, which confirms that the President violated the Constitution with premeditated intent. We were protective of the institution of the President, and we did not make this fact public. However, now that the President herself has made it public, we consider it necessary to issue a political response. Interestingly, in her speech yesterday, the President did not say a single word about her European visits, while she justified the need to convene an extraordinary session on 5 March by saying that she needed to urgently present a report on the visits. This fact also clearly shows that the President returned from Europe without any tangible results.
The President’s statements of yesterday about the State Security Council were completely incomprehensible. The Security Council is the Prime Minister’s deliberative governmental body, established by the Government of Georgia for the effective implementation of the policy of state security. The inclusion of nongovernmental entities, representatives of the President and the opposition in this governmental body directly contradicts the logic of the system and the essence of the governmental body. In this case as well, it is obvious that the President of Georgia is either unable to read the Constitution of Georgia and has failed to understand its essence to this day, or in this case as well, she is trying to rewrite the Constitution. The reference to the status of the Commander-in-Chief, given that this status is of exclusively ceremonial significance in a parliamentary republic, indicates that the President is either unwilling or unable to read the Constitution correctly. It should be noted that the Government of Georgia is the main body responsible for the implementation of security policy in the Parliamentary Republic of Georgia. In addition to sessions of government, operational meetings are regularly held with the Prime Minister to discuss security issues. It was at one of these meetings that a representative of the Presidential Administration was invited, who was issued explanations concerning the inexpediency of the President’s visit, which the President did not take into account.
Recently, two flagrant precedents of the violation of the Constitution and legislation by the President have been observed against the Parliament as well. Namely, initially, the President announced the date of her arrival in Parliament without the Parliament’s consent, and later, she led the acting ambassador of Ukraine into the main space of the session hall without the Parliament’s consent, which only the Chairman of Parliament is empowered to do, according to the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament. It would seem that the President was well aware of the inconvenience associated with such an act in the context of the Ukrainian authorities having recalled the ambassador and hid her intention from the Chairman of Parliament for this reason. Out of respect and solidarity with the Ukrainian people, we did our best to alleviate the awkward situation created by the President for the acting ambassador, and we demonstrated due respect and support for him during the session of Parliament.
Yesterday, we also heard several incomprehensible statements from the President of Georgia in connection with the ongoing processes. One of the “distinguished” statements among them was the following phrase: “The government sins when it does not dare to express what is dictated by our history and dignity.” Furthermore, beyond this insulting phrase, she did not specify what was meant by the government’s timid and unworthy actions. Recall that our government has expressed a clear position in all international forums, during all instances of political decision-making that were related to supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and responding to Russian aggression – be it the suspension of Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe, co-sponsorship of the UN resolution, co-authorship of the complaint lodged in The Hague, or anything else. If the President means that Georgia should have joined the sanctions and become involved in the war, she should say it candidly. Hopefully, she will not repeat the tactics of the radical opposition, which cannot speak openly about sanctions and war but is trying to push the authorities precisely in that direction using all the provocations.
The President’s statement concerning the appointment of a representative of an opposition party as minister of European integration was no less incomprehensible. First of all, the President must understand that as soon as an opposition politician becomes a minister, according to the basic laws of politics, he or she no longer is an opposition politician, having become a representative of the ruling coalition. We will not dwell on the nature of the opposition that the President is talking about. It is unclear how the president can justify the expediency of appointing an opposition member to the post of minister of European integration, when she herself noted yesterday the long-known fact that the opposition “is walking about and undermining (the state).” The public can judge for itself the benefits of appointing a subversive minister as minister of European integration. In addition, this statement by the President clearly served to raise public expectations about the pace of European integration. The words of European politicians – Borrell, Macron, Scholz, and others – make it clear that Georgia, as well as Ukraine and Moldova, unfortunately, have a long way to go before EU membership. A number of reforms are needed, which will take a number of years. In this regard, the government has spared no effort so far, and it will continue to do so in the future. In these circumstances, the need to break an open door is incomprehensible; this is the well-known handwriting of the radical opposition. As we have found out, the appointment of an opposition member as minister of European integration was the main message of the President’s speech yesterday, which says a great deal in itself.
The actions of the President of Georgia against the Constitution and her baseless statements are especially dangerous at a time when the world and Georgia are facing special security changes in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war.
In conclusion, we once again call on the president of Georgia to carefully study the Constitution of Georgia and to comprehend the essence of the parliamentary republic, in the establishment of which she has played a direct role as a member of the Parliament of Georgia in 2017. In that case, she will be insured against mistakes and misconduct at least in the future, and her future actions and statements will not raise so many questions. The President of Georgia must first and foremost respect the Constitution of Georgia and the constitutional responsibilities and obligations of the President.