On June 27, Georgia’s ruling National Movement party and several opposition parties signed an agreement on electoral system reform. The deal determining provisions for amendments to the Electoral Code was hailed by the authorities but rejected by six opposition parties claiming that it offers only “façade changes” and does not address fundamental electoral shortfalls. Three local election watchdog groups also criticized the deal and expressed concerns over inbuilt legal controversies. 

The electoral reform talks started in November 2010, and aimed to reconcile key proposals from Georgia’s political forces in a negotiating format known as the Election Code Working Group (ECWG). The program for improving the environment for free and fair elections was negotiated between the ruling National Movement and the opposition Group of Eight consisting of the New Rights Party, Christian Democratic Movement, National Forum, Conservative Party, Republican Party, People’s Party, and Our Georgia Free Democrats, which agreed to speak in one voice on election related-issues. In March, however, the talks went into a deadlock and were resumed two months later outside the ECWG format, and the authorities suggested that consultations would be carried out with each party individually. The renewed format enabled the National Movement to reconcile its own vision with the New Rights Party and Christian Democratic Movement. The final agreement achieved between them and other opposition parties will define the amendments to Electoral Code, which should be passed the coming fall.

The first change suggested by the electoral system reform agreement increases the number of seats in parliament. It stipulates that the number of lawmakers will rise from the current 150 to 190 MPs, of which 107 will be elected by a party list proportional system and the remaining 83 seats will be taken by majoritarians. The majoritarian mandates will increase through the creation of ten new constituencies by dividing current ones containing more than 100,000 registered voters. Five election districts in Tbilisi and larger towns throughout Georgia – Rustavi, Gori, Kutaisi, Zugdidi, and Batumi – fall into this category.

Another set of changes entail setting up funding rules for political parties. Each party clearing the 5 percent threshold will obtain GEL 1 million from the state budget to cover electoral campaign costs. Also, individuals and companies will be allowed to donate twice as much to parties.

The agreement also includes new arrangements regarding the accuracy of voter lists. It envisages the formation of a special commission composed of representatives of the ruling and opposition parties as well as civil society to ensure that voter lists are reliable. In addition, the deal involves media monitoring of campaigns, sets an extended deadline for electoral complaints and creates a governmental interagency task force in charge of preventing the use of administrative resources by the authorities.

While the document shares some of the proposals outlined by the Group of Eight, it does not incorporate its central issues. The coalition made an effort to introduce a mechanism by which a party’s overall votes in Parliament will equal the votes a party obtains in sum through proportional and majoritarian elections. For example, in the 2008 Parliamentary election, the National Movement received 59.18 percent by proportional representation. Nevertheless, its share of seats in Parliament amounted to 79.3 percent because apart from its proportional seats it won 71 more seats through majoritarian elections. Through the proposed mechanism, the Group of Eight tried to prevent a similar scenario in the 2012 Parliamentary elections, but the ruling party rejected the proposal.

Another proposal not included in the deal is a 50 percent threshold for the majoritarian MP candidates to be declared winners in the first round. Increasing the threshold from the current 30 percent to 50 percent would increase the chances for a runoff where opposition forces could unify around the most successful opposition candidate against the ruling party’s candidate.

The Group of Eight has insisted on introducing biometric technology to identify voters on Election Day. The authorities rejected the proposal claiming that the process of introducing such technology would be costly and not realistic in the upcoming elections.

Despite the fact that the key issues proposed by the Group of Eight were not adopted by the authorities, two members of the coalition – the New Rights Party and Christian Democratic Movement – signed the electoral system reform deal sponsored by the ruling party. They argued that rejecting the authorities’ proposal would deprive them of the small concessions the National Movement eventually made. The six opposition parties refusing to sign the agreement, however, insist that these concessions only imply a superficial shift of the electoral environment and that if the Group of Eight would stay united, it could force the authorities to further compromise. “We continue the struggle for fair elections and changing the government through elections”, the six opposition parties stated when the deal was signed.

Apart from being politically contentious, the deal has also raised legal controversies. According to three local election watchdog groups, the increased number of MPs suggested by the agreement violates the decision of the 2003 referendum to downsize the Parliament from 235 to150 MPs.

In sum, the political process aiming to refine the electoral environment has demonstrated the opposition’s inability to unite in urging the authorities to adopt the pivotal suggestions they have put forward. In this sense, the proposal ensuring a balance of power among political forces would have challenged the ruling party’s anticipated domination in the 2012 Parliament and prepare the ground for a peaceful change of government. The opposition’s deficiency was deftly played by the authorities who, along with its partners in the electoral reform agreement, are currently preparing a draft of amendments to the Election Code which will be passed to the Venice Commission for legal expertise.