DOCSLIB.ORG

Two Years in Government: Georgian Dream's Performance Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Two Years in Government: Georgian Dream's Performance Review TWO YEARS IN GOVERNMENT: GEORGIAN DREAM'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW OCTOBER 2012 – DECEMBER 2014 TBILISI MAY 2015 2 | INTRODUCTION AUTHORS: ARTICLE 42 OF THE CONSTITUTION CIVIL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CiDA) ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTER (EPRC) GEORGIA'S REFORMS ASSOCIATES (GRASS) GEORGIAN YOUNG LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION GREEN ALTERNATIVE HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION AND MONITORING CENTER (EMC) IDENTOBA INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (IDFI) INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR FAIR ELECTIONS AND DEMOCRACY (ISFED) MULTINATIONAL GEORGIA (PMMG) OPEN SOCIETY GEORGIA FOUNDATION (OSGF) PARTNERSHIP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (PHR) TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL (TI) GEORGIA TWO YEARS IN GOVERNMENT: GEORGIAN DREAM'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW | 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 1. GOVERNANCE SYSTEM 5 1.1 Parliament 6 1.2 Executive government 8 2. LAW-ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM 10 2.1 Prosecutor's Office 11 2.2 Ministry of Interior 12 2.3 Criminal justice legislative process 14 3. JUDICIAL SYSTEM 18 4. PENITENTIARY SYSTEM 22 5. ELECTORAL REFORM 24 5.1 Electoral system 25 5.2 Election administration 26 5.3 The voter lists 27 5.4 Legislation on the activities of political parties 28 5.5 Administrative resources 28 6. LOCAL SELF-GOVERNANCE REFORM 30 6.1 Self-governance Reform 31 6.2 Human resources management: hiring and dismissing civil servants 33 7. FREEDOM OF RELIGION 36 8. ETHNIC MINORITIES 42 9. LGBT RIGHTS 46 10. RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 50 11. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 54 12. LABOR RIGHTS 58 13. THE RIGHT TO HOUSING 62 14. THE CONDITION OF IDPS 66 15. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY 69 15.1 Environmental protection and natural resources 70 15.2 Energy 74 16. FOREIGN POLICY 79 17. INVESTMENT ENVIRONMENT 84 18. ECONOMY 89 18.1 Key Indicators 90 18.2 State Budget 90 18.3 Foreign debt 93 18.4 Trade and DCFTA 94 18.5 Agriculture 95 19. OPEN GOVERNANCE 98 20. MEDIA ENVIRONMENT 101 21. HEALTHCARE 104 22. MIGRATION 107 23. CULTURAL HERITAGE 111 4 | INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The 1 October 2012 parliamentary elections established a new ruling parliamentary majority and brought the Georgian Dream Coalition in the executive power. As part of its pre-election promises, the new government pledged to undertake major reforms and changes in almost all aspects of governance, including: depolitization of the governance system, removing undue pressure from the private sector, improving protection of human rights and the welfare of citizens. Georgian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been following the processes since the 2012 elections very actively. Civil society representatives regularly responded to government initiatives and offered its recommendations to the respective institutions. NGOs were very often proactive about their recommendations, advocating for deep reforms in various policy fields. The report provides an overview of the reforms and changes undertaken by the Georgian Dream government in over 20 key public policy areas, independent assessment and recommendations to tackle problems. These are areas which were often discussed by civil society and the authors believe more efforts are needed: general governance, electoral reform, local self-governance, human rights and equality, economy and investment environment, foreign policy, open government and media environment. After two years of coming into power, Georgian Dream boasts to have made achievements in many of these areas. NGOs, however, believe that there are even more challenges remaining. Each chapter of the report includes the following sections: (1) the situation before the 2012 parliamentary elections; (2) what has happened since the elections – reforms undertaken by the new government and significant events that have occurred; (3) recommendations of the nongovernmental organizations in tackling any remaining or newly arisen challenges. The report covers the period since October 2012 up until the end of 2014. In particular cases, the authors also consider and discuss those significant developments that have taken place up to March 2015. Each chapter was prepared by NGOs with the expertise in respective policy areas. These NGOs have been long observing the developments in these sectors. Recommendations prepared by the civil society representatives are backed by their expert knowledge in each field as well as best international practices. NGOs that have contributed chapters to this report are: Article 42 of the Constitution, Civil Development Agency (CiDA), Economic Policy Research Center (EPRC), Georgia's Reforms Associates (GRASS), Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA), Green Alternative, Human Rights Center, Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center (EMC), Identoba, Institute For Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI), International Society For Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), Public Movement Multinational Georgia (PMMG), Open Society Georgia Foundation (OSGF), Partnership for Human Rights (PHR) and Transparency International (TI) Georgia. Authors are responsible only for chapters authored by them and may not share the views expressed by authors of other parts of the report. While working on the report, NGOs were basing on the findings of their prior qualitative and quantitative research, publicly available information and media reports. In order to eliminate any errors and inaccuracies, the report was sent to the Government Administration, Parliament and the High Council of Justice. We would like to thank all stakeholders who provided feedback; some of the comments were reflected by the authors in the final report. Finally, we hope that addresses of this report will prioritize reform areas and recommendations provided by the civil society representatives and react upon them in the nearest future. We are ready to further consult all institutions of the government with our assessment and recommendations. TWO YEARS IN GOVERNMENT: GEORGIAN DREAM'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW | 5 1. GOVERNANCE SYSTEM Transparency International Georgia 6 | 1. GOVERNANCE SYSTEM THE SITUATION BEFORE THE 2012 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS United National Movement (UNM) government was known for effectively eliminating bribery and modernizing the country. Many successful reforms were carried out after 2004 that have enabled Georgian economy to grow after years of stagnation. Basic infrastructure was significantly improved. During the last few years of the UNM rule, however, a high number of issues surfaced concerning overall governance. The executive branch of the government clearly dominated over the others. Law enforcement agencies were especially strong and the institutions that are meant to be exercising checks of the executive – parliament, judiciary, state audit office, election administration – were rather weak and not independent. Another characteristic of the UNM governance was that personalities were at the center of it, who carried out functions also beyond their official capacity, resulting into informal interference in other areas of the system. This was a significant drawback to the process of building democratic institutions. Weakness of the parliament and the judiciary allowed for the executive to function without any proper oversight. There were, therefore, serious issues with the constitutional checks and balances. Furthermore, lack of civic engagement mechanisms in the policymaking process led to weakening of civic participation and low levels of transparency and accountability.1 2012 parliamentary elections marked the first transition of power with an election in Georgia which was widely welcomed. The new government was particularly open during the first several months after its election. Emergence of pluralism among the media was another significant development. Since 2012, in terms of governance and institution-building, a number of trends can be observed. 1.1 Parliament SINCE THE ELECTIONS The new Parliament is more pluralistic as there are a strong parliamentary opposition and multi-party majority present. As per the initiative of the Speaker, regular meetings were held with the civil society. A consultation group was established with the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee which was a platform for NGOs and interested individuals to engage and propose recommendations. The ad hoc commissions were also very open, especially the commission investigating conflicts of interest with the former Georgia's National Communications Commission (GNCC) administration and the commission to select the Board member of Georgia's Public Broadcaster (GPB). Parliament members initiated some important amendments, including regulations to reform the secret government surveillance legislative framework. The work of the new Parliament was especially transparent during its first year, the practice which is continued to date. A new, improved website was launched. Draft legislation and the schedule of hearings have become more accessible to the wider public. However, some problems remain with the work of the legislature. First of all, the relationship between political parties is very tense and confrontational. This has made it impossible for the MPs to reach consensus on important issues. The content of the debates in Parliament is very often related to the past of the politicians and not legislation. There were instances when such heated debates turned into verbal abuse and even physical confrontation. 1 TI Georgia, National Integrity Systems Assessment, 2011, http://bit.ly/1IrUFX4 TWO YEARS IN GOVERNMENT: GEORGIAN DREAM'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW | 7 There were a number
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Defender of Georgia
    2018 The Public Defender of Georgia www.ombudsman.ge 1 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA, 2018 This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. 2 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN GEORGIA 2018 2018 www.ombudsman.ge www.ombudsman.ge 3 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA, 2018 OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA 6, Ramishvili str, 0179, Tbilisi, Georgia Tel: +995 32 2913814; +995 32 2913815 Fax: +995 32 2913841 E-mail: [email protected] 4 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................13 1. FULFILMENT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA IN THE 2017 PARLIAMENTARY REPORT ......................................................................19 2. RIGHT TO LIFE .....................................................................................................................................28 2.1. CASE OF TEMIRLAN MACHALIKASHVILI .............................................................................21 2.2. MURDER OF JUVENILES ON KHORAVA STREET ...............................................................29 2.3. OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY OF THE CASE-FILES OF THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED ON THE ALLEGED MURDER OF ZVIAD GAMSAKHURDIA, THE FIRST
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Country Report
    Informal Governance and Corruption – Transcending the Principal Agent and Collective Action Paradigms Georgia Country Report Alexander Kupatadze | July 2018 Basel Institute on Governance Steinenring 60 | 4051 Basel, Switzerland | +41 61 205 55 11 [email protected] | www.baselgovernance.org BASEL INSTITUTE ON GOVERNANCE This research has been funded by the UK government's Department for International Development (DFID) and the British Academy through the British Academy/DFID Anti-Corruption Evidence Programme. However, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the British Academy or DFID. Dr Alexander Kupatadze, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom, [email protected] 1 BASEL INSTITUTE ON GOVERNANCE Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Informal Governance and Corruption: Rationale and project background 3 1.2 Conceptual approach and methods 4 1.3 Informal governance in Georgia: clean public services coexist with collusive practices of elites 5 2 The Reform of the Georgian Public Registry 7 3 Evolution of state-business relations in Georgia: 9 3.1 The aftermath of the Rose Revolution: developmental patrimonialism or neoliberal economy? 10 3.2 Post-UNM era: continuity or change? 13 4 Ivanishvili and the personalised levers of informal power 15 4.1 Managing the blurred public/private divide: co-optation and control practices of the GD 16 4.2 Nepotism, cronyism and appointments in state bureaucracy: 19 5 Elections and informality in Georgia 20 6 Conclusions 22
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Country Report BTI 2016
    BTI 2016 | Georgia Country Report Status Index 1-10 6.31 # 45 of 129 Political Transformation 1-10 6.70 # 40 of 129 Economic Transformation 1-10 5.93 # 53 of 129 Management Index 1-10 5.72 # 40 of 129 scale score rank trend This report is part of the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) 2016. It covers the period from 1 February 2013 to 31 January 2015. The BTI assesses the transformation toward democracy and a market economy as well as the quality of political management in 129 countries. More on the BTI at http://www.bti-project.org. Please cite as follows: Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2016 — Georgia Country Report. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. BTI 2016 | Georgia 2 Key Indicators Population M 4.5 HDI 0.744 GDP p.c., PPP $ 7582.0 Pop. growth1 % p.a. 0.4 HDI rank of 187 79 Gini Index 40.0 Life expectancy years 74.1 UN Education Index 0.770 Poverty3 % 28.6 Urban population % 53.5 Gender inequality2 - Aid per capita $ 145.5 Sources (as of October 2015): The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2015 | UNDP, Human Development Report 2014. Footnotes: (1) Average annual growth rate. (2) Gender Inequality Index (GII). (3) Percentage of population living on less than $3.10 a day at 2011 international prices. Executive Summary With the first peaceful transfer of power in the highly competitive parliamentary elections of October 2012, after one year of cohabitation and another year of unchallenged rule of the Georgian Dream coalition, high expectations of socioeconomic improvements and justice yielded disappointment among the population.
    [Show full text]
  • No 78, Caucasus Analytical Digest: Corruption
    No. 78 5 October 2015 Abkhazia South Ossetia caucasus Adjara analytical digest Nagorno- Karabakh resourcesecurityinstitute.org www.laender-analysen.de www.css.ethz.ch/cad www.crrccenters.org CORRUPTION Special Editor: Lili di Puppo ■■Overview of the Anti-Corruption Fight in Armenia 2 By Khachik Harutyunyan, Yerevan ■■Anti-Corruption Measures in the Energy Sector: EITI in Azerbaijan 6 By Hannes Meissner, Vienna ■■Continuity and Change: Corruption in Georgia 9 By Alexander Kupatadze, St Andrews, UK ■■DOCUMENTATION The Countries of the South Caucasus in International Corruption-Related Rankings 11 ■■OPINION POLL Public Opinion on Corruption—Comparison of the South Caucasus Countries 2013/14 15 Public Opinion on Corruption in Georgia 2014/15 16 ■■CHRONICLE 4 September – 5 October 2015 19 Institute for European, Russian, Research Centre Center Caucasus Research German Association for and Eurasian Studies for East European Studies for Security Studies The George Washington Resource Centers East European Studies University of Bremen ETH Zurich University The Caucasus Analytical Digest is supported by: CAUCASUS ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 78, 5 October 2015 2 Overview of the Anti-Corruption Fight in Armenia By Khachik Harutyunyan, Yerevan Abstract: According to the NGO Policy Forum Armenia’s estimation, Armenia lost $5.9 billion in 2013 because of corruption, and instead of a GDP of $10.5 billion in 2013, it would have had $16.4 billion, if only it had had a level of governance comparable to Botswana and Namibia.1 On February 19, 2015 Armenia estab- lished a new institutional structure to fight corruption led by the Prime Minister. This new setup requires the adoption of a new, third anti-corruption strategy for Armenia.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia's Democratic Development: Challenges and Problems
    Georgia’s Democratic Development: Challenges and Problems Report by GRASS (Georgia’s Reforms Associates) November 2014 Tbilisi Georgia’s Democratic Development: Challenges and Problems TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. POLITICAL LANDSCAPE ------------------------------------------------------------3 2. THE PARLIAMENT -------------------------------------------------------------------10 3. THE GOVERNMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------17 4. THE JUDICIARY -----------------------------------------------------------------------27 5. THE ELECTORAL SUSTEM AND THE SYSTEM OF SELF GOVERNANCE --30 6. THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND ITS ROLE IN THE POLITICAL LIFE -------------------------------------------------------------36 7. PROTECTION OF MINORITY RIGHTS IN GEORGIA ---------------------------41 8. STATE OF THE MEDIA ---------------------------------------------------------------43 9. CIVIL SOCIETY -------------------------------------------------------------------------48 GRASS Restricted Georgia’s Democratic Development: Challenges and Problems 1. POLITICAL LANDSCAPE This section will cover the political landscape of the country, the role of political parties and other influential groups, their interaction and interplay, the major trends and characteristics of Georgia’s political system as well as the general mood of society. Political parties and strong personalities After the 2012 parliamentary election, a bi-party, bi-polar political system emergeD, with the Georgian Dream Coalition (GD) in power (leD by former Prime
    [Show full text]
  • The Publication: Specifics of Development of Civil Society In
    Ilia State University On the Specifics of the Development of Civil Society in Georgia In: Modernization in Georgia. Theories, Discourses and Realities. Editor Giga Zedania. Bern, Berlin etc.: Peter Lang, 2018, S.229-270 Oliver Reisner, Jean Monnet Professor Tbilisi, 2018 This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union. 9 On the Specifics of the Development of Civil Society in Georgia Oliver Reisner This chapter analyses the development of civil society in Georgia from the Tsarist Empire in the nineteenth century until today. I will discuss its specific function and role, configured during its modernization path. These differ significantly from Western ones. After one successful but almost forgotten precedent of adapting Marxism to the needs of local communities in the beginning of the twentieth century under Georgian Menshevik social democracy, today still requires an indigenization based on citizenship and less on ethno-cultural traits inherited from Soviet nationality policy in order to depoliticize the nation. Keywords: civil society – citizenship –nation – participation – democracy. The Concept of “Civil Society” Civil society means, first of all, the defence of the individual from arbitrariness of the state (John Locke), support for the rule of law and the balance of powers (Charles Montesquieu), educating citizens and recruiting political elites (Alexis de Tocqueville), and finally institutionalizing in the public sphere a medium of democratic self- reflexivity, in which critical discussion of matters of general interest is institutionally guaranteed (Habermas, 1989). It is constituted in a nonstate sphere of action by a multiplicity of plural, voluntarily founded associations, which are articulating and autonomously organizing their specific material and normative interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Introduction Sakdrisi-Kachaghiani, located in the Republic of Georgia, is the oldest gold mine worldwide and therefore a unique heritage site1 not only of Georgia, but of humankind. 2 In complete disregard of its cultural and historical value, the Government of Georgia, on December 12, 2014 revoked Sakdrisi‟s cultural heritage status. This decision was made as a private gold-mining company RMG Gold (registered in the offshore zone) asked the Government a permit for disassembling the site. The decision was made on the same day when the permit was requested, in an expeditious and nontransparent manner, without any consultations with the stakeholders concerned, and in violation of Georgia‟s legislation. The very next day, early in the morning the company blew up Sakdrisi- Kachaghiani site. This is not the first case in Georgia when a cultural heritage has been sacrificed in the interest of financial gains. 3 Moreover, it is worth noting that it is not the extremely poor local population that benefits from the financial gains, but private corporations, majority of which are registered in offshore zones. As Sakdrisi-Kachaghiani is not an isolated case, we are very concerned that such incidents might also happen to other sites of cultural heritage. Below is the detailed information on how the events have developed in past couple of years in relation to Sakdrisi-Kachaghiani. 1 Based on the Law on Protection of Cultural Heritage, Sakdrisi was granted the status of cultural heritage in 2006. Since 2007, the law on the Protection of the Cultural Heritage was invalidated and the new law on the Cultural Heritage was adopted (excluding the word “protection” from its heading).
    [Show full text]
  • Parliament of Georgia in 2018
    ASSESSMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PARLIAMENT OF GEORGIA IN 2018 TBILISI, 2019 Research Supervisor: Lika Sajaia Lead Researcher: Tamar Tatanashvili Researchers: George Topouria, Gigi Chikhladze We thank Transparency International – Georgia interns: Ana Meskhi, Ketevan Kardava, Roman Kukchishvili, Khatuna Kvintskhadze. We thank the Organizational Department of Parliament of Georgia, its head Eter Svianaidze and Parliament staffers for provision of information and cooperation. The report was prepared with the financial support of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affiars CONTENTS Methodology 7 Challenges 9 Chapter 2. Composition of the Parliament 10 Chapter 3. General Statistics 11 Chapter 4. Important Events 12 4.1 Vote of Confidence and Changes to the Government Cabinet 12 4.2 Creation of a Temporary Investigative Commission 13 4.3 Discussion on the Cultivation of Cannabis and Legislative Initiatives 15 4.5 Hearing of the President’s Annual Report 16 4.6 Nomination of Judges by the High Council of Justice 16 4.7 Verbal and Physical Conflict at the Parliamentary Sessions 17 Chapter 5. Important Legislative Amendments 17 5.1 Progressive Legislative Amendments 17 5.1.1 New Rules of Procedure of the Parliament 17 5.1.2 Amendments to Law on Violence against Women and/or Domestic Violence 19 5.1.3 Code of Ethics for MPs 20 5.1.4 Amendments to the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Ajara 21 5.1.5 Implementation of Electronic Petitions 22 5.2 Positive Legislative Amendments in Need of Improvement 22 5.2.1 Initiatives Included in the “Fourth Wave” of Judicial Reforms 22 5.2.2 Law on State Inspector’s Office 23 5.2.3 Amendments to the Law on Lawyers 23 5.2.4 Amendments Related to the Asset Declarations 24 5.3 Negative Legislative Amendments 24 5.3.1 Change of Rules for Party Financing 24 5.3.2 Pension Reform 25 5.3.3 Amendments to the Law on Broadcasting 26 Chapter 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Defender 2017
    PUBLIC DEFENDER (OMBUDSMAN) OF GEORGIA 2017 2017 The Public Defender of Georgia www.ombudsman.ge 1 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA, 2017 This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. 2 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN GEORGIA 2017 2017 www.ombudsman.ge www.ombudsman.ge 3 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA, 2017 OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA 6, Ramishvili str, 0179, Tbilisi, Georgia Tel: +995 32 2913814; +995 32 2913815 Fax: +995 32 2913841 E-mail: [email protected] 4 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................11 1. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S LEGAL REQUEST ...............................16 1.1. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S LEGAL REQUEST BY THE STATE SECURITY SERVICE .............................................................................................17 1.2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR STUDYING A CASE ..............17 1.3. PROVIDING AN INTERIM RESPONSE WITHIN STATUTORY TERM AND SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ONLY AFTER A REPEATED REQUEST .....................17 1.4. REFUSAL TO IMPART INFORMATION BY INVOKING VARIOUS GROUNDS ....................18 2. FULFILMENT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PUBLIC
    [Show full text]
  • Analytical Digest Caucasus
    No. 78 5 October 2015 Abkhazia South Ossetia caucasus Adjara analytical digest Nagorno- Karabakh resourcesecurityinstitute.org www.laender-analysen.de www.css.ethz.ch/cad www.crrccenters.org CORRUPTION Special Editor: Lili di Puppo ■■Overview of the Anti-Corruption Fight in Armenia 2 By Khachik Harutyunyan, Yerevan ■■Anti-Corruption Measures in the Energy Sector: EITI in Azerbaijan 6 By Hannes Meissner, Vienna ■■Continuity and Change: Corruption in Georgia 9 By Alexander Kupatadze, St Andrews, UK ■■DOCUMENTATION The Countries of the South Caucasus in International Corruption-Related Rankings 11 ■■OPINION POLL Public Opinion on Corruption—Comparison of the South Caucasus Countries 2013/14 15 Public Opinion on Corruption in Georgia 2014/15 16 ■■CHRONICLE 4 September – 5 October 2015 19 Institute for European, Russian, Research Centre Center Caucasus Research German Association for and Eurasian Studies for East European Studies for Security Studies The George Washington Resource Centers East European Studies University of Bremen ETH Zurich University The Caucasus Analytical Digest is supported by: CAUCASUS ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 78, 5 October 2015 2 Overview of the Anti-Corruption Fight in Armenia By Khachik Harutyunyan, Yerevan Abstract: According to the NGO Policy Forum Armenia’s estimation, Armenia lost $5.9 billion in 2013 because of corruption, and instead of a GDP of $10.5 billion in 2013, it would have had $16.4 billion, if only it had had a level of governance comparable to Botswana and Namibia.1 On February 19, 2015 Armenia estab- lished a new institutional structure to fight corruption led by the Prime Minister. This new setup requires the adoption of a new, third anti-corruption strategy for Armenia.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Performance of the Georgian Parliament
    ASSESSMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GEORGIAN PARLIAMENT SPRING, FALL AND EXTRAORDINARY SESSIONS 2014 TBILISI 2015 Research authors: Lika Sajaia, Giorgi Oniani, Tamar Tatanashvili Contributors: George Topouria, Ana Dabrundashvili, Andria Nadiradze, Gigi Chikhladze Transparency International Georgia Address: 26, Rustaveli Avenue, Tbilisi Georgia 0108 Phone: (+995 32) 292 14 03 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Website: http://transparency.ge, http://MyParlamenti.ge The following report was prepared within the scope of the Transparency International Georgia’s Parliamentary Monitoring Project with the financial support of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 10.1. REASONABLE CAUSE OF ABSENCE FROM PLENARY SESSIONS 27 CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PARLIAMENT 4 10.2. PLENARY SESSION AND COMMITTEE MEETING ABSENCES WITHOUT A REASONABLE CAUSE 28 CHAPTER 2: GENERAL STATISTICS 5 10.3. DISCIPLINARY RESPONSIBILITY OF MPS 30 CHAPTER 3: IMPORTANT EVENTS 7 CHAPTER 11. PERFORMANCE OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES 31 CHAPTER 4: IMPORTANT LEGAL AMENDMENTS 10 11.1. COMMITTEE PARTICIPATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 31 CHAPTER 5. PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL AND ELECTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS BY THE PARLIAMENT 13 11.2. COMMITTEE REACTIONS TO CITIZEN APPLICATIONS 33 5.1 HEARINGS OF ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE BODIES ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PARLIAMENT 14 11.3. LEGAL ISSUES COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 34 5.2. CONTROL FUNCTION OF MPS AND PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES 14 11.4. FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND FOREIGN POLICY 34 5.3. ELECTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS BY THE PARLIAMENT 15 CHAPTER 12. ACTIVITIES OF THE MAJORITARIAN MPS 35 CHAPTER 6. INFORMATION ABOUT MPS (EDUCATION, AGE, PROFESSION) 18 12.1 THE FREQUENCY OF CITIZEN APPLICATIONS AND IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS 36 6.1 AGE 18 12.2.
    [Show full text]