Georgia National Integrity System Assessment 2020 The publication was prepared with the financial support of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Transparency International Georgia bears the sole responsibility for the content of this report. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Contents Executive Summary _____________________________________________________ 5 Introduction: About NIS Assessment ____________________________________ 10 Country Profile: Foundations of the National Integrity System ___________ 15 Corruption Profile _______________________________________________________ 19 Anti-Corruption Activities _______________________________________________ 20 Parliament ______________________________________________________________ 22 Executive Branch ________________________________________________________ 37 Judiciary __________________________________________________________________ 51 Public Administration _____________________________________________________ 65 Law Enforcement Agencies ______________________________________________ 78 Electoral Administration _________________________________________________ 95 Public Defender _________________________________________________________ 104 State Audit Office _______________________________________________________ 113 Political Parties ________________________________________________________ 123 Media __________________________________________________________________ 135 Civil Society ____________________________________________________________ 151 Business ________________________________________________________________ 158 Conclusions and Recommendations ____________________________________ 170 Executive Summary The NIS approach is based on the presumption that preventing corruption and promoting good governance in a country requires effective operation of all key institutions. According to this assessment, only three of Georgia’s 12 NIS institutions have a high or relatively high final score: the Public Defender, the State Audit Office, and the Electoral Administration. This result points to significant problems in terms of combating corruption and for democracy in general. Georgian National Integrity System 100 80.5 80 73.5 68 59 58.3 58.3 60 56.9 54.1 56.2 52.7 50.6 45.1 40 20 0 Media Judiciary Business Parliament Civil Society Political Parties Public Defender Executive Branch State Audit Office Public Administration Electoral administration Law enforcement agencies NIS institution final scores The weakness of the legislature and the judiciary reduces their ability to exercise effective oversight of the government’s and the law enforcement agencies’ activities. The legislature’s and the judiciary’s problems, meanwhile, stem largely from an extremely high degree of the concentration of power and the ruling party’s almost total control over a majority of public institutions. This state of affairs is linked largely to low political competition which is caused by the ruling party’s privileged access to resources, as well as the inability of the State Au- dit Office and the law enforcement agencies to deal effectively with violations of campaign financing rules and voter bribing. Political competition is also undermined by the growing pressure from the authorities on the media and business. Law and practice The final scores of the institutions reflect the results of the analysis of both the practice of these institutions and of the legal framework governing their operation. Meanwhile, if we look at the results of the assessment of the practice and the law separately, we will see that, in a 5 majority of the institutions, the average score for practice is significantly lower than the av- erage score for law, which indicates that the actual effectiveness of the institutions is lower than their total scores may suggest. Law vs Practice 100 Law Practice 85.7 80 79.1 78.5 80 80 75 75 75 75 70.8 71.8 66.6 65 60 58.3 58 50 46.4 42.8 43.7 41.6 42.8 43.7 42.8 40 33.3 20 0 Media Judiciary Business Parliament Civil Society Political Parties Public Defender Executive Branch State Audit Office Public Administration Electoral administration Law enforcement agencies NIS institution’s average scores for law and practice Changes since 2015 Previous Georgian NIS assessments were published in 2011 and 2015. Compared with 2015, the total scores of the Government, the judiciary, and the law enforcement agencies have decreased significantly, while only the Public Defender has made significant progress. 6 NIS , , 100 2019 2015 2011 80.5 80 73.5 71 71 69 68 68 67 65 64 63 63 60 59 57 56.9 57 56.2 58.3 58.3 60 54 52.7 54.1 54 53 53 52 50 50.6 50 47 48 45.1 43 45 40 40 20 0 edia udiciar usiness Parliaent Ciil ociet Political arties Public eender Executie ranch tate udit ice Public dinistration lectoral adinistration Law enorceent aencies NIS Institutions: main trends The level of the Parliament’s independence is low in practice and parliamentary oversight of the executive branch is therefore weak. The Parliament does not devote sufficient atten- tion to improving anti-corruption legislation, while violations of anti-corruption legislation committed by the Parliament’s members are rarely addressed effectively. The legal frame- work governing the Parliament’s activities is mostly sound but the legislature does not utilize its legal powers effectively enough. The Georgian Executive Branch is not independent in practice due to informal external influence over its activities. The legal framework contains important provisions designed to prevent conflict of interest and corruption in the government but these provisions are often not enforced in practice and possible cases of corruption in the government are not investi- gated. The government does not engage in sufficient efforts to establish an independent civil service and to combat corruption in public administration. Despite important positive changes in the legislation, the judiciary is not independent in practice: External actors wield undue influence over the judiciary, while, within the judiciary, a single group (the so-called clan) exerts pressure on other judges. Some important decisions in the judiciary, including judicial appointments, are made through an opaque process. The accountability of judges for possible violations of the law (including possible cases of corrup- tion) is not ensured. Rulings passed by judges often lack reasoning. The legal framework governing the public administration’s activities contains important provisions designed to ensure its independence, transparency, accountability and integrity. However, the public administration is not independent in practice due to undue political in- 7 fluence over its activities, while the level of transparency is uneven across the public admin- istration. The enforcement of the legislative provisions designed to prevent corruption in the public administration is weak. Despite positive reforms, significant corruption risks persist in the public procurement system. The level of independence of the law enforcement agencies is low in practice due to the undue partisan and informal influence on their activities. The accountability of the law en- forcement agencies is not ensured either: The possible violations and crimes committed by their employees and officials (including possible cases of corruption) are often not addressed effectively. Due to their low level of independence, the law enforcement agencies are incapa- ble of effectively investigating possible cases of high-level corruption. The State Audit Officeis a transparent institution which works actively to review the spend- ing of public funds. However, public agencies frequently fail to implement the State Audit Office’s recommendations. Also, the State Audit Office’s monitoring of political party finance is ineffective, especially during electoral campaigns. The electoral administration mostly performs well in terms of organizing elections, al- though there are significant shortcomings in terms of the professionalism of PEC members. Some of the electoral administration’s decisions raise questions regarding its independence. In recent years, there have been possible cases of favouritism and nepotism in the selection of PEC and DEC members. The Public Defender’s activities are characterized by a high degree of independence and transparency. The Public Defender is effective both in terms of responding to possible viola- tions of human rights and in terms of preparing recommendations designed to improve the state policy on human rights and the operation of public institutions. However, public officials have engaged in aggressive verbal attacks against the Public Defender, while radical groups have made threats against the Public Defender. Public agencies do not always follow the le- gal requirement to collaborate with the Public Defender and to assist the Public Defender’s work, while also frequently failing to follow the Public Defender’s recommendations. Georgian legislation ensures that establishment and registration of political parties is sim- ple. However, major inequality between the ruling party and the opposition parties in terms of resources reduces political competition. Instances of violence against the members and activists of opposition parties are often not addressed effectively, while the law enforcement agencies and the courts sometimes apply the law selectively against representatives of op- position parties. The