INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM BAKUR KVASHILAVA eecmd.org INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM not necessarily reflect theviews oftheEECMDandDIPD. author isresponsible forthecontent ofthispublication,andtheopinions expressed initdo projectPolitical Parties fundedbytheDanishInstitute andDemocracy forParties (DIPD). The racy oftheEnhancingInstitutionalandElectoral (EECMD) aspart Capacities ofDemocratic The publicationwascommissioned bytheEastern European Centre Democ forMultiparty - eecmd.org 01 09 21 05 RESEARCH FINDINGS INTRODUCTION APPENDIX METHODOLOGY CONTENT INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN 1 eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM other public institutions, influence the creation and modification of these interests by helping with along parties, these time, same the At government. existing the influencing or power population and/ortheirinterests andpursuetheseinterests inpoliticsbyeithercomingto the of segment certain a represent each they level, basic most the at but functions, ferent dif perform may parties traditions, political various on Depending power. gaining of means optimal the as system democratic a in play to role special a have parties political Naturally, not onlyindemocratic nationsbutalsoeveninauthoritarian regimes. arethan 20,000.Politicalparties anintegral ofmodernreality part theirfunctions andperform less of population a with microstate a with or principles antiquated on based government a a state donotfunction,weare inthemodernworld.Whenpoliticalparties dealingeitherwith development, law enforcement – this is just a small and general list of functions performed by public protection, environmental education, security, social economics, policy, Foreign ing. country to solve the complex and diverse issues that the modern state is responsible for solv any of government the for difficult is it parties, political Without norm. the to exceptions are country without them. There are still countries where no political parties exist; however, these a running imagine to difficult is It state. modern the in role significant a play parties Political INTRODUCTION 1 outcomes favorable to theirinterests. ety, as opposed to civil society, which instead aims to influence politicians in order to pursue organizations that are willing to pursue political goals can be considered part of political soci only policies, certain for fight organizations political and civil both though Even government. goal, inevitably, is to at least participate in a coalition government, if not to form a full-fledged Europeannarrowgroupsdemocracies,in Greeninterests,with movements the their as such of case the in Even power. political for fight organizations, society civil unlike parties, First, from civilsociety. separately viewed is society political which in analysis, 1996 Stepan’s and Linz in confirmed is approach this of logic The instead. society political with affiliated and society civil from exaggeration to state shouldbeseparated thatmostscholarsstillthinkpoliticalparties an be not would it society, civil of part as parties political view scholars many though Even promoting socialunityamongthemselves. to shapepublicopinionandsometimescreating asocialsecuritynetfortheirmembers,thus

Press 1996), 7-10. Linz, Juan&Alfred Stepan, 1 Problems of Democratic Consolidation Democratic of Problems (Baltimore &London: JohnsHopkins University - - - INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN 2 eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM This attitude, which is perfectly acceptable in civil society, is completely unproductive in politics. eliminated sincethere canbenotwotruthsand,thus,opposinglegitimate interests. areof theotherparty rare inpoliticaldiscourse.Theopponent istheenemyandshouldbe their supporters and voters through uncompromising positioning. Compromise and legitimation Since the day that gained independence, political parties have been trying to impress and one of the main reasons for the polarization of Georgian politics should be sought there. The needforthishistorical excursusarisesfrom thecurrent state ofGeorgian politicalculture, and introduced theseelementsofuncompromising battleinto politics. 1990s, the in Poland as such countries, some in persistedapproaches similar Union, Soviet anti-communist force in the battle for liberation from the Soviet yoke. After the collapse of the countries originated in the Soviet period and became the basis for the consolidation of every truth. the within life for allows society civil line, official the for end isthehighestgoal. justice, the pursuit of truth, and its unwavering protection truth, afterward. is Following society this truth civil to the the of origin the principles: and values political and social different by noted above, the example of Poland demonstrates that these two different spaces are guided difference fundamental the to addition In society. civil from content and character in differs society political how obvious it makes Poland post-soviet of transformationdemocratic The 3 2 cares for the country and portrayed everyone else as a useful idiot, if not an enemy. Therefore, party and its opponents have presented themselves to the voters as the only force that really dependence has used this ideology to gain people’s support. For the last 30 years, the ruling in since organization political important every because followed that period the in viable so approaches of those fighting against Communism. It is quite possible that this idea has proved the Communist regime was the main drive, in spite of the diversity of ideological and tactical opposing and value, paramount the was unity movement, dissident anti-Soviet the During country. society hasnotbeentransformed, andGeorgia hasnotestablisheditselfasatrulydemocratic political – later years Georgia25 remainsin still challenge transformation.this Unfortunately, democratic Poland’s of completion the hindered factor this and Poland, in problem similar a identified Stepan and Linz conscience. own one’s consequently, and, truth the of betrayal another political party or another part of society, and that contact cannot be perceived as the ofsociety.only apart Bythesameprinciple, there either mustbecontact with anotherparty, andonebearercannot bejustoneparty expresses ofthetruthsinceeachparty theopinionof there definition, By something. of part being to refers party word very the of etymology The

Havel, Vaclav, Linz andStepan, 269-276 The Power of the Powerless the of Power The 2 According to Havel, unlike the deception of Communism’s support support Communism’s of deception the unlike Havel, toAccording (London: Vintage2018),Chapter 7. 3 This dichotomy in post-Soviet in dichotomy This INTRODUCTION - INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN 3 eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM These circumstances make it clear that polarization among political opponents in Georgia has seemed like theonlylogicalconclusionofthatprocess. in 1992, 2003, and 2012, humiliating their predecessor and ignoring all of their achievements was it as completedsuccessfully, was task Naturally,this agenda. when opposition’s the on the enemies of the country – in other words, from the previous government – has always been every political campaign has been fueled by radical slogans. Liberation of the homeland from that surprising all at not is it and independence, after even continued This leader. previous onwards, it had become a Soviet tradition to condemn, humiliate or ignore any initiative of the modifications, is the denial of any achievement of the previous government.several From Khrushchev with culture, political our by retained dictatorship Soviet the of reminder Another compromise, formcoalitions, cooperate withopponents,orfindcommonground. enemy of the homeland. That is why we have a political culture in which it is unacceptable to principles when, forexample,ithadbeenstated inrecent rallies wasthe that the otherparty betrayalequal an imply not cooperationsupportersof does that convince party another with to difficult is it campaigns, political such after since, radicalization breed these Tacticslike overcome the election threshold, has tried to persuade voters of the inevitability of its victory. gian election campaigns features several cases when a political party, even one that could not it is always a fight until complete victory, as reflected in common slogans. The history of Geor by the characteristics of its constituent elements, in this case, we can still be optimistic that determined not are system a characteristicsof the sometimes though Even parties. political of democratization the is warfare political winner-take-all this disrupting of means Another Georgian politics. of actors main the for undesirable and awkward often is opponents with relationship civil of elections, it has become obvious that not only compromise and consensus, but even any kind parliamentary 2020 the after developed that crisis political the as well as 2012-2013, in tion towardssociety the of prospect,attitude negative sharply the cohabita considering political promising a is this While government. coalition a forming of likelihood increase the nificantly sig and parties more of inclusion the promote will threshold lower relatively a with system electoralproportionalregard a this – in optimistically less moreor greet2024 should we and culture that is more amenable to democracy. One of the most tested ways is electoral reform, political different a form and cycle vicious the through break to is goal main our Therefore, in Georgian politics,anditisoneofthemainimpedimentsto democratization. have deeper roots and a more solid foundation. There are various reasons for this radicalization opponents of delegitimization and polarization political Unfortunately,our quo. status the up armed with populist ideas, have come into power with radical slogans and attempted to shake nothing incommonwithrecent trends inWestern democracies, where newpoliticalforces, INTRODUCTION - - - INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN 4 eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM within the organization. The effect is strengthened after the inclusion of minorities, women, minorities, of inclusion the after strengthened is effect The organization. the within shared being are and exist views differentguarantees that turn, in which, , of groups larger of involvement the ensures democracy Internal delegitimization. their complicating Internal democracy additionallybringstransparency, increasing and trustinpoliticalparties mitigate theconfrontation aswell. betweenpoliticalparties thus, at the minimum, also deserves respect. It is quite possible that the same principles can fromas well,itunderstandsthattheopponent’spositionalsoenjoyssupport itspeopleand, democratic as state another perceivesdemocracy one if Second, outside. from observation for allows and open more is governance democratic since situation the defuse and process the observe to parties other allowing process, the in participate people Many governance. other. ininternationalpeace theory relations is based -democratic states do notwagewarwith each liberal the which on principle the is This performance. electoral party’s their in reflected be will this risks, such comprehend to fail supporters party If risks. political more carries zation demoni principles, democratic on based organization an is opponent the When group. or individual one of ambitions selfish the of instrument an as portrayed be can party other the demonize membership-based organizations. A demonizing strategy is more convincing when to opponents for difficult it make therefore, will, and nature representative their emphasize intra-party democracy will make political culture more tolerant. Democracy will within parties 4 takes ourindividualcircumstances into consideration. Georgian politicalreality to offeranindexthatisbothbasedonshared theoretical modelsand at specifically looking be will we happens, this Before model. one on focus will researchers define the degree of party democracy. We are hopeful that as the interest in this topic grows, that models specific and articles several however, are, democracy. There party defining for and, therefore, there are no commonly recognized and shared standards that could be applied more emphasis is being paid to the topic of democratization. However, this topic is still new, of democracy. Thus,whendiscussingtransitional democracies andhybridregimes, more and and youth increases in the party. These differing viewpoints grow in proportion to the growth

Russett, Bruce& John Oneal, 4 They avoid war for two main reasons. First, decision-making is delayed in democratic Triangulating Peace Triangulating (NewYork/London: Norton 2001),Chapter 2. INTRODUCTION - INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN 5 eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM method is used to calculate the general democracy index of a political party – by the mean of specific area on a scale of 0 to 1, where a higher score indicates better democracy. The same a democracy in party degree of the us gives criteria five all mocracy.of mean arithmetic The non-de to refers (0) response negative a while democracy, indicates (1) response positive A 0. then – not if assigned; is point 1 present, is criterion specific a If 1. or 0 either of score a given is criterion each process, evaluation the In area. each for used are criteria Different The modelassessesBrazilian infivemainareas: politicalparties approaches. preexisting integrating by created was concept This Salgado. Desiree Eneida researcherBrazilianpolitical the by developed concept the on based is model following The METHODOLOGY 5 that wenowhavemainareas instead offive: rights protection mechanismsforordinary members andlessintegrated groups. Thisresult is with proceduresresolution dispute joined and structure, organizational under agencies nate subordi their and bodies governing between relationship the for criteria the combined area, separatea in matterselection-related included also have separated.We been have cedures organization,the of bodies governing of organizational structure, disputeand resolution pro with procedures fortheselectionofcandidates in elections, whiletherulesforformation integrated been have procedures membership model, our in example, For optimal. proved model naturethe complex Georgiansimplifying toless of society, due the political However, into consideration whendefiningthedegree ofdemocracy forGeorgian politicalparties. and politicaltraditions. We decidedto followthesamepathandtake someofthesefactors requirements, legislative system,electoral arrangement,federal country’s the as such pects as consider and contextBrazilianaretailored political the tothem of many areas.However, the total index of the same five areas. This model presents 31 criteria sorted into the five main

5. 4. 3. 2. 1. No. 1 (January/April 2020):107-136https://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/74101No. 1(January/April lastaccessedon02.06.2021. Salgado, Eneida Desiree, “Intra-Party Democracy Index: A Measure Model from Brazil Membership procedures platform Rules fordefiningtheparty organizationalThe party’s structure Rules forconflict resolution governingbodies Rules forstaffingtheparty’s ”, Journal of Constitutional Research Constitutional of Journal ”, 7, 7, - - - - 5

INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN 6 eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM the Registry of Political Parties. Although in practice, parties may be governed by more or more by governed be may parties practice, in Although Parties. Political of Registry the in and websites official their on presented as parties political selected from documentation and charters official of analysis an on based entirely are assessments project, pilot this In leads to anoverall rating, whichisalsorepresented onarange of0to 1. 1 by calculating the average of the criteria of that area, while the average of three main areas to 0 of scale a on area given a in party a of democracy a of degree the defines and formula Brazilian the replicates model the aspects, other In appendix. the in presented also is This met. are requirements additional that indicates 1 and established, been has that procedure the implies 0.5 indicator, specific a of absence the indicates 0 increased: not has evaluation of complexity the although added, been has 0.5 of score or intermediate an 0 model, either our In of 1. score a with assessed was criterion each model, Brazilian the In changed. somewhat also has system grading The area. each across distributed evenly 15 to criteria of number overall the reduced have We appendix. the in below given are usage for cations justifi and descriptions, list, The criteria. specific against evaluated again wereareas These parties. However, informal governance is more likely in a less institutionalized environment, institutionalized less a in likely more is governance informal However, parties. political Georgian for case the be not would practice actual and governance of rules written howthe of country was functioning and governed. Of course, such a dramatic characteristics discrepancy between the main the reflect way any in not did constitution the – example an as Union Soviet the use can We organization. an of rules game and behavior, character, the on impact an significant less no have frequently, quite rules, Unwritten ones. formal the this model.Institutionsconsistofformalandinformal rules,whilethisindexonlyassesses All of this should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results we obtained using the degree ofinternal democracy ofGeorgian politicalparties. are assuming that an analysis of only official documentation would still give an overall idea of we logic, this on Based difficult. extremely management make rules unwritten of pretations in the process, since we are not dealing with the sole rule, and the possibility of various inter without theexistence ofdetailedrules. Ifthere are nosuchrules,thenumberofparticipants impossible practically is governance democratic size, accountable an of party political a In ganization cannot be ruled out, dictatorship is even more likely in the absence of these rules. or authoritarian an in rules detailed having of likelihood the though Even craticgovernance. less democratic principles, we believe that the institutionalization of rules is crucial for demo 3. 2. 1. Rights protection mechanisms Organizational structure Electoral institutions METHODOLOGY - - - - INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN 7 eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM We also need to set a time frame that will make our conclusions more convincing. Therefore, landscape. political today’s beyond think to important is it why is which tomorrow, all at exist even not a law. pass to required are votes whose parties those is, that process, legislative the on influence of Giovanni Sartor, which states that the only relevant parties are the ones that can have a real portion of votes received or seats won. Laakso-Taageperathe apply could prothe by parties calculatesof which number index, the a political party meets these characteristics. There are several approaches we could take. We active and significant parties. In practical terms, we use specific criteria to determine whether gian politicalsystem andculture through internal democracy, party wewillonlyconsider not be relevant to assess each of them in terms of democracy. In order to evaluate the Geor associations are registered inGeorgia, political 265 data, currenttoAccording parties. relevant of selection the was stage next The to alsoconsidertheselimitingcircumstances wheninterpreting ourresearch results. tions mayindicate more democracy thanwhatactuallyappearsinourmodel.Itisimportant especially in the case of relatively old parties. In newly created organizations, informal institu and wecanassumethatsuchinformalruleswouldsuggestmore authoritariantendencies, 8 7 6 Based ontheseconsiderations, wehaveselected 14politicalassociations: votes. It was obvious that Nino Burjanadze’s political organization was of the leader 3% in this case. than more received coalition Opposition United - Burjanadze the 2014, in example, coalition result to theleadingparty. We usethelogical approach to determine theleader. For overallgrantthe we coalitions, of case the In list. party the on elections 2020 in participated and 2012 from starting election any in votes national total of 1% least at won that party ical polit every relevant as consider Therefore, we field. political tomorrow’s in role significant a system like ours, it is important to not forget seemingly insignificant players that may acquire players in Georgianimportant politics. That is why in an unshaped, dynamic, and chaotic of dynamism that emerges out of nowhere and promotes newly created as political parties factor unique that for not if problem a be not would This consideration. for parties 2-3 only leave scenario, best-case the in would, criteria strict such because context political our in Neither Laakso-Taagepera’s nor Sartor’s definitions of relevance would be suitable for parties in today.and elections parliamentary 2012 the both units tohave we However, modification. a apply similar represented that associations political those only relevant as consider we

Political Studies Political Sartori, Giovanni, Laakso M,Taagepera AMeasure R,“Effective’NumberofParties: withApplication to West Europe” National AgencyofPublicRegistry. PoliticalAssociations.https://napr.gov.ge/p/477 lastaccessed on02.06.2021 8 On the other hand, given our political dynamics, a party that is relevant today might today relevant is that party a dynamics, political our given hand, other the On 197912(1):3-27. doi:10.1177/001041407901200101 lastaccessedon02.06.2021 Parties and Party Systems Party and Parties (Colchester: ECPR Press 2016),Chapter 5. 6 7 ofwhichmanynolongerfunction.Naturally, itwould It is also possible to follow the substantive definition METHODOLOGY Comparative Comparative - - - - INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN 8 eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM Public Registry. The party does not have a website, and its Facebook page was last updated Stateremovedwas People the for from charterits untraceable,since was list the the in even while theremaining onlyhaveFacebookpages. parties Citizens), - Elisashvili Aleko of omission the with table, above the in organizations eight first websites active notedofficial, be have also (the should hereIt parties political eight only that removal from oftheparty thelist. the for grounds sufficient proved criteria, the of spirit overall the with along This, 2016. in 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. State forthePeople Democratic Movement-United Georgia Georgian RepublicanParty Aleko Elisashvili-Citizens Lelo forGeorgia New PoliticalCenter -Girchi Giorgi Vashadze - European Georgia The AllianceofPatriots Georgian LaborParty United NationalMovement METHODOLOGY INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN 9 eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM TABLE 1. could surpasseventheintermediate score (0.5).Thisisdemonstrated inmore detailbelow: the resulting picture reveals a relatively low degree of democracy. None of the political parties These 13 parties were assessed in accordance with the methodology that we developed, and RESEARCH FINDINGS 9 the functionofconstituent structural unitsandonlyliststhem.Notaword issaidaboutthe principles butdoesnotsay anythingaboutthemechanism.Thedocumentdoes notdiscuss election matters, thedocumentonlystates willactinaccordance that theparty with democratic to relation in instance, For details. many explain to fails therefore, and, reviewed were that disclosed on Facebook. Second, their charter is the shortest document of all such documents Political Parties. factors. First,theonlytraceable charter documentwastheparty uploadedto of theRegistry Free Georgia these tendencies willimprove. new parties demonstrate more democratic tendencies. It is likely that with institutionalization, relatively that reveals also analysis The rights. members’ of protection the guaranteeing in difficulty most the have parties political Georgian that areas revealed specific of analysis An 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 doc&doc_id=575123 lastaccessedon02.06.2021. National Agencyof PublicRegistry. https://pareg.napr.gov.ge/main.php?c=app&m=view_ ofPolitical Parties. Registry

New Political Center - Girchi Intra-party Democracy Index2021

is one of the two parties that received the lowest score. This is due to severalto due is score.This lowest receivedthe that parties two the of one is European Georgia 9 The organization does not have a website, and official documents are not are documents official and website, a have not does organization The

Free Democrats

Georgian Republican Party DEMOCRACY INDEX Lelo

Giorgi Vashadze - Strategy Aghmashenebeli

Aleko Elisashvili - Citizens

Georgian Dream

United National Movement

Georgian Labor Party

Democratic Movement - United Georgia

Free Georgia

The Alliance of Patriots 10 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM TABLE 2. of thechairmanare evenwiderthantheyare inotherparties. protection of members’ rights, accountability mechanisms are overly general, and the powers 10 documents of many other countries and does not require parties to ensure regional coverage be noted that the Georgian Law on Political Associations matters forinternal important democracy are, infact,notpresented here either. It shouldalso rating. Even though it has a website and a much more informative charter, unlike Free Georgia, The AllianceofPatriots Total Index Rights Protection Mechanisms Promoting Equality Commissions Investigative Disciplinary Dispute Resolution Distribution ofResources Accountability Organizational Structure Level ofDecentralization Internal Monitoring Service Rule ofEarlyDismissal Position ofLeader Governing Bodies Electoral Institutions Election Program/Platform Election Resources Local Elections Selection ofMajoritarian Proportional Elections Indicators view/28324?publication=34 lastaccessedon04.06.2021. Legislative Herald ofGeorgia. The LawonPoliticalAssociationsof Citizens. https://matsne.gov.ge/document/ Free Georgia –DetailedAssessment , which has been a parliamentary party forten party , whichhasbeenaparliamentary years,hasasimilar 10 is quite liberal compared to similar Assessment 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RESEARCH FINDINGS 0.13 0.10 0.20 0.10 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN 11 eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM However, such a claim cannot be made without analyzing the function of each unit. Weunit. each of function the analyzing without made tookbe cannot claim a such However, democracy. of impression the creates This commission). audit (the service control the and body (the congress), the executive body (the secretariat), the board and/or the political council, perform its functions in an unbiased manner. Thus, in any charter, you will see the supervising may not be a member of another governing body. This is important for the audit committee to unit this of member a that clarify parties some only but charter, every in found is body audit topics are simplymentionedincharters orare explainedingreater detail.Forexample,an these if see to important therefore is It obligations. legal their meet invariably charters Their context into account to avoid misrepresenting the democracy of parties registered in Georgia. this take to important is It branches. monitoring and executive, supervising, has party each promotingminimum, democraticparty. the in governance requires law the example, For that a as or, ensuring at aimed law the in requirements certain still are there hand, other the On have aneffectivemechanismforcontrolling thebudget. resources beallocated to groups, certain suchasyouth,minorities,orwomen,thatmembers the state doesnotinterfere withthedistribution ofresources anddoesnotdemandthatthese three only and finances party. creation the the regulate of for functioning rules and However, cover law 13-page the of pages seven speaking, Roughly state. the to obligations financial of fulfillment the and sources funding of transparency the is detail more in regulated is that aspect only The members. of number specific a including or offices permanent opening by 11 charter lacksallsuchmechanisms. third component,whichassessestherightsofminoritiesandordinary memberssincetheir same individual as a leader. restrictsreelectionthat the the list of organization our only on the is this that noteworthy is It governance. of democracy and decentralization, of level the control, mutual of mechanisms assesses which component, second the in results average demonstrates party The zero. absolute above slightly is component this of evaluation therefore,the and, here implied also is platform the that assume we party, the of tactics strategyand the develops chairman the that states 8.2 article since but platform, a mention directly not does charter The selection. registry. Therefore, the only source of our evaluation is the organization’s charter obtained from the party Other official documents are not traceable on the official website of we discussbelow. this into andthoseoftheremaining accountinouranalysesof thesetwoparties that parties

OAaks1dpXcKWTeUQz9j1TswJF5II[xz0di2ce7eXwdroSLMyoAvsUqSieg5]WI lastaccessedon 04.06.2021. The Registry. TheStatute oftheAlliancePatriots. http://bs.napr.gov.ge/GetBlob?pid=900&bid=w] 11 Thisdocumentdoesnotdiscusselections,electionlists,ortheprocess ofcandidate The AllianceofPatriots does not receive a positive score in the The AllianceofPatriots RESEARCH FINDINGS . 12 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM TABLE 3. also certain mechanisms thatallowmembers toalso certain protect theirowninterests. tional structure, there is more distributionofpower thanthere isin organiza of terms In platform. this of formation the in participate can party the of members electoral platformismentioned.Inaddition, similarlyto itisnotclearhowmany other parties, the However, list. electoral the of formation the about said is nothing well, as case, this In The Selection ofMajoritarians Proportional Elections Indicators Total Index Rights Protection Mechanisms Promoting Equality Commissions Investigative Disciplinary Dispute Resolution Distribution ofResources Accountability Organizational Structure Level ofDecentralization Internal Monitoring Service Rule ofEarlyDismissal Position ofLeader Governing Bodies Electoral Institutions Election Program/Platform Election Resources Local Elections Democratic Movement -United Georgia TheAllianceofPatriots-DetailedAssessment is also at the bottom of the list with 0.17 points. Assessment Free Georgia 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RESEARCH FINDINGS . There are 0.10 0.13 0.00 0.30 - 13 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM TABLE 4. organizational arrangements. assessment in the areas of elections and rights protection while appearing relatively strong in The Selection ofMajoritarians Proportional Elections Indicators Total Index Rights Protection Mechanisms Promoting Equality Commissions Investigative Disciplinary Dispute Resolution Distribution ofResources Accountability Organizational Structure Level ofDecentralization Internal Monitoring Service Rule ofEarlyDismissal Position ofLeader Governing Bodies Electoral Institutions Election Program/Platform Election Resources Local Elections Georgian LaborParty Democratic Movement-United Georgia -DetailedAssessment has a similar averagesimilar a has score. receives Party Labor The lowest the Assessment 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 RESEARCH FINDINGS 0.10 0.17 0.20 0.20 14 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM TABLE 5. that, incaseofadispute, they simplyobeythedecisionofasuperior. implied seems It resolution. dispute to attention little very pay general, in parties, Georgian terms of elections andcontrol mechanismsbuthasno pointsatallintherightsprotection area. The Selection ofMajoritarians Proportional Elections Indicators Total Index Rights Protection Mechanisms Promoting Equality Commissions Investigative Disciplinary Dispute Resolution Distribution ofResources Accountability Organizational Structure Level ofDecentralization Internal Monitoring Service Rule ofEarlyDismissal Position ofLeader Governing Bodies Electoral Institutions Election Program/Platform Election Resources Local Elections United NationalMovement

Georgian -DetailedAssessment LaborParty is in ninth place with 0.2 points. It has an averageratingin an has It points. 0.2 with place ninth in is Assessment 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RESEARCH FINDINGS 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.30 15 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM TABLE 6. different scores (see nearly identical scores received by these parties, this is the fourth-best result among the seven consider we If average.presented as be still can result this score, low generally a of spite in and, component, one any in points weak particularly any discover not Wedid 0.27. of score The ruling Selection ofMajoritarians Proportional Elections Indicators Total Index Rights Protection Mechanisms Promoting Equality Commissions Investigative Disciplinary Dispute Resolution Distribution ofResources Accountability Organizational Structure Level ofDecentralization Internal Monitoring Service Rule ofEarlyDismissal Position ofLeader Governing Bodies Electoral Institutions Election Program/Platform Election Resources Local Elections United NationalMovement-DetailedAssessment Georgian Dream TABLE 1 is only one place ahead of the main opposition party, withatotal isonlyoneplaceaheadofthemainoppositionparty, ). Assessment 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RESEARCH FINDINGS 0.30 0.20 0.00 0.30 16 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM TABLE 7. score inthearea ofdecentralization. ularly positive assessment in electoral and organizational structures. They earn the maximum The Selection ofMajoritarians Proportional Elections Indicators Total Index Rights Protection Mechanisms Promoting Equality Commissions Investigative Disciplinary Dispute Resolution Distribution ofResources Accountability Organizational Structure Level ofDecentralization Internal Monitoring Service Rule ofEarlyDismissal Position ofLeader Governing Bodies Electoral Institutions Election Program/Platform Election Resources Local Elections Aleko Elisashvili–Citizens Georgian Dream -DetailedAssessment party, is in seventh place with 0.3 points. It receives a partic Assessment 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RESEARCH FINDINGS 0.40 0.27 0.20 0.20 - 17 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM TABLE 8. from the outset – see that relatively new organizations are building their structures on a more democratic basis Republicans the that fact The time. same the at parties four by achieved is score second-best The scores, with0.33pointseach. Selection ofMajoritarians Proportional Elections Indicators Total Index Rights Protection Mechanisms Promoting Equality Commissions Investigative Disciplinary Dispute Resolution Distribution ofResources Accountability Organizational Structure Level ofDecentralization Internal Monitoring Service Rule ofEarlyDismissal Position ofLeader Governing Bodies Electoral Institutions Election Program/Platform Election Resources Local Elections

Aleko Elisashvili–Citizens -DetailedAssessment and Lelo forGeorgia Free Democrats and topped thelistwasnotunexpected. Itisalsopromising to Strategy Aghmashenebeli also have the second-best Assessment 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 RESEARCH FINDINGS 0.40 0.30 0.10 0.40 18 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM Democrats –DetailedAssessment TABLE 9. assess onlybypoints,there isnotmuchdifference betweentheparties. European Georgia Proportional Elections Indicators Electoral Institutions Election Program/Platform Election Resources Local Elections Selection ofMajoritarians Total Index Mechanisms Rights Protection Promoting Equality Commissions Investigative Disciplinary Dispute Resolution Distribution ofResources Accountability Organizational Structure Level ofDecentralization Internal Monitoring Service Rule ofEarlyDismissal Position ofLeader Governing Bodies

Strategy Aghmashenebeli,Lelo forGeorgia, andFree RepublicanParty, and Girchi 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 Aghmashenebeli are in first place with 0.37 points. It should be noted that, if we Strategy 0.40 0.33 0.10 0.50 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 1 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 Georgia Lelo for 0.40 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 Republican Party 0.40 0.33 0.30 0.30 RESEARCH FINDINGS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 Democrats Free 0.20 0.33 0.30 0.50 19 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM TABLE 10. protected, and members do not have an opportunity to protect their positions. With rare With ex positions. protecttotheir opportunity an have not do protected,members and rarely are rights Members’ details. any specify not do they topic, this mention do parties of reports, while in some organizations, the dismissal of leaders is not even discussed. When in terms of accountability. Often, parties do not have written rules that ensure the submission Looking at the overall picture, it should be noted that significant challenges have been identified Proportional Elections Indicators Total Index Rights Protection Mechanisms Promoting Equality Commissions Investigative Disciplinary Dispute Resolution Distribution ofResources Accountability Organizational Structure Level ofDecentralization Internal Monitoring Service Rule ofEarlyDismissal Position ofLeader Governing Bodies Electoral Institutions Election Program/Platform Election Resources Local Elections Selection ofMajoritarians European Georgia andGirchi -DetailedAssessment European Georgia 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.70 0.37 0.10 0.30 RESEARCH FINDINGS Girchi 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.70 0.37 0.10 0.30 - 20 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 TABLE 11. give ushopeforthefuture. parties newer severaldemocraticin Georgia.However, tendencies emerge in and disappear parties political that rate the given surprising, not also is This organizations. these in ization institutional of level low a revealedresearch Our low. is parties political of democratization of level The unexpected. not was assessment our by painted picture the speaking, Broadly this topic atall. for the selection of candidates are usually quite generalized, and some parties do not mention pay attention to representativeness. Although elections are the most regulated event, the rules that mechanisms possess some only and policy, anti-discrimination positive a has party No for the distribution of material resources such as annual expenses or the election campaign. secondary role with management entirely in the hands of the central office. No party has a rule granteda are units constituent whose centralizedorganizations strictly are parties ceptions, 0

Democratic Movement - United Georgia AssessmentofThree ComponentsoftheIntra-party Democracy Index

New political Center - Girchi Elections

European Georgia

United National Movement

Giorgi Vashadze -

Organizational Structure Strategy Aghmashenebeli

Free Democrats

Free Georgia

Georgian Labor Party

Lelo for Georgia Rights Protection

Aleko Elisashvili - Citizens RESEARCH FINDINGS

The Alliance of Patriots

Georgian Republican Party

Georgian Dream - 21 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM APPENDIX 2.3 2.2 2.1 2. 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.

practical use. procedure, atminimum,andtheextent to whichthatprocedure canbeputinto a such of existence The – leader party the of dismissal early the for Procedure is weak. of politicalparties institutionalization the where environment an in especially tendencies, democratic strengthen leader party the of reelection the on limitations strict, overly seems rule this though Even consecutively. or times multiple leader same the of election the prohibiting rule a of existence The – leader of position the to related Restrictions is ensured, includinglimitationsonthelengthofservice. The rule for the selection of governing bodies – The extent to which representativeness ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE the creation oftheplatformandconsideration ofdifferent interests. in inclusion of levels high ensuring requirement,toconditions paid be attentionwill The rule for the creation of an election platform/program – In addition to the minimum requirement, weconsiderhowdetailedandreasoned theruleis. minimum the to addition In – resources electoral of distribution the for rule The will simplyberepeated. is no separate elections, the score rule,andthe same ruleapplies as in parliamentary The rule for the selection of candidates for local elections – Same as 1.1. In case there The rulefortheselectionofmajoritariancandidates –Sameas1.1. in democratic elections,themore democratic itis. the process. Inotherwords, thecloserselectionprocess isto thenormsadopted rule. Themore membersare allowedto participate smoothly, themore democratic exercising theirdiscretion. Thenextindicator isthedemocratic nature ofthiswritten when organization the of leaders the to advantages grantspecial usually unwritten toallows awiderspectrumofparticipants Rulesthatare useexistingopportunities. not only institutionalization but also democracy. Transparency of rules and procedures requirement is to have a written procedure since the formalization of rules indicates The rule for proportional listing – In assessing this and any other criteria, the minimum ELECTORAL INSTITUTIONS 22 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3. 2.5 2.4

these approaches isassessed. individuals, except for cases already considered by law. The comprehensiveness of Promoting equality – The existence of rules ensuring the representation of less included Same as2.1and2.4. – establishment their of principles and commissions investigative and Disciplinary decision, are ensured. tothe opportunity present counterarguments, confront the opponent, and appeal a time, preparation as such capabilities, protection which to extent the requirement, minimum the to addition In – resolution dispute for mechanism established The women, andsimilarunits–sameas1.4. The mechanismformandatory distribution of resources to regional, local, youth, can askquestions. requirement, it is assessed whether the report is published and whether the members minimum the to addition In – members to reports regular and mandatory Leader’s RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS youth, women,andotherorganizations andhowbroad theserulesare. Elements of decentralization – The existence of rules that reflect the rights of regions, in otherleadershippositionsisrecommended. serving not aremembers surebodies of making these composed Additionally, that The selection and functions of internal monitoring service – Same requirements as 2.1. APPENDIX 23 INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN eecmd.org THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM 7 , Sharashidze str., ,0179Georgia Eastern European Centre for E-mail:[email protected] Tel.:+995 322915650/51 Multiparty DemocracyMultiparty EECMD