Eva Gotsiridze to Georgian Dream representatives: “Based on the provision cited in the lawsuit, more than 10 parties in Georgia could be unconstitutional – Isn’t the standard you are proposing too low?”

“Taking into account the provision cited in the lawsuit, it appears that the majority of political parties in Georgia – more than 10 parties – could be unconstitutional. Isn’t the standard you are proposing too low, and to what extent does this comply with democratic principles?” Constitutional Court Judge Eva Gotsiridze asked the plaintiff.

Gotsiridze said that the term “unconstitutional” was being applied to political parties too “easily.”

“The plaintiff frequently speaks about the issue of five political parties being unconstitutional all at once, asking when this has ever happened. Indeed, it has never happened before. If five parties are unconstitutional, they should, in principle, be banned – that is correct. However, the number still has an impact; it is a factor. This is especially true if we also take into account the provision cited in the lawsuit, which states that there are other parties that are unconstitutional as well.

“Incidentally, no justification is provided for that claim, and obviously there should not be one, but the term is nevertheless being used very casually in relation to these parties. We are not examining whether those parties are unconstitutional now, because that has no bearing on the case. But look at what this means: five parties are deemed unquestionably unconstitutional, and another five, possibly even more, are also mentioned. Does this mean that the majority of political parties in Georgia – more than 10 – could be unconstitutional? Isn’t the standard you are proposing too low? How does this comply with the democratic principle that political pluralism must be ensured?” the judge said.

The judge’s question was answered by Thornike Chieshvili, a member of the parliamentary majority:

“Our approach is based on the standard of assessing how high the risks are, how intense the threat is, and how serious the danger posed by the particular individual party is to the constitutional order.”