{"id":113920,"date":"2021-09-10T22:53:41","date_gmt":"2021-09-10T18:53:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/droa.ge\/?p=113920"},"modified":"2021-11-12T23:56:40","modified_gmt":"2021-11-12T19:56:40","slug":"30-from-the-first-self-government-elections-lessons-from-history","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/droa.ge\/?p=113920","title":{"rendered":"30 from the first self-government elections \u2013 lessons from history"},"content":{"rendered":"

Author: Magda Popiashvili<\/strong><\/p>\n

On 2 October 2021 we will be voting once again to elect city mayors and members of assemblies [sakrebulo<\/em>]. Since the restoration of independence, this will be the eighth time that we, Georgia\u2019s citizens, will have to elect local authorities in our municipalities.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Much has changed since 1991 \u2013 governments changed as did the models of authority delegation, self-governance systems, and rules for local elections; unfortunately, however, 30 years from the first elections, we still have not achieved fully developed system of local governance. Let us take a long look at those we placed our trust in from one self-government election to another over these thirty years. This review intends to give a clear depiction of the gradual decline of local self-<\/strong>governments<\/strong> as decentralization was rejected and the centralized rule gained ground. <\/strong><\/p>\n

31 March 1991 \u2013 two levels of self-government, elected assemblies, and appointed prefects \u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The date, in the first place, is imprinted as especially significant and noteworthy in the national memory due to another event \u2013 a referendum for independence, which restored the country\u2019s sovereignty. Thus, perhaps, many people might not remember that Georgia also held its very first local elections 30 years ago.<\/strong><\/p>\n

What kind of a self-governance system did we have back then, and what was the rule for the election of local authorities?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
Georgia met its first local elections with a two-level system of local self-governance. This was, certainly, far from an ideal, fully functioning, well-developed system of self-governance, and it was in serious want of many administrative \/ territorial reforms and competency differentiation; however, at that time, in the wake of the country\u2019s newly regained independence, even such a flawed model seemed to provide a solid ground for the implementation of effective self-government reforms in the future. Major principle underlying the concept of self-governance is that local authorities were as close to their people as they can be. <\/strong><\/h6>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The first level of self-government included communities, urban-type settlements, villages, towns, and city districts (for example, in case of Tbilisi, assemblies were elected for the capital\u2019s individual districts), while regions and multi-district cities of republican subordination formed the second level (e. g., current self-governing cities, etc.).<\/strong><\/p>\n

An assembly [Sakrebulo] has been a representative body for already thirty years at both levels of self-government, however, in those days, we could only elect members of first-level assemblies, while the representative bodies of regions or multi-district cities would not be directly elected; instead, they were composed of deputies, i.e. chairs and representatives of the first-level assemblies. The same was true of the capital\u2019s assembly, which united 70 reps of Tbilisi\u2019s 10 regions (7 from each) and three members from the Tskneti settlement.<\/p>\n

Executive bodies of the upper and lower levels differed in a number of ways: the lower level of villages, settlements, communities, towns, and city districts were governed by a Gamgebeli <\/em>[<\/u>governor], while the upper level \u2013<\/strong> regions and cities of republican subordination \u2013\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>had prefectures, and Tbilisi was governed by a mayor. Back then, we elected neither Gamgebelis, nor prefects or city mayors. The latter two would be usually appointed first by the Supreme Council and then by the president. As for Gamgeleblis, who were in charge of the first-level governing units [Gamgeoba \u2013 governor\u2019s office], the prefect was elected from assembly members.<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding the two-level self-government model and direct election for the first level representative bodies, appointment of prefects and the capital\u2019s mayor helped the central government to maintain its tight grip of the local authorities. <\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
The elections were held through the system of single transferable vote (STV). This was a major reason behind the fact that the assemblies united diverse parties <\/strong>\u2013 the minor ones and the larger, dominant alliance of Round Table \u2013 Free Georgia. Most importantly though, many independent candidates were also elected to the office. For example, independent candidates nominated by initiative groups constituted 22% of the elected members to the capital\u2019s assemblies.\u00a0<\/strong><\/h6>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"Following the 1991 self-government elections, the assembly members included representatives of the Round Table \u2013 Free Georgia alliance, the National Front, the Democratic National Front, the Independent Communist Party, the National Party of the Demographic Society, the Alliance of Liberation and Economic Revival, the Lema Society, Georgian political and civic organization Svaneti, the Union of Young Christian-Democrats, the Union of Georgian Farmers, the Party of Georgia\u2019s National Integrity and Social Equity, and other political groups. As we have already mentioned, along with party members, independent candidates nominated by initiative groups also demonstrated good results and were elected to the assembly.<\/p>\n

However, following the civil war of 1991-1992 and the violent coup of government, local self-governments stopped functioning. Based on the Decree of 4 January 1992, the Military Council abolished the elective bodies, and the authority was granted to extraordinary commissioners. Not long afterwards, the central authorities established the direct rule.<\/p>\n

15 November 1998 \u2013 results that prevented the governing party from obtaining the majority in Georgia\u2019s most large towns and cities <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

For 8 years since 1991, the country was burdened with too many major problems to focus on self-government elections, and it was not until 1998 that the elections could be finally held.<\/p>\n

Looking back, we may boldly declare that these elections ensured the most pluralist assemblies, which fundamentally differentiates it from its successors in the following years. <\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
Most importantly, perhaps, it was at this election that the then governing party <\/strong>\u2013 the Citizen\u2019s Union of Georgia (CUG) failed to form the majority in the large cities and towns of the country. Thanks to this, a sizable proportion of the assemblies was <\/strong>occupied by the opposition\u2019s <\/strong>majority. For example, it was exactly during this period that Lado Kakhadze, candidate of the opposition\u2019s Labour Party, became the chair of the capital\u2019s assembly.\u00a0<\/strong><\/h6>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The development of the first and more or less complete legal basis added to the importance of these elections, and the Parliament passed the law On Local Self-government and Governance<\/em>. However, as its very title suggests, the law regulated both self-governments and local governance, which means that we basically maintained the system of quasi-self-government in 1998. Sadly though, it was exactly in this period that the government could have supported decentralisation and turned it into an irreversible process to achieve genuinely powerful, independent, and self-sustained local authorities. Unfortunately, the governing elite under President Shevardnadze refused to further support the development of self-governments. <\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
Throughout the period, Georgia had still maintained the two-level model of self-government, with minor differences from the original one of 1991: the first level included villages, communities, urban-type settlements, and towns, where the population directly elected members of the representative bodies. Gamgebelis automatically became assembly chairs. At the second level (regions and cities of republic subordination), assemblies were elective, the Gamgebelis, however, were appointed by the president. <\/strong><\/h6>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Another noteworthy aspect [about the 1998 elections] was the fact that majoritarian system was used for 653 assemblies with fewer than 2000 eligible voters, while members of 378 assemblies with more than 2000 voters were elected through the proportional representation system. Further, a party was allowed to participate in the proportional representation elections only if it had submitted its electoral lists in at least 50% of the overall number of the proportional representation districts. Such a precondition artificially reduced the number of political units willing to participate in the local elections. Overall, 10693 members had to be elected to 1031 assemblies during the 1998 elections. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Unlike the 1991 self-government elections, the one in 1998 saw active political campaigns held by many political parties and candidates. This included meetings with population, dissemination of posters and leaflets, and crowded concerts arranged by the governing party.<\/p>\n\r\n