Political Parties

Total Score: 48/100

Dimension

Indicator

Law

Practice

Capacity

69/100

Resources

100

25

Independence

100

50

Governance

50/100

Transparency

75

50

Accountability

50

50

Integrity

50

25

Role

25/100

Interest Aggregation and Representation

--

25

Anti-Corruption Commitment

--

25

Summary

Georgian legislation provides for a free establishment and operation of political parties and contains safeguards against state interference with the activities of political groups. This assessment finds, however, that, in practice, an extremely uneven distribution of resources between the ruling party and the opposition undermines effective political competition. While parties normally operate without government pressure, there have been cases of intimidation and violence against opposition activists which have not been addressed properly by the law enforcers. Political parties also lack effective procedures for internal democratic governance and their ability to aggregate and represent social interests is very limited.

The table below presents the indicator scores which summarize the assessment of political parties in terms of their capacity, their internal governance and their role within the Georgian integrity system. The remainder of this section presents a qualitative assessment for each indicator.

Structure and Organisation

There are some 190 registered political parties in Georgia, although only about a dozen of these have been more or less actively involved in the country's political life in recent years. A number of Georgia's leading opposition parties are currently not represented in parliament as they gave up theirseats in the legislature in protest against alleged irregularities during the May 2008 elections, and currently only one opposition party, the Christian Democrats, holds a more or less significant number of Parliamentary seats (several small parties hold one parliamentary seat each). A dominant ruling party and a fragmented opposition that has been unable to come together have been continuous features of Georgia's political system since the 1990's.

Assessment

Resources (Law)

Score: 100

To what extent does the legal framework provide a conducive environment for the formation and operation of political parties?

The existing legal framework does not establish any significant hurdles to the formation and operation of parties. The right of Georgian citizens to "form political parties and participate in their activities" is guaranteed under the Constitution.1Specific rules for the establishment and operation of parties are set out in the Organic Law of Georgia on Political Associations of Citizens (hereinafter referred to as the political parties law).2
The existing legal provisions do not create any serious obstacles to the formation of political parties. No permission is required from the authorities in order to establish a political party, although at least 300 citizens must take part in the founding convention in order for it to be considered valid.3A party must apply for registration with the Ministry of Justice within a week of the party's founding convention and present a number of documents, including a list of at least 1,000 members.4The ministry can only deny a party registration if its documents are not compliant with the law or the Constitution. The ministry is required to notify the party in question of a negative decision in writing and provide a valid reason for the refusal. Should the ministry fail to issue a written refusal within the deadline provided by the law, the party will automatically obtain registration, provided its documents are compliant with the legal requirements. A party can challenge the ministry's refusal to register it in court.5
Both the Constitution6and the political parties law7impose some restrictions on party ideology. Namely, they prohibit the establishment of a party that: aims to destroy or violently change the constitutional order or violate the country's independence or territorial integrity; advocates war and violence; or, incites ethnic, communal, religious or social hatred. The political parties law alsoprohibits the formation of a regional party, i.e. one that does not operate in different parts of the country.8While most of these restrictions can be considered legitimate in a democratic society, Freedom House has voiced concern over the prohibition of regional parties, noting that it limits the capacity of ethnic minorities, sometimes concentrated in specific regions, to bring their grievances to the attention of the country's leadership.9

Resources (Practice)

Score: 25

To what extent do the financial resources available to political parties allow for effective political competition?

Although Georgian political parties may legally obtain funding from a variety of sources, financial resources are unevenly distributed between the ruling party and opposition groups, primarily because of the difficulties that the opposition faces in terms of access to private donations. This has undermined effective political competition.

The country's main political parties have access to state funding and can also receive private donations. While there is a base sum10allocated to all parties that qualify for state funding, the total amount of state financing depends on a party's electoral performance.
The political parties law requires that funding must be allocated in the annual state budget in order to "provide financial support for the activities of political parties and promote the formation of a healthy and competitive political system".11There are two ways for parties to receive funding from the state: direct financing from the state budget and the Electoral Systems Development, Reform and Training Centre, which allocates money to political parties and NGOs exclusively for training, conferences, regional projects and other activities that promote the development of political parties in Georgia. Direct state funding is allocated to the political parties that received at least four percent of the vote in the last parliamentary election, or at least three percent of the vote in the last local election. Direct funding consists of a fixed base sum and an additional amount corresponding to the party's most recent electoral performance. The money transferred to the Electoral Systems Development, Reform and Training Centre from the budget should equal 50 percent of the amount allocated directly to political parties and must be divided between the parties in proportion with the direct funding they receive.
As for private donations, there is no cap on the total amount of money a party can accept within any given period of time. However, an individual can donate a maximum of GEL 30,000 (USD 18,000)per annum, while a legal entity can contribute a maximum of GEL 100,000 (USD 60,000).12Similar provisions are in place for campaign donations. Also, political parties that have a faction in parliament or received at least four percent of the vote in the last general election are entitled to receive free airtime during the campaign period.13
The 2008 parliamentary elections showed the considerable disparity in resources between the ruling party and the opposition groups. According to public campaign finance reports submitted to the Central Election Commission, the ruling National Movement spent around GEL 12 million (USD 7.2 million) on its campaign, 25 times more than the amount spent by the largest coalition of opposition parties: the United Opposition block (GEL 480,000; USD 289,000).14Opposition groups allege that the authorities forced private businesses and enterprises to make donations to the ruling party's campaign fund while also discouraging them from providing any support to the opposition.15In addition, opposition parties have found themselves in a disadvantageous position due to the ruling party's exclusive access to administrative resources, which are also drawn upon during pre-election campaign periods,16and its greater access to the media.17
A review of the 2008 finance reports of Georgia's leading political parties conducted by TI Georgia for this report showed that the ruling National Movement had a far greater sum of donations, while opposition groups tended to rely more on state funding. For example, state funding only amounted to seven percent of the National Movement's total income in 2008, while the same figures were 53 percent for the opposition Labour Party and 33 percent for the opposition Republican Party.18Interestingly, while the ruling party received donations from dozens of businesses, opposition parties received little to no donations of this type (the bulk of their donations coming from individuals rather than companies).

Party

Total income (GEL million)

State funding

Non-Electoral donations

Electoral donations

share of state funding in total income

National Movement

27.4

1.8

12.4

13.09

6.56 %

Labour Party

0.656

0.352

0.0007

0.283

53 %

Conservative Party

0.286

0.284

0.0016

n/a

99.3%

Republican Party

0.872

0.284

0.0006

0.583

32.5 %

Businesses are likely discouraged from donating to opposition political parties because opposition parties do not carry influence in parliament or any other elected government bodies. Thus the ability of opposition parties to raise funds is also directly linked with imbalances in the electoral system, which heavily favors the ruling party. In particular, Georgia's lax regulations concerning the use of administrative resources during elections blur the lines between the state and the ruling party, giving the latter considerable advantage over all other contestants. The existing rules for the allocation of seats in parliament also heavily favour the ruling party, which won 59% of the vote in 2008 but received around 80 percentof seats in the legislature (a constitutional majority requires two thirds of the vote). Opposition parties thus have a rather small chance of obtaining a significant number of seats in the legislature, eliminating any incentive from businesses to invest in their campaigns.

Independence (Law)

Score: 100

To what extent are there legal safeguards to prevent unwarranted external interference in the activities of political parties?

There are no significant gaps or loopholes in the legislation that would clearly compromise the ability of a political party to function free of external influence. The political parties law emphasizes that the state must ensure the protection of a party's rights and "legitimate interests", while state bodies and officials are prohibited from interfering with a party's activities except where the law expressly allows it, as described in the Resources (Law) section above.19

The political parties law contains safeguards against arbitrary dissolution of parties by the government. According to Article 36, a political party can only be banned or dissolved through a Constitutional Court ruling and the Court can only ban a party that violates one of the restrictions on party ideology or activities listed in Article 26 of the Constitution, or if it forms an armed group.

Independence (Practice)

Score: 50

To what extent are political parties free from unwarranted external interference in their activities in practice?

Political parties generally appear to be protected from direct state interference in their activities and there have been no cases of the state dissolving or prohibiting the activities of political parties in recent years. However, there have been allegations of party activists being subjected to intimidation and harassment by the authorities.

In its report on the 2008 parliamentary elections, the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission said that while all parties were generally able to campaign throughout the country, the campaign was "marred" by allegations of intimidation of opposition candidates and party activists during the campaign, "several" of which the Mission found "credible". The Mission noted that obstruction of opposition campaign activities was more prevalent in rural areas.20The Mission also noted that the "post-election environment was marred by a series of violent attacks by unknown assailants on opposition activists."21
This mixed picture persisted into 2009. Opposition parties were allowed to hold protest rallies in central Tbilisi and to keep the capital's central street blocked for several months in the spring and summer without any direct interference by the authorities, but there were numerous cases of assault on opposition activists by unidentified individuals.22Opposition parties also claim that a number of their activists have been arrested on political grounds and describe them as political prisoners. There are continuous allegations of intimidation of opposition activists in the regions. An expert interviewee told TI that these allegations are "consistent enough to warrant examination".23Further intimidation of opposition activists was observed before the 2010 local elections.24The Public Defender has criticized the law-enforcers for "turning a blind eye" to the acts of violence against opposition supporters.25

Transparency (Law)

Score: 75

To what extent are there regulations in place that require parties to make their financial information publicly available?

Georgian legislation devotes considerable attention to ensuring transparent operation of political parties. According to the law, "publicity of the formation and the activities of a party" is one of the fundamental principles of the establishment and operation of political parties in Georgia.26
Under the law, the information about donations received by parties is open and the CEC is required to ensure public access to this information.27Anonymous donations are prohibited. Moreover, the law stipulates that, by 1 February each year, a political party is required to publish in printed media the previous year's financial declaration, along with an auditor's report, and to submit copies of these two documents to the CEC.28The declaration must contain information about different types of party revenues and expenses, as well as a list of assets. Electoral incomes and expenses must be indicated separately.
Information about campaign donations is also public. The Electoral Code requires the CEC to provide all interested individuals with information on party campaign finances and also to post the data on its website within two days of receiving it.29One loophole in the law is that it does not require the CEC to post annual finance reports of political parties on its website (only campaign finance reports are required to be posted to the CEC's website, covering the previous month's worth of activity).

Transparency (Practice)

Score: 50

To what extent do political parties make their financial information publicly available?

Political parties do meet most of the legal obligations regarding the transparency of their finances. They publish annual finance and audit reports in the press and also submit copies of these documents to the Central Electoral Commission and tax authorities. Thus individuals interested in information about party finances can obtain it in two ways: directly from the press in which it was published or by submitting a Freedom of Information request to the Central Electoral Commission, which has a legal duty to provide citizens with information about donations received by political parties.

It is not common for Georgian political parties to post finance reports or information about donations on their own websites. While the law does not require them to do so, it would be a demonstration of their commitment to the principle of transparency and would also facilitate interested citizens in tracking the relevant data. The CEC website carries copies of the campaign finance reports submitted by parties after the 2008 parliamentary elections but not the annual finance reports, meaning that the latter type of information is not readily accessible to citizens and it is necessary to send a FOI request in order to obtain it.

Accountability (Law)

Score: 50

To what extent are there provisions governing financial oversight of political parties?

The political parties law contains a number of provisions designed to uphold the accountability of political party finances. However, there are no proper legal mechanisms for the verification of information submitted by parties.

Under the law, all donations received by political parties must be made via bank transfers, except for donations made by individuals of less than GEL 300 (GEL 180). As mentioned earlier, all political parties are required to publish an annual finance report and an audit report in the press. The political parties law specifies the types of information that must be included in the report. Parties must also submit copies of the published declaration and audit report to the CEC and the tax authorities within 10 days from its publication.30A party that fails to publish these documents will have the state funding suspended for a period of one year.31Political parties that receive money from the state's Electoral Systems Development, Reform and Training Centre are required to submit annual reports to the fund detailing how the money has been used. Failure to do so will result in the suspension of this type of funding for a period of one year.32
Similar regulations are in place for campaign financing.33A political party or bloc participating in an election is required to set up a campaign fund and to transfer all of its campaign money to a single bank account. Anonymous donations are prohibited. The manager of a party's campaign fund is to submit monthly reports on donations to the electoral administration. Parties and blocks are required to submit campaign finance reports and audit reports to the electoral administration after the elections. Campaign spending is overseen by the Financial Monitoring Group, which is set up by the Central Election Commission before every election.
A number of loopholes have been identified in the legal provisions dealing with the accountability of political parties for their campaign finances. As the Venice Commission noted, the requirement of monthly reporting in the Electoral Code is inadequate since the registration deadline for parties is only slightly more than one month before the election. This means that parties are, in fact, only required to submit one campaign finance report during the campaign. The Commission recommended that this provision should be amended to ensure that finance reports are submitted some time in advance of election day. The Commission also suggested that the law should require parties to include expenditures and not only donations in their pre-election finance reports - a suggestion which would make it possible to monitor campaign finance in a more meaningful way.34
OECD ACN has also highlighted some weaknesses in the accountability provisions, noting that independent audit reports that parties are required to file annually together with their finance reports are a form of internal control and cannot substitute state supervision of party finances. OECD ACN noted that the entire system is incomplete due to the lack of legal mechanisms for state monitoring of party compliance with the existing regulations. The CEC presently has no mandate to perform this role.35

Accountability (Practice)

Score: 50

To what extent is there effective financial oversight of political parties in practice?

The current system, whereby financial oversight of political parties is exercised primarily by the CEC, is partially effective but its operation is undermined by the weakness of the audit and verification mechanisms.

Georgia's main political parties do publish annual finance and audit reports in the press and send copies of these documents to the CEC as required by law. They also submit campaign finance reports to the CEC during elections. Yet there is no functioning mechanism to ensure accuracy and credibility of the submitted reports.

Levan Tarkhnishvili, who served as the chairman of the CEC in 2007-2009, identified the inadequacy of the existing mechanisms to monitor parties' financial affairs in the period between elections as a matter of concern. Specifically, although Tarkhnishvili confirmed that parties submit their annual finance reports and audit reports to the CEC in a timely manner, he emphasized that the commission has very limited tools to examine their accuracy. He noted, for example, that it is virtually impossible for the CEC to verify whether the donations received by a party were actually made by the individuals listed in the party's finance report. He also noted that Georgia has extremely liberal laws regulating the activities of auditors and it is very easy for any individual to set up an audit firm, which raises questions regarding the quality and credibility of the audit reports submitted by political parties.36A 2011 journalist investigation suggested that the ruling party may have provided inaccurate information regarding the sources of donations in its annual report.37
The OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission identified another problem with the current system that is meant to ensure accountability of political parties during election campaigns. For a significant portion of the funds raised for a campaign, parties did not reveal the names of original donors, reporting instead that the money had come from inside the party.38

Integrity (Law)

Score: 50

To what extent are there regulations on the democratic governance of political parties?

The existing regulations governing the democratic governance of political parties are limited in scope. Under Article 17 of the political parties law, all parties are required to hold a general convention of their members at least once every four years. Depending on the party's charter, either all party members or a minimum of 200 representatives elected by party members must attend the convention. It is the convention's prerogative to elect party leadership, as well as the party's executive and supervisory bodies.

However, neither the political parties law nor the Electoral Code includes any regulations regarding the selection of candidates by political parties. Article 96 of the Electoral Code says that the parties and blocs taking part in the parliamentary elections are to establish their own rules for drawing up the list of candidates for the nationwide proportional vote. Selection of candidates through a process of democratic participation is thus not guaranteed by the law.

The political parties law39says that the party charter is to be adopted by the general convention of party members and can be amended at further conventions. There are, however, no regulations regarding the adoption of electoral platforms.

Integrity (Practice)

Score: 25

To what extent is there effective internal democratic governance of political parties in practice?

Georgian political parties lack effective mechanisms for internal democratic governance. Instead, they tend to be "personality-centred",40i.e. they emerge and develop around prominent individual leaders. This has had a profound impact on their internal governance, and on the sustainability of parties beyond their individual leaders.
A 2006 study of Georgia's leading political groups concluded that parties do not consider the question of internal democratic governance to be particularly important. All parties have democratic procedures for the election of their leaders but, in practice, the process is rarely based on the principles of inclusiveness and participation, as internal elections simply serve to provide pre-existing leaders with a degree of external legitimacy. The degree to which party members and activists can influence the selection of top leaders is insignificant, while their role in shaping the party's platform, agenda and policies is equally limited. Nor are party members involved in the selection of candidates for national elections.41An expert interviewee told TI Georgia that a majority of Georgian parties are "authoritarian" by nature and the internal elections they hold are a mere PR exercise and a formality designed to lend a degree of legitimacy to their leaders. He noted that Georgian parties tend to be founded on the principle of personal loyalty towards their leaders and genuine internal democracy is therefore viewed as a threat, as it would allow unreliable individuals to infiltrate the party.42

One notable result of this lack of internal democracy is the fact that leadership change is rare in Georgian political parties, even after major electoral defeats.

On the positive side, party members and activists appear to have a greater say in the election of the heads of local party branches, as well as the selection of candidates for local elections43.

Role: Interest Aggregation and Representation (Practice)

Score: 25

To what extent do political parties aggregate and represent relevant social interests in the political sphere?

Georgian political parties are notoriously weak in their ability to articulate a clear platform that speaks to the interests of a constituency. In 2008, the Bertelsmann Transformation Index report found that "there is no party system in place capable of articulating and aggregating social interests" in Georgia and "the Georgian party system still fails to serve as a reliable mediator between state and society".44The same report emphasizes that even the dominant ruling party lacks a full-fledged structure covering all districts of the country.45According to Freedom House, as far as Georgia's party system is concerned, the "main challenge is the lack of strong, stable parties that can articulate distinct platforms. Most influential parties are machines for ensuring support for their individual leaders."46
An expert interviewee told TI Georgia that the inability of Georgian political parties to aggregate and represent interests can, to some extent, be attributed to the weakness of the mechanisms for the articulation of interests. He explained that the existence of stronger citizen associations, professional unions and other civil society groups would make it easier for Georgian parties to identify the interests that they would subsequently endorse. As a result, Georgia's political parties tend to promote the interests of their individual leaders or small groups of leaders. Parties sometimes collaborate with civil society groups, usually in order to confront the government jointly on specific issues. However, this cooperation adds little to the ability of the parties to aggregate and represent social interests since Georgian NGOs themselves lack a broad social base.47
Recent studies have shown that the legitimacy of political parties among the general public is quite low. For example, in a 2011 survey by the International Republican Institute, only 34 percent of respondents had a favourable opinion about parties, while 49 percent described their opinion as unfavourable. Of 17 different institutions included in the study, political parties ranked 16thin terms of public approval, with a mere 38 percent of the respondents holding a favourable opinion about them48Consequently, Georgian politicians often view affiliation with a political party as a liability, and some prominent opposition leaders (including the opposition's top candidate in the 2008 presidential election) are unaffiliated.

Role: Anti-Corruption Commitment (Practice)

Score: 25

To what extent do political parties give due attention to public accountability and the fight against corruption?

The fight against corruption did not feature prominently in the campaigns of Georgia's leading political parties during the last parliamentary elections.

The ruling National Movement's electoral platform briefly mentioned corruption, saying that the party would "continue to combat corruption and build a public service founded upon professionalism and merit".49The campaign commitments of the Labour Party and Christian-Democratic Movement did not contain any references to corruption. Only the Republican Party's electoral platform paid substantial attention to corruption, highlighting privatization of state-owned enterprises as an area of concern.50
The lack of attention to corruption in the campaign platforms of Georgia's main political groups may stem from the fact that corruption is no longer considered to be one of the most pressing problems facing the country or a matter of common concern. As daily acts of corruption associated with the police and different public agencies have been largely eliminated, the issue is not high on the radar of average citizens, and civil society, journalists and political parties alike have failed to convince the population that corruption is still a pressing problem. An expert interviewee emphasized that, while opposition parties and their leaders sometimes speak about the issue of "elite corruption", they rarely go into detail or devote much time to the subject since this type of corruption is quite difficult to trace and document.51

Footnotes

1The Constitution of Georgia, adopted on 24 August 1995, Article 26.

2Adopted on 31 October 1997

3The Law on Political Unions of Citizens,adopted on 31 October 1997, Article 12.

4Id., Article 22.

5Id., Article 23.

6The Constitution of Georgia, Article 26.

7The Law on Political Unions of Citizens, Article 5.

8Id.., Article 6.

9Freedom House, Nations in Transit 2009 (Freedom House, 2009), 225.

10The base sum is 150,000 GEL(USD 90,000)a year (300,000 GEL (USD 180,000) for the parties that receive over 8 percent of the vote in the parliamentary elections or 6 percent of the nationwide vote in the local elections.

11The Law on Political Unions of Citizens, Article 29(1).

12Id., Article 26.

13The Electoral Code of Georgia, adopted on 2 August 2001, Article 73(1).

14OSCE/ODIHR Georgia: Parliamentary Elections 21 May 2008, OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report, (Warsaw: OSCE/ODIHR, 2008), 14.

15Transparency International Georgia, Georgia's Electoral System: Recurrent Challenges, Transparency International Georgia, 2009, 10.

16OSCE/ODIHRGeorgia: Parliamentary Elections 21 May 2008, OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report, 1.

17Id.,.p 16.

18The political parties listed above kindly provided their annual finance reports on TI Georgia's request.

19The Law on Political Unions of Citizens, Article 7.

20OSCE/ODIHRGeorgia: Parliamentary Elections 21 May 2008,OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report, 11-12.

21Id, p 13.

22Civil Georgia, "Opposition Says May Resort to 'Self-Defence'," 17 April 2009, http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20749&search=(accessed on 24 November 2009).

23Interview of a Tbilisi-based expert with the author, Tbilisi, 4 November 2009.

24Nina Khatiskatsi and Caitlin Ryan,Questions Remain After Incidents Involving Opposition Activists,15 October 2010http://www.transparency.ge/en/blog/pmestia-questions-remain-after-incidents-involving-opposition-activistsp; (accessed on 24 March 2010).

25Civil Georgia,"Opposition Says May Resort to 'Self-Defence'".

26The Law on Political Unions of Citizens, Article 3.

27Id., Article 26.

28Id.., Article 32.

29The Electoral Code, Article 48.

30The Law on Political Unions of Citizens, Article 33.

31Id., Article 34.

32Id., Article 30.

33The Electoral Code, Articles 46-48.

34European Commission for Democracy Through Law,Joint Opinion on the Election Code of Georgia, as revised up to July 2008, adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 26th meeting (Venice, 18 October 2008), 21.

35OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan, Second Round of Monitoring, Georgia Monitoring Report, Paris: OECD ACN, 2010), 42.

36Interview of CEC Chairman Levan Tarkhnishvili with the author, Tbilisi, 3 November 2009.

37Maia Tsiklauri, Tamar Paradashvili, "National Levy",Liberali,26 February 2011,http://www.liberali.ge/natsionaluri-kharki(accessed on 25 March 2011) (in Georgian).

38OSCE/ODIHR Georgia: Parliamentary Elections 21 May 2008, OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report, 14, 30.

39The Law on Political Unions of Citizens, Article 17.

40Transparency International Georgia, Political Parties in Georgia: Issues of Party Financing , Transparency International Georgia, 2007, 1.

41Ghia Nodia and Alvaro Pinto Scholtbach, The Political Landscape of Georgia, (Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon Academic Publishers, 2006), 153-165 (in Georgian).

42Interview of Ghia Nodia, head of the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, with the author, Tbilisi, 30 October 2009.

43Nodia and Scholtbach, The Political Landscape of Georgia, 158-160.

44Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2008 - Georgia Country Report, Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2007, 2, 10.

45Id., 19.

46Freedom House. Nations in Transit - Georgia (2008), http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=47&nit=452&year=2008(accessed on 8 July 2011).

47Interview of Ghia Nodia with the author. The NGOs' lack of a social base is discussed in greater detail in the Civil Society chapter of this report.

48International Republican Institute, Georgian National Study, April 26 - May 4 2011, (International Republican Institute, Baltic Surveys Ltd./The Gallup Organization, The Institute of Polling and Marketing with funding from the United States Agency for International Development), 57.

49United National Movement, "Action Instead of Words: United National Movement's Platform", 4, http://cec.gov.ge/uploads/saparlamento2008/partiebisprogramebi/N5.pdf(accessed on 26 November 2009).

50Campaign platforms of political parties for the 2008 parliamentary elections are available on the Central Electoral Commission's website:http://cec.gov.ge/?que=geo/archive/elections-2008&info=3792(accessed on 5 November 2009).

51Interview of Ghia Nodia with the author.