"Georgian Dream" is attempting to ban all opposition parties that enjoy public support, regardless of the methods of political struggle they have chosen — GYLA

The Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA) has submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to the Constitutional Court—for the third time—regarding a constitutional claim filed by members of the Parliament of Georgia.

This information was released by the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association.

According to the organization, the document analyzes both international standards and the national legislative framework concerning the most extreme form of restriction on the freedom of association. This lawsuit represents a declaration by the ruling party that it does not merely wish to exclude one specific party from the opposition; rather, its intent is to ban all parties that have received a mandate from the citizens of Georgia to serve in the opposition. Through the Constitutional Court of Georgia, "Georgian Dream" is attempting to ban opposition political parties—including all those that surpassed the 5% threshold in the elections held on October 26, 2024.

In the parliamentary elections of October 26, 2024, the coalition "Coalition for Change – Gvaramia, Melia, Girchi, Droa," the "Unity – National Movement," "Strong Georgia – Lelo, For the People, For Freedom," and the party "Gakharia for Georgia" collectively received 784,830 votes from Georgian citizens. Should the Constitutional Court grant this claim, it would be tantamount to disenfranchising 37.79% of the voters who participated in the election. This lawsuit strikes a blow against a pluralistic, multi-party democracy, as it seeks the dissolution—not merely of a single party enjoying significant public support, but of all the parties that received the backing of the Georgian electorate in the last parliamentary elections.

The concept of a "defensive democracy"—which the plaintiff has repeatedly invoked in the lawsuit—refers to a democratic system prepared to employ preemptive, illiberal measures to protect itself against anti-democratic forces that seek to dismantle its core principles by exploiting the very mechanisms of democracy. The purpose of this theoretical framework is the self-preservation of the democratic order against internal threats; however, its application only makes sense if the political system itself retains its democratic character. If a regime loses its democratic character and employs the concept of a "defensive democracy" against political opponents, the theoretical framework of defensive democracy loses its foundation and transforms into a legal instrument for politically motivated repression.

In Georgia, the discussion surrounding the potential banning of political parties is taking place within a profoundly difficult political context, characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of a single party, the gradual erosion of the principles of democratic pluralism, the systemic marginalization of opposition political parties and autonomous civic spaces, and the instrumentalization of the legal framework to serve the narrow interests of one party. It is noteworthy that "Georgian Dream" is attempting to ban all opposition parties that enjoy public support—regardless of the path of political struggle they have chosen, whether they have opted for a boycott (a permissible form of action in a democratic society) or have continued their political activities within the Parliament and local municipal councils. "Georgian Dream" is attempting to destroy all of them, without distinction.

GYLA believes that the objective behind banning opposition parties is not to protect the democratic constitutional order, but rather to eliminate political competition and preserve the ruling party's power. In the name of defending democracy, it is impermissible to destroy political alternatives—the very existence of which is a necessary condition for democracy itself.

It is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court to uphold the constitutional order—a system founded not on the unchecked rule of any single party, but on respect for the will of the voters, political pluralism, and the possibility of a democratic transition of power," the statement reads.