Controversy over Majoritarian MP Election Rule

The rule for electing majoritarian lawmakers in the new parliament, which initially seemed to have been agreed between the opposition and the ruling party, still remains a source of contention.

Although both sides apparently want the first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system to be scrapped, no agreement has been reached on a replacement. There are two options: so-called ‘regional proportional lists’ – favoured by the opposition – and the practice of electing one majoritarian MP from each of the 75 constituencies across Georgia.

The first option would allow parties or election blocs to nominate several candidates in each constituency (the number of seats available would depend on the size of the constituency). Seats in the parliament, with this system, would be allocated proportionally, based on the votes received by parties in a particular constituency. The system entails setting an election threshold and would preclude independent candidates, as all candidates must be nominated by a party or an election bloc.

It seemed that this system had received the backing of the ruling party. In its February 14 memorandum issued in response to opposition demands, the party said: “If there is consensus between the political forces, the majoritarian election system will be replaced by the regional proportional system. Relevant draft constitutional amendments have already been initiated and assuming consensus, the amendments will be in force by the end of March.”

However, the 75 sitting majoritarian lawmakers, many of whom are seen to be ruling party loyalists, have, instead of embracing the proposed changes, moved to defend the system that secured their election. They have begun efforts to overturn constitutional amendments introduced after their election, which stipulated that there should be only 50 majoritarian lawmakers in a 150-member Parliament (there are currently 235 MPs). They need 157 votes to ensure a return to the status quo ante.

Opposition lawmakers have alleged the ruling party’s hidden hand is behind this initiative, as the voting records of the majoritarian lawmakers, they say, demonstrates that most of them are in alliance with the ruling party.

Not only are majoritarian MPs defending their vested interests in rejecting the opposition proposals, the opposition claims, but so too is the ruling party. The proposal on ‘regional proportional lists’ would likely see the ruling party secure less seats, the opposition maintains.