Democracy has never had the luxury of closing the door to those willing to participate in the governance of the state. Unfortunately, the political elite of Georgia has always acted to the contrary (with rare exceptions), when coming to a decision on this matter.
Majoritarianism has been one of the main problems of Georgian politics for the last 30 years. “Majoritarianism'' is not just an electoral system. The logic underlying the perception of political processes tells us how the elites see the process of obtaining, exercising, and transferring power. Majoritarianism is based on the concept that the winner takes all. It rejects any model of power sharing, and therefore responsibility. From its institutional logic collaboration, agreement, and compromise are inherently excluded, turning majoritarianism into a zero-sum game.
Majoritarianism hinders political participation on two levels:
- Initially, it creates barriers for relatively weaker groups;
- After that, it robs those who have overcome the first obstacle but have not been able to gain majority support, from effectively participating in political decision-making.
Our political class operates according to this systemic logic and meticulously repeats the above theoretical assumptions, resulting in polarization. There is no doubt that such a situation calls for a solution. The answer should guarantee the collapse of majoritarianism. We have to start the process from its very basis, the electoral system. This time we will focus only on the parliamentary elections.
Why are we discussing this topic?
In the spring of 2021, the opposition and the government agreed to reduce of the electoral threshold from 0.67% to 2% within the framework of the so-called “Michelle document”. A few months earlier, the agreement between the “Citizens” party and the ruling party also stated that the threshold should not exceed 3% by 2024. It was already in July that the majority left the “Michelle Document”, however, on September 7, the Parliament supported the reduction of the threshold to 2% for the next two parliamentary elections by first hearing .
After that, the process stopped. Later, the ruling party named acceptance of candidacy for EU membership as a condition for making this constitutional change. The issue of candidacy will be decided by the end of 2023. According to data available today, 2024 elections will be held under a fully proportional system. The number of parliament members will be 150, and the threshold will be 5%. In the present article, we want to explain why such a high threshold is unjustified in Georgia.
Our comment
Although on the face of it, the government has met the critertia that people have been demanding for years and - the country meets the upcoming elections with a fully proportional system. Howeverhigh electoral threshold and the majoritarian system logic has been preserved. Accordingly, the election system of 2024 gives a hand to only two political powers, “Georgian Dream” and “United National Movement”. The nature of the conflict between these two political powers has fueled polarization in Georgia for years and hindered the development of the country. In the case of a 5% threshold, nothing will change substantially. Considering the existing context and the possible development of the processes, the polarization will be exacerbated. This model also excludes the possibility of implementing consensus-based politics in the future.
What is the problem?
Even after the elections scheduled for 2024, Georgia is doomed to majoritarian politics, which is problematic from two angles:
The first issue is the high rate of lost votes due to the high electoral threshold. It means leaving a part of the citizens outside the country's governance. In such a system, those who supported parties that didn’t get enough votes to overcome the threshold, remain outside the parliament. For example, if the 2020 elections were held within the 5% threshold, up to 25% of voters' votes would be lost, and in 2016 (held with a 5% threshold) - up to 20%. Therefore, every fourth or fifth person will remain without a representative in such a situation. This means that no one will represent and defend his interests in parliament. It is how majoritarianism achieves its prime goal: depriving relatively small groups of the opportunity to participate in politics.
The second issue is the formation of the absolute majority. In Georgia, we always had the problem of power concentration. Here, even the coalition governments were slowly becoming one-person governments. Considering the current political landscape, 2, maximum 3 parties can overcome the existing threshold. And this creates a favorable basis for one group to come to power with a large majority, according to which the winner will hold all the reins of power, and the loser will lose everything, they will not have a share in the country’s governance. This will discourage the former from sharing power and the latter from taking responsibility. This way, majoritarianism achieves its second goal: depriving the opposition of the opportunity to participate in political processes effectively.
How has the election system worked in Georgia in the recent period?
In the 2016 elections, Georgian Dream received 57.47% more mandates than public support, and the National Movement and the Alliance of Patriots - 33.60% and 20.15% less. If the elections were held according to the model of 2024, all of them would have received more votes than they would actually were to get - Georgian Dream with 24.60%, National Movement with 22.94%, and Alliance of Patriots with 19.76%.
In the 2020 elections, Georgian Dream received 24.42% more mandates than public support, while the National Movement and the other 9 parties received 11.69% and 13.27% less, respectively. If the elections were held according to the model of 2024, only two parties would have gained mandates. Georgian Dream would have 32.72% more votes, and the National Movement would have 32.45% more votes.
Statistics show that in the case of a mixed system, the ruling party takes mandates from the other political entities, and in the case of a fully proportional system and high electoral threshold, the parties that have passed the threshold take mandates from those that did not pass such barrier. From a voter's perspective, such allocation of mandates means that they are robbed of their representatives. Given the function of the parliament to represent public opinions in the legislative body, the elections planned for 2024 will not serve this purpose.
What is the solution?
The above arguments show that by 2024, the central pillar of the majoritarian political system will remain in place. Moreover, it is becoming even more firmly rooted compared to the current one, because:
- The major parties, first of all, the ruling party, are in a more favorable position than during the 2020 elections;
- Relatively small political unions will no longer have the chance to get into the parliament and represent the opinions of the relevant society groups.
In order to reduce polarization and establish inclusive politics, the majoritarian system needs to be replaced. The electoral system is one, but significant, component in this matter. Accordingly, it is necessary to intensify the discussions around the issue of the electoral threshold, which is lost on the political agenda today. The ideal threshold would be 0.67%, although it should not exceed 2%.
The material was prepared within the framework of the project “Supporting an inclusive and consensus-based political environment in Georgia" financed by the Heinrich Boell Foundation Tbilisi Office - South Caucasus Region. The opinions expressed in the material belong to Komentari and may not reflect the views of the Foundation.
