Introduction

On February 19, 2025, the “Georgian Dream” introduced a package of legislative amendments[1] to Parliament, modifying the existing requirements for mandatory involvement of the non-governmental sector in decision-making processes across various governance sectors.

The initiative of the “Georgian Dream” effectively excludes civil society and citizens who advocate for accountable and transparent governance from various public decision-making processes. It should also be noted that the current legislative package does not appear to address all forms of state cooperation with civil society, and it remains unclear whether this package will be expanded into a more comprehensive changes.

In general, the above-mentioned legislative initiative officially recognizes a practice already established in recent years, as the “Georgian Dream” has long abandoned meaningful cooperation with the representatives of civil society organizations, consistently disregarding their views and recommendations. Furthermore, this decision directly continues the propaganda and defamatory campaign launched by “Georgian Dream” in 2023 with the introduction of the “Russian Law”, which accused civil society organizations of promoting foreign interests and labeled them as “foreign agents”. The explanatory notes accompanying the legislative package explicitly confirm this stance, asserting that “current reality demonstrates that the mandatory participation of non-governmental organizations, as previously stipulated by law, fails to fulfill the original intent of the legislator”. Moreover, the explanatory notes of the amendments to Rules of Procedure of the Parliament reveal “Georgian Dream’s” motivations more clearly, stating that “recent developments, including global events evolving around the USAID, have demonstrated that the involvement of NGOs in public decision-making negatively impacts the effective functioning of the state.” These notes further propagate narratives suggesting that civil society organizations are funded by external actors and serve foreign political and economic agendas, implying that their “mandatory participation” can jeopardize national sovereignty and undermine the transparency of democratic processes.

The official exclusion of civil society and interested persons from public decision-making processes represents another step toward the consolidation of authoritarianism in Georgia. Such policies fundamentally contradict modern democratic governance principles, including openness, public participation, and governmental accountability. This development is especially troubling given Georgia’s recent history as a leader in protecting open governance principles. More specifically, Georgia has been an active member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) since 2011, committing itself repeatedly to uphold the core principles of the OGP, most recently during the 2023–2025 implementation cycle. However, following the adoption of the so-called “Russian Law”, which was strongly criticized by the OGP as discriminatory and stigmatizing towards civil society and media organizations, Georgian NGOs first exited the Council of OGP, and subsequently, Georgia’s OGP membership was put at risk. Furthermore, the legislative amendments directly conflict with Georgia’s obligations under the Association Agreement signed with the European Union and the 2021–2027 Association Agenda developed for its implementation, which emphasizes as one of its key components the continuation of open governance reforms in accordance with European principles and best practices in public administration, as well as promoting open dialogue between the state and civil society and encouraging civil society involvement in policy development, monitoring, and evaluation processes.

Overview of Legislative Amendments

The restrictions outlined in the package of legislative amendments registered on February 19 can be classified into three main categories based on their content:

1. Restricting participation in governance processes, thereby weakening governmental accountability to the public;
2. Eliminating mandatory involvement of the representatives of civil society in the selection and appointment processes for specific public officials;
3. Removing opportunities for civil society organizations to engage and participate in consultations.

The amendments in these areas are reviewed and critically analyzed in detail below.

Restriction of Participation in Governance Processes and Weakening of the Government Accountability Toward the Public

1. According to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament,[2] two members of the Prosecutorial Council, two members of the Disciplinary Committee of Judges of Common Courts, and five members of the High Council of Justice were elected by Parliament through a competitive selection process from among professors and researchers working at higher education institutions in Georgia, members of the Georgian Bar Association, and/or persons nominated by Georgian non-entrepreneurial (non-commercial) legal entities.[3] Under the proposed amendments, only higher education institutions and the Bar Association retain the right to nominate candidates for the Prosecutorial Council and the Disciplinary Committee. In the case of the High Council of Justice, the procedure for electing members has been completely changed. Parliament will now elect non-judge members upon nomination by a parliamentary faction or a group of at least seven non-faction members of Parliament.

The participation of representatives from diverse public groups in all the aforementioned collegial bodies has played a critical role in balancing political and public interests, strengthening governmental accountability, and enhancing the transparency of state institutions’ activities.

A clear example of this was the activity of the High Council of Justice during 2017–2021 when non-judge members elected to the Council - who were independent and openly critical of informal influences within the judicial system - played a significant role in promoting transparency and public awareness. Their efforts notably brought many systemic issues within the judiciary to public attention.

An additional amendment regarding the selection process of members of the High Council of Justice deserves special attention, as it entirely excludes participation by the previously mentioned public groups and limits candidate nominations exclusively to internal parliamentary political groups and processes. This change clearly contradicts European and Council of Europe standards established for similar models of judicial self-governance, which explicitly require the inclusion of non-judge members, as well as representatives of civil society and academia, alongside judges in judicial governance bodies, as this arrangement reduces risks of corporatism and cronyism within the judiciary.

2. Another amendment related to participation in decision-making affects the composition of the Legal Aid Council, a collegial body established to ensure the effective functioning of the LEPL - Legal Aid Service. Currently, 3 out of the 9 Council members are appointed by the Public Defender. Two members were selected by the Public Defender through an open competition among representatives of non-profit (non-commercial) legal entities involved in the field of human rights protection, as well as from academic representatives working in higher education institutions in Georgia. Under the proposed amendments, these two positions will be restricted solely to representatives of educational institutions.[4] Such a change also represents a significant step backward, excluding organizations that possess practical experience of litigation, a deep understanding of existing challenges and needs, and the capacity to substantially contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of the LEPL - Legal Aid Service.

Abolition of Participation of Civil Society Representatives in the Selection Process of Public Officials

1. According to the proposed amendments, members of the competition commissions established by the Prime Minister for selecting the Heads of the Special Investigation Service, the Personal Data Protection Service, and the Anti-Corruption Bureau can no longer include individuals with relevant expertise and experience nominated by the Public Defender from among members of non-profit (non-commercial) legal entities, selected either through open competition or without competition.[5]

2. Candidates for membership in the Central Election Commission are currently selected through an open competition conducted by a competition commission established by the Chairman of Parliament. According to Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, the competition commission “should include representatives of civil society (including academic circles).” Under the proposed amendments, the commission “may include [only] representatives of academic circles,” thereby explicitly excluding civil society from participation in the process.
3. Similarly, candidates for the membership of the Board of Trustees of the Public Broadcaster are selected through an open competition by a commission appointed by the Chairman of Parliament. Previously, the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament required representation from both civil society and academic circles. With the proposed amendments, the term - civil society - was narrowed down specifically to academic circles.
4. Additionally, the Rules of Procedure of Parliament no longer provide for the involvement of the non-governmental sector in the competition commission responsible for selecting the Public Defender of Consumers Interests.[6]

These amendments eliminate even the indirect involvement of civil society organizations in the public governance process, specifically their participation in selecting particular public officials through open competitions. It is also important to note that the listed officials represent bodies independent of political authorities, whose primary function often involves ensuring effective accountability of these authorities. Moreover, we believe that the participation of representatives of civil society organizations is particularly essential in selecting members of the Public Broadcaster’s Board of Trustees, as the Public Broadcaster should serve the public interest, which clearly implies the maximum balancing of the interests of diverse societal groups. Accordingly, it is evident that the “Georgian Dream’s” complete exclusion of civil society from these processes facilitates increased political influence in the selection of these officials and creates more favorable conditions for such influence.

Abolition of Opportunities for Engagement and Participation

1. According to the proposed amendments, the Public Defender will no longer be required to cooperate with international governmental institutions, international and local non-governmental organizations, or representatives of civil society on issues related to discrimination. Instead, the draft law identifies state and public organizations, as well as academic circles, as subjects eligible for such cooperation.[7] On the one hand, it is noteworthy that the elimination of the obligation to cooperate extends beyond local civil society organizations and explicitly includes other states and international organizations. Thus, the proposed restriction is much broader in scope and is not limited solely to local NGOs. Likely, this restriction is directly linked to “Georgian Dream’s” populist narratives and another legislative initiative registered in Parliament on February 19, which seeks the complete removal of gender-sensitive terminology from Georgian legislation. On the other hand, it is unclear what the legislator implies by the term “public organizations”, with which cooperation remains valid for the Public Defender. The existing legislation does not formally distinguish between public and non-governmental organizations, as both operate as non-entrepreneurial (non-commercial) legal entities. Consequently, under the initiated restrictions, it remains uncertain which organizations will retain the opportunity to participate in consultations.
2. The participation of representatives from non-governmental organizations in the Civic Advisory Council - a consultative body under the municipality mayor or district governor - is no longer mandatory. According to the proposed amendments, the mayor or district governor will approve the composition of the Civic Advisory Council exclusively from representatives of entrepreneurial legal entities and representatives of the local population.[8] The Civic Advisory Council represents one of the most fundamental instruments for public participation and stakeholder engagement at the self-government level, where the role of NGOs is critically important. Its significance is explicitly recognized by the Self-Government Code itself, which obliges the mayor or municipal governor to submit to the Council for consideration draft municipal budgets, essential administrative and legal acts, proposals regarding geographical naming, spatial planning documents, and various infrastructure and social projects. Consequently, this mechanism is not merely a consultative tool but also a vital platform enabling active citizen and organizational participation in local decision-making processes. Unfortunately, this opportunity is being completely withdrawn. Moreover, it is essential to highlight the especially critical role of these advisory councils in regions densely populated by ethnic minority communities. In a reality where minority communities are practically excluded from decision-making and consultation processes, marginalized not only from public and political activities but also from processes directly affecting their communities, restricting civil society participation at the self-government level through legislative means will further deepen the harmful practices of their omission and exclusion.
3. Under the proposed amendments, state institutions will no longer cooperate with non-governmental organizations to provide assistance and rehabilitation to victims of trafficking, including minors. Instead, program implementation will be carried out solely with “public organizations”.[9] This legislative initiative significantly undermines support and guarantees for trafficking victims, given that non-governmental organizations have historically provided essential services in this area. Consequently, the state has actively cooperated with these organizations, formalizing such relationships through signed memoranda, and expanding this cooperation has been explicitly outlined in state action plans. Additionally, this amendment again introduces ambiguity regarding legislative terminology, as given the imposed restrictions on non-governmental organizations, it is uncertain precisely which organizations the state will continue to cooperate with under these new conditions.
4. Previously, the Prime Minister nominated two experts from the civil sector to serve on the Supervisory Council, an advisory body under the Independent Service for State Monitoring on Insurance and Voluntary Private Pension Activities. Under the proposed legislative amendments, it is no longer mandatory for these experts to be representatives of civil society organizations.[10] This initiative also excludes the non-governmental sector’s involvement in yet another important area of public governance, thereby limiting opportunities for effective public oversight and governmental accountability.  
5. Under current legislation, when a public institution considers the environmental or social characteristics of a procurement object, it can require the object to bear appropriate labels (such as “Eco”, “Bio”, etc.). These labels must have been established through a process that allowed participation from all interested parties, including non-governmental organizations. The proposed legislative amendments remove this participatory opportunity for non-governmental organizations.[11]

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that the official abolition of various forms of involvement of civil society organizations across different areas of state governance is part of the broader series of “legislative reforms” explicitly aimed at consolidating anti-democratic and authoritarian policies announced by “Georgian Dream” after the 2024 parliamentary elections and consistently implemented thereafter. An analysis of the aforementioned amendments clearly demonstrates that their real intent is, on the one hand, to further stigmatize civil society organizations, and on the other hand, to completely exclude public participation and critical voices from the processes of governance and the appointment of key officials and bodies, thus subjecting these processes entirely to one-party control.

The ruling party is deliberately seeking to distance Georgia from international standards and deepen the country’s international isolation, potentially leading to severe economic, social, and foreign policy consequences. It is critical to emphasize that these changes directly contradict not only the necessary steps and recommendations required for EU membership but also Georgia’s commitments under the previously signed EU-Georgia Association Agenda. This once again clearly illustrates the “Georgian Dream’s” intention to dismantle and undermine Georgia’s European integration process.

It is particularly alarming that, under the pretext of restricting civil society organizations’ participation in governance, the procedures for appointing members of specific bodies have been fundamentally altered and have become distinctly undemocratic. Notably, the amendments affecting the selection of members of the High Council of Justice stand out, as these changes will further strengthen the ruling clan’s influence within the judiciary, entirely eliminating public involvement in the selection process.

It is crucial to emphasize that these changes ultimately restrict democratic participation not only for civil society organizations but also for citizens and diverse groups more broadly, significantly undermining governmental democracy and accountability. The exclusion of civil society organizations from governance processes will disproportionately harm socially vulnerable and marginalized groups, who already face considerable barriers to political participation, adequate representation, and having their interests addressed.

The exclusion of citizens and their associations from political processes will inevitably deepen social and economic inequalities, weaken legal protections, and intensify social conflicts - conditions that appear strategically advantageous to an authoritarian regime. Under such circumstances, the ruling elite can more easily monopolize resources, consolidate control over state institutions, and weaken or eliminate alternative political and social forces.

Share