Georgia was one of the first Soviet republics to declare independence and introduce a multiparty system in 1990. However, the country’s rapid political emancipation coupled with slow institutionalization led to various serious problems. The first non-Communist president Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s loss of power triggered a civil war, and two secessionist conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia broke out. Later, President Eduard Shevardnadze managed to restore a limited degree of stability, which soon ended in a fragile, corrupt, and inefficient system of governance.

In 2004, the new government launched profound reforms aimed at modernizing the state, the economy, and society. In some respects, these reforms tangibly increased the capabilities of the Georgian state, resulting in better public protection and services. In other areas, such as democratic participation and conflict resolution, the new administration has failed to adequately address the complexities of the issues. Marginalization of the political opposition triggered a political crisis in 2007 that continued throughout 2008 and 2009. Russia and Georgia fought a war in 2008 that ended in occupation and formal recognition of independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Russia.

In 2010, Georgia began to recover from these instabilities. The political crisis that began in 2007 calmed considerably in 2010, and no large-scale political protests took place. Local elections were held without major complications, and participating political parties tried to concentrate on public policy issues in their campaigns, rather than slandering political opponents. The Parliament adopted several amendments to the constitution that will come into effect in 2012–13 and will transform Georgia’s political system from a semi-presidential to a parliamentary model. The political opposition and the ruling party agreed to cooperate to further improve electoral legislation. Yet, despite several visible improvements, it will take time for Georgia to recover from its early setbacks.

National Democratic Governance. In 2010, the Georgian Parliament adopted a substantially revised version of the constitution that will shift the country’s political system from semi-presidential to a parliamentary model in 2012-13. The parliamentary opposition was actively involved in the work of the State Constitutional Commission, and most voted for the final draft. However, several political parties, including those who boycotted the Parliament, declined to participate in the work of the commission and developed an alternative draft. Some NGOs also demanded that the public debate period be extended. In general, the process was inclusive and reflected varying political and societal interests. In addition, the electoral code was successfully changed prior to the local elections; among other adjustments, the composition of the election administration was changed allowing the opposition to be represented in all local commissions. A working group of political parties is expected to further improve the electoral legislation. Owing to these positive developments in institutional changes and policy implementation, Georgia’s national democratic governance rating improves from 6.00 to 5.75.

Electoral Process. The 2010 local elections in Georgia were relatively well organized by the Central Election Commission (CEC). Voter lists were improved, political parties and candidates had access to media and could campaign freely, and the commission proactively and successfully addressed different complaints. At the same time, the process of vote tabulation was incomplete and in some cases chaotic. Furthermore, the use of administrative resources remained a problem and gave the ruling party an advantage over the competition. The CEC intervened in several cases and nullified results. The electoral administration showed its willingness to cooperate with political actors, national and international observers, and civil society organizations. The improvement of the electoral code was a significant step forward, and there was political consensus to resume working on other issues. Owing to these positive trends, and acknowledging that the local elections were a significant step towards international democratic standards, Georgia’s electoral process rating improves from 5.25 to 5.00.

Civil Society. The main problem affecting Georgia’s civil society remains its limited impact on policy formulation and implementation. Sources for local funding are still limited; in terms of access to international funding and networking, large and established NGOs are better positioned than new or less experienced organizations. As a result, civic activity in the country has become elite-based. In 2010, international donors tried to increase public policy debate by bringing together governmental, nongovernmental (both academic and activist groups), media, and business actors. However, results have been slow to materialize. Therefore, Georgia’s civil society rating remains unchanged at 3.75.

Independent Media. Overall, there was consensus in 2010 that the media landscape in Georgia needs improvement, in terms of both its independence and its professionalism. However, there were debates over the appropriate means and goals of reform. The issue of non-transparency in media ownership of major TV stations was acknowledged, and the Parliament discussed changes to existing legislation. At the same time, proponents of greater “professionalism” questioned whether ownership transparency alone would solve the media’s problems, and advocated instead for more investment in journalist education and the promotion of ethics standards. Most Georgian television news coverage is perceived as biased, though both the government and the opposition have media who favor their point of view, resulting in a certain degree of balance. Several talk shows are aired regularly with distinctly varying topics and participants. Print media are more diverse than television programming, but only a few editions follow ethics standards. The function of internet media increased during the year as the number of Georgian residents involved in online social networks continued to grow. Although greater attention to media non-transparency signals a hopeful trend, the media sphere still lacks significant independence and needs to institutionalize transparency; thus, Georgia’s independent media rating remains unchanged at 4.25.

Local Democratic Governance. The new version of the constitution establishes a separate chapter on local self-governance. This particular amendment will come into force in January 2011. New local councils were elected in Georgia in 2010. The opposition increased its representation, but the ruling party maintained the vast majority of members in all councils nationwide. The constitutional changes did not touch on the substance of regional governance, which remains controlled by the central government. However, in the future the prerogative to appoint regional governors will be exercised by the government and not by the president. Owing to several institutional improvements that will go into effect in 2011 and whose impact remains to be seen, Georgia’s local democratic governance rating remains unchanged at 5.50.

Judicial Framework and Independence. Georgia’s judiciary remains plagued by inconsistencies in interpretation and enforcement of legislation, weak institutional organization, and lack of judicial independence. The rate of acquittals in 2010 dropped to 0.01 percent, suggesting increased dominance of prosecutors in the court system. The Ombudsman’s office reported on unbearable overcrowding and inhumane conditions in penitentiary and detention facilities, prompting some largely symbolic steps towards liberalization of the government’s current “zero tolerance” crime policy. Several political parties and NGOs continued to raise the issue of political prisoners, while the government continued to categorically deny their existence. In October 2010 jury trials were introduced, with the aim of increasing public trust in the justice system. Recent institutional changes may improve transparency of court proceedings in the course of 2011; however, based on deteriorating conditions in 2010, Georgia’s judicial framework and independence rating declines from 4.75 to 5.00.

Corruption. The fight against corruption continued to be a priority for the Georgian government. Several high-ranking officials and businessmen were arrested on corruption charges, while petty corruption appeared to be almost absent. Public agencies in Georgia further improved services and introduced electronic systems to increase accountability and transparency. Challenging areas remained the transparency of state procurement and the use of presidential, governmental, and Tbilisi funds. Although there is still a need to institutionalize and consolidate anticorruption achievements, Georgia’s steady focus on combating corruption and improving transparency results in an improvement in its corruption rating, from 5.00 to 4.75.

Outlook 2011. In the coming year, the electoral working group is expected to identify issues and try to reach consensus on how to address them. This work has greater importance with the upcoming national elections in 2012 and 2013, with the aim to increase public trust in the electoral system. Additionally, open discussions and legislative amendments are needed to qualitatively enhance the media environment. The public debate involving government and nongovernmental actors, academia, media, and the private sector that occurred in 2010 could foster the reemergence of vibrant civil society. The constitutional guarantees for local self-governance will begin operating in 2011, as well as the new tax code and the jury system. The quality of Georgia’s national democratic governance will depend on how open and issue-based political debate is on these subjects.