TBILISI, October 16 – Georgia’s leading legal watchdog, the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), has condemned a new legislative proposal from the ruling Georgian Dream party that would ban individuals linked to outlawed political parties from taking part in politics, calling it unconstitutional and contrary to international human rights standards.
In a statement released Wednesday, GYLA said the draft law contradicts both the Georgian Constitution and international conventions, including Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of association. The organization warned that the measure could “in the long term lead to the disappearance of political diversity.”
According to the draft, which entered fast-track parliamentary review on October 13, people associated with parties banned by the Constitutional Court would be prohibited from engaging in political activity. The restrictions would cover a wide range of activities, including founding or leading a political party, holding a political or state office, and running in elections.
GYLA argued that the proposal amounts to “collective punishment”, since it penalizes individuals merely for their past connections with a political organization. The group said the bill’s vague definition of what constitutes being “linked” to a party leaves room for broad interpretation and possible abuse against government critics.
The lawyers’ association also noted that the Constitutional Court’s powers are clearly defined under Article 60 of the Georgian Constitution, which does not grant it authority to impose individual political bans. The group said that Georgian Dream, which lacks the constitutional majority needed to amend the Constitution, is attempting instead to reshape the legal framework through a simple majority vote.
“Such measures would significantly erode democracy,” GYLA said, warning that lifetime political bans would disproportionately restrict individual rights and undermine political pluralism.
The bill has drawn sharp criticism from civil society and opposition parties, who see it as part of a pattern tightening restrictions on the government’s political opponents.
