Debate Intensifies Over the “Against All” Option in Abkhazia’s Presidential Elections

SUKHUM / AQW’A —  The presidential elections in Abkhazia will be held on 15 February, yet less than two weeks before the vote, discussions about the electoral process continue to intensify. A key point of contention is the role of the “Against All” option on the ballot. Leuan Lagulaa, editor-in-chief of Apsny Khabar, strongly advocates for preserving this mechanism, arguing that it serves as a safeguard against the excessive concentration of power in Abkhazia’s super-presidential system. Although the Central Election Commission of the Republic of Abkhazia is unlikely to implement any legal changes so close to the elections, the debate over this issue remains active.

Abkhazia's political structure is one where the winner secures full executive control. A candidate receiving 50% +1 of the vote assumes absolute authority, leaving the opposition with little to no influence. This system, Lagulaa argues, risks marginalising significant portions of the electorate and enabling governance without broad societal consensus.

The introduction of the “Against All” option in recent elections has played a crucial role in addressing this issue. Under this framework, a candidate must not only outperform their opponents but also surpass the total number of votes cast against all candidates. This additional threshold ensures that a winning candidate commands a true majority rather than prevailing merely due to a fragmented opposition. Lagulaa asserts that this mechanism provides an essential counterbalance to the existing system, which otherwise risks reinforcing political stagnation and impeding democratic progress.

The Public Chamber’s Proposal to Remove the “Against All” Option

The Public Chamber of Abkhazia has proposed eliminating the “Against All” option from the second-round ballot. In an official appeal to Parliament, it expressed concerns that the existing system could fuel political instability. Their proposed amendments include:

• Removing the “Against All” option in the second round.

• Revising Article 19 to declare a candidate elected if they secure the highest number of votes, provided voter turnout exceeds 25%.

The Chamber argues that these changes would prevent potential electoral deadlocks and ensure a smoother transition of power. However, critics contend that such reforms would primarily benefit the political elite at the expense of public influence.

Leuan Lagulaa, Chief Editor of ApsnyHabar

"The presence of the "Against All" option is not merely a right; it is also a safeguard that protects society against the usurpation of power.

In Abkhazia’s political system, the winner takes all. A presidential candidate who secures 50% +1 of the votes gains absolute power. In such a system, the minority is completely stripped of its political influence.

However, in previous elections, the "Against All" option emerged as a crucial balancing mechanism. Now, for a presidential candidate to secure victory, it is no longer sufficient to simply receive more votes than their opponents; they must also obtain more votes than the total number cast for the "Against All" option.

The "Against All" option serves as a tool for a conscious minority to challenge power monopolies and demand change. If a candidate fails to win the genuine majority support of society, they should not govern the country single-handedly. In truth, even without this condition, it is evident that a president vested with absolute powers does not benefit the country, but that is a separate discussion altogether.

Votes cast "Against All" are not merely an act of protest; they represent a demand for a fair system—one in which power is not concentrated in a single authority."

— Leuan Lagulaa

The Risks of Removing the “Against All” Option

Lagulaa strongly opposes the proposed changes, warning that they would significantly weaken voter agency. He contends that the “Against All” option is not merely a protest mechanism but a means of ensuring that elected officials genuinely reflect the electorate's will. By eliminating this choice, he argues, the system would facilitate electoral victories for candidates lacking substantial public support, thereby consolidating power and stifling political competition.

Furthermore, Lagulaa highlights the broader implications of such a move. He notes that past elections have demonstrated how candidates with as little as 20–23% of the vote in the first round have gone on to secure the presidency in the second round, granting them total control over governance. This, he argues, underscores the necessity of retaining safeguards that prevent power from becoming overly centralised.

Preserving the “Against All” option is not just about procedural fairness; it is about upholding democratic accountability and preventing the concentration of power in the hands of a select few. In a political system where the winner takes all, this mechanism provides a necessary check, ensuring that governance reflects the true will of the people.