Said Gezerdaa: “Under the Guise of Economics, the Government Proposes Surrendering Sovereignty”

Said Gezerdava, a prominent Abkhazian lawyer and public figure, discusses the critical issues facing Abkhazia's sovereignty, the need for constitutional reform, and the integrity of electoral processes in an interview with Elena Zavodskaya for ApsnyHabar.

ApsnyHabar: Said, could you tell us if you plan to participate in the upcoming 2025 presidential elections in any form?

Said Gezerdaa: No, I have not made that decision yet. I cannot say that I am a supporter of any particular political force. Most likely, I will not support specific individuals, although I may advocate for certain ideas or programmes that can change the current situation. It is very difficult to come to terms with the current state of affairs because the present government is undermining many achievements we have maintained in terms of sovereignty and relative freedom of action with their utterly thoughtless and completely anti-Abkhazian initiatives. If, of course, such a team openly addresses these issues, proposes concrete solutions, and makes promises that clearly show they are ready to fulfil them, then I might support them to the best of my ability.

"Preserving sovereignty is now the primary issue because the measures currently proposed by the government in the economic sphere imply simply handing over the economic levers of control to certain investors."

What kind of programme would you like to see? How do you envision the ideas you could vote for?

The main issue is the preservation of Abkhazian statehood and the steps each candidate envisages for protecting national sovereignty. I believe that focusing on the economy is justified, but we understand that under the guise of economic measures, the government is proposing the surrender of sovereignty. I think that preserving sovereignty is now the primary issue because the measures currently proposed by the government in the economic sphere imply simply handing over the economic levers of control to certain investors. Such a comprador economy should not satisfy us at all. We need to look at the programmes of various candidates and see that it is still a relatively independent economy. I would like to see such parameters as the preservation of sovereignty and an economy built around this idea.

Said, many politicians are now talking about the need for constitutional reform. You were part of the commission on constitutional reform. Why has the commission not produced any results after so many years?

I disagree that the commission has not produced anything. Maybe it is not the result that society expected. The result we obtained was achieved through the compromise of the specialists and experts who participated in the commission's work.

What are the key points of the compromise you reached?

There was a discussion about whether we should move towards a mixed republic or remain a presidential republic. The commission existed during a period of relative calm, and the executive power did not manifest itself in any way. Initiatives related to apartments and Pitsunda were not yet present. We have reassessed many things since those events occurred. We understand that such initiatives are possible because the executive branch can abuse its powers, ignore everyone, and push through decisions without regard for parliament. Where else have you seen 30 deputies voting under executive pressure at five in the morning, clearly in someone's interests? This is similar to the current situation, where deputies must pass all these catastrophic laws by August 1. Such plans are feasible due to the current power configuration. I suggested changing the form of governance to a mixed system. We could consider whether it should be presidential-parliamentary or parliamentary-presidential. Parliamentary governance is a more radical step, which we may not be ready for. However, there were experts, such as Alkhas Tkhagushev, who noted that we effectively had such a governance system in the early 1990s with the Supreme Council. 

We envisioned a procedure for forming the Cabinet of Ministers, where the candidates for the Cabinet of Ministers would be approved by parliament, and parliament would give the green light for appointments. We proposed reducing the role of the prime minister, although many disagreed with this. I feel we didn't manage to accomplish much. We thought the work would continue, but it did not. The commission was created to address the problem of imbalance in the power system, leaning towards the executive branch, but we couldn't solve this problem ourselves. Moreover, the president did not agree with our views. He partially took some of our ideas and presented them in a completely different form to the Constitutional Court, which then forwarded them to parliament.

As far as I remember, the situation was this: the commission developed some proposals, but the president sent different ones to the Constitutional Court. Did the Constitutional Court approve or reject them, and what happened to these amendments?

You are correct, the president sent his amendments to the Constitutional Court, not the commission's. His amendments included only the provisions related to the formation of the Cabinet of Ministers. We worked on the chapters on executive power and legislative power and introduced many useful things. None of this, practically all our work related to legislative power, is absent. The president was granted the right to dissolve parliament if he fails to form one-third of the Cabinet of Ministers. Within the commission, we agreed that we didn’t need such a mechanism to dissolve parliament.

+ Bureaucracy Crafting Its Own Constitution: Gezerdaa Slams New Presidential Decree

+ Navigating Legal Complexities: An Analysis of the Pitsunda Agreement, by Said Gezerdaa

+ Said Gezerdaa: "State Security as a Tool for Blackmail and Compromise"

+ Said Gezerdaa: "This is a Public Threat Against the Abkhazian Society"

What happened next, Said?

After the Constitutional Court ruled that these amendments did not comply with the Constitution, the president forwarded them to parliament. I think the deputies will disagree with the dissolution procedure. Our proposals were presented to parliament in such a truncated form, and I do not understand why they could not be presented as we proposed. There were indeed many useful things related to legislative power. I think the deputies would have unequivocally supported them. They would have clarified the activities of parliament. The same applies to executive power; there would have been more details and clarity. But our work abruptly ceased. We did not get to important issues such as impeachment, and we could not move further into the chapter on “Judicial Power”, which I believe also needs reform. Currently, the constitutional amendments are in parliament.

"We must unequivocally move away from the presidential form of governance. It is the source of all our problems, leading to complete irresponsibility of the authorities and turning the presidency into something akin to a monarch's status."

What did the dissolution of the commission look like? Did they simply stop convening you?

No, there was no formal dissolution. We finished with two chapters, legislative and executive power. We had a meeting with the president, to whom we presented our changes. No one told us that the commission's work was terminated. We assumed it would continue, but it did not.

Said, as a lawyer and someone who worked on constitutional reform, how would you like to see this reform? How do you envision it?

I certainly have many proposals for amending the Constitution. We must unequivocally move away from the presidential form of governance. It is the source of all our problems, leading to complete irresponsibility of the authorities and turning the presidency into something akin to a monarch's status. I do not think this is safe for the state or for preserving statehood under current conditions. It should definitely be a mixed governance system, with parliament participating in the formation of the Cabinet of Ministers. The president's powers should be significantly reduced, but since we are talking about a mixed governance system, I believe we cannot do without a prime minister. I also think the executive branch should be relieved of appointing officials. The president should not nominate judges to parliament. This should happen without the president's involvement.

Why?

The president is a very serious filter for judges entering the judiciary. It is entirely impossible to litigate specific cases against this executive power later. People selected by the executive branch become judges and are naturally dependent on it. The same applies to other supervisory bodies, such as the prosecutor's office and the Audit Chamber. I think they should be as independent from the executive branch as possible because this dependence is very serious. It is currently almost impossible to file a complaint against the actions of the executive branch. It is extremely difficult to get the prosecutor's office to respond to any illegal actions by representatives of the executive branch because it is also highly dependent on it.

Does this mean that any team you are willing to support must come forward with a proposal and a commitment to implement constitutional reform first and foremost?

Indeed, this is very important, but I do not know of any team ready for serious changes. Essentially, these are people who must be willing to give up the power granted to them by the Constitution. I am not sure we have politicians who would enter the executive branch to limit themselves. I would be very pleased to see such a team.

What do you see as the problems with our electoral campaigns? What can be done to address them? One of the issues we constantly encounter is that teams make promises and then, once in power, conveniently forget them. What would you say about the electoral process overall, and how can society be protected from such blatant deceit?

There are many violations that exist in practice, related to the inefficiency of control mechanisms by the Central Election Commission and law enforcement agencies when there is direct and open bribery of voters in various forms. Voters sometimes become a submissive mass that can be transported, made to vote, and so on. There is much to be resolved regarding the purity and transparency of elections.

"The only institutions that can somehow keep the president in check are parties, active media, and civil society. These are the only tools that provide feedback to the president. But now we see that this very element of democracy is being seriously weakened."

Are there any mechanisms in our legislation that allow for influencing or limiting these negative aspects?

Mechanisms exist, and there are responsibilities, but the structures that should control these processes deliberately overlook these cases. I have participated in elections myself, and I can say that everyone around knows what the candidates are doing and how they are bribing their voters, but no measures are taken.

What can be done about these grand promises that are later forgotten? Do you have any solutions?

I believe that voters are well aware of whom they are voting for. They always know who will fulfil promises and who will not. On the other hand, which voter demands constitutional reform? Mostly, their demands concern improving living conditions. Our system is non-competitive internally: if it is the president, nothing prevents him from failing to fulfil his duties and programmes he proposed; nothing restricts him. I think the only institutions that can somehow keep the president in check are parties, active media, and civil society. These are the only tools that provide feedback to the president. But now we see that this very element of democracy is being seriously weakened.

What do you expect from the upcoming presidential elections? How would you like to see them?

I would like there to be an understanding that voting for candidates you disagree with is not an option, i.e., choosing the lesser evil is not the right choice. If you do not like the candidates, vote against all. I cannot now call for boycotting the elections, but not attending the elections is also a form of voting. If you disagree, and the number of votes against all is significant, it affects the election results. Unfortunately, our electoral legislation is structured so that even if the elections are invalidated, the same candidates can run again. This norm should not exist. There should be new elections with a clean slate and completely different candidates. People need to understand that they should not act according to someone else's script, where they are essentially told: we will put you in such a tight framework, and you must vote as we have directed this situation. No, people must break this script. If you do not like the candidates, vote against all. I think this is normal. And it would send a strong message from the citizens that we still want to see other people, other candidates.

Elena Zavodskaya for ApsnyHabar