Natalie Smyr: "We must establish a ban to prevent future presidents from turning our country into a commercial project"

Natalie Smyr, a former member of the Abkhazian parliament and chairman of the Aamta expert fund, shares her insights on the controversial "apartment law," which proposed selling property to foreigners. She explains why the law was withdrawn and advocates for stronger protections to prevent the sale of Abkhazian real estate to non-citizens. Smyr calls for a constitutional ban to stop future leaders from turning Abkhazia into what she describes as a "commercial project."

- Natalie, you have worked in parliament for many years and are well acquainted with the inner workings of the People's Assembly. Could you explain the decision made by the deputies to withdraw the law on apartments in the eastern part of Abkhazia, as we commonly refer to it? What was the motivation behind the deputies' actions, and what does this withdrawal signify?

Let me remind you of the background of this issue. When this law first emerged, it was an initiative of the president. The law was submitted to parliament by the presidential administration, and it proposed the construction of apartments across the entire territory of Abkhazia. When they realised that the western part of the country had a more developed tourism sector, they apparently decided to present this as a pilot project and labelled it as part of the socio-economic development of the eastern regions of our country. Since the apartment and apart-hotel bill, a legislative initiative belonging to the president, had remained untouched, they needed to find a way to push it through. They then devised a plan for the deputies to introduce this bill into parliament. A theatrical scene was played out where the deputies from the eastern part, specifically from Ochamchira district, where the tourism industry is not as developed as in the west, submitted the bill.

Now, I will make a brief digression. The wisdom of the Abkhazian people lies in the fact that they recognised this deceit. After all, what is this law about apartments and apart-hotels? It is a disguised form of selling real estate to foreign citizens. Not even disguised, it’s an overt form of selling property. And the people understood that this is dangerous for our country, for our demography, and for our development. Yet the bill was introduced, and some of the deputies, mostly pro-government, would of course have voted in favour of it. The reasoning was, you know, "ironclad"—I say this with sarcasm—that they would be developing the eastern part of Abkhazia and building apart-hotels. But this is laughable and utterly nauseating. I want to ask, what apart-hotel will be built in the Tquarchal district, in Tquarchal itself? Who will come to live there, tell me? Why treat your own people as fools?

- Why did this second law come about?

They probably thought they could advance bit by bit. But once you start, you can’t stop. There are certain commercial interests here—those of specific oligarchs and Abkhazian businessmen. And so, they came up with this so-called pilot project for the eastern part.

- And what would this give them?

It would set a precedent for selling property, meaning that all kinds of real estate would start being sold to foreigners.

+ Abkhazian Parliament Withdraws Apartment Law

+ Diaspora Concerns: Abkhazian Representatives from Türkiye Raise Alarm on 'Apartment Law'

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

- But isn’t real estate already being sold to foreign citizens under the guise of commercial property?

Our legislation does not prohibit the sale of commercial real estate. You can create a limited liability company and buy and sell such property. To do so, you must establish an Abkhazian company on Abkhazian soil, which can then carry out its business activities. There is nothing alarming in that. But in this particular bill, you can sell housing to foreigners who will not be registered here, they will only be recorded by the immigration service, but that’s all nonsense, you know. It’s aimed, forgive me, at fools. There was an interview somewhere on Sputnik where Abesalom Kvarchia said that no one had even read this law. I want to assure him, I read the law, as I read virtually all laws to check for their compliance with other legislative acts, what changes will be made and where, and what normative legal acts will be adopted. He’s mistaken if he thinks our people are so ignorant and don’t read laws. We do, and we understand everything perfectly well.

Why was the law withdrawn? I want to thank those deputies who, after consulting with their constituents, made the decision to voice their voters’ opinions. Perhaps some initially thought they should vote for the law, but later changed their minds. Well done, that’s very good. Seeing that this bill wouldn’t pass in parliament, the deputies who introduced it withdrew it. But the withdrawal is not the end; the matter is not closed. Now we need to address the president directly to close this issue for good. We need to introduce a strict moratorium through amendments to the Constitution to establish a ban for the future, so that future presidents won’t be tempted to turn our country into a commercial project. This needs to be prohibited.

Can parliament impose this moratorium?

Yes, it falls within its powers. There’s a procedure by which they can impose a ban on the sale of real estate to foreign citizens by amending the Constitution or constitutional laws. Once, they passed a constitutional law in a single day at 5 a.m. The precedent exists, so it’s possible to introduce such changes and a moratorium on the sale of real estate. For our parliament, this is not difficult.

Why didn’t the deputies propose a moratorium, instead stopping at the withdrawal?

If a bill is submitted, it needs to be included in the agenda and rejected in the first reading. But since the bill was withdrawn, the next step should be the moratorium. The people should demand it from the deputies, and the deputies should make it happen. That’s all there is to it. We must establish protective measures not only for tomorrow but for a very long time. Eventually, new people will come along who don’t know our history, who have no moral values at all. What we see in the leadership of our country is a complete absence of moral standards in their assessment of what is happening in our lives. Never before has our own government treated its people as idiots. I also see a lack of knowledge about Abkhazian history. If they knew it, they would understand that it’s unwise to awaken our people. In times of danger and serious upheaval, the people make very wise decisions—just as they have now in rejecting the sale of real estate to foreign citizens.

This interview was first published on ApsnyHabar.