Talk:2024–2025 Georgian constitutional crisis

Parties

In my view, even if Bidzina is the "de facto ruler," it is still inappropriate to characterize the "parties" as "Opposition" and "Bidzina."

We don't do this in other conflicts. For instance, in 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests the parties are not listed as "protestors" and "Xi" even though Xi is the de facto ruler of Hong Kong, it's "protestors" and "Hong Kong government."

In the same way, the sides here should be "Opposition" and "Kobakhidze government," with Bidzina being listed under "lead figures" not as a side unto himself. Mosi Nuru (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks unprofessional, contrary to Wikipedia standarts. Even if Ivanishvili is a de facto ruler of Georgia (although he is not really a "de facto" ruler because he is officially a honorary chairman of the party and has the power to nominate the Prime Mininister), he is not an institution and should not be mentioned as such. Persons are not written next to institutions in infoboxes. Rutdam (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Please check the meanings of wikt:de facto and wikt:de jure. The whole point of the expression de facto is to talk about reality as opposed to official statements about reality. Being de jure the honorary chairman of the party is fully compatible with being the de facto ruler of the country. Boud (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree I think the infobox should err on the side of "most straightforward". Makes total sense to include him as a lead figure though Placeholderer (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Disagree anyone who knows anything about Georgian politics now knows Ivanishvili is everything for GD, not just some retired "honorary" personage. Deleting him and moving to less noticeable position is not acceptable. Even major institutions like European Parliament explicitly mention Ivanishvili (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241121IPR25549/parliament-calls-for-new-elections-in-georgia). They openly talking about Georgia needing "deBidzinization" (https://civil.ge/archives/635305). Also, US financial sanctions targeted Ivanishvili directly even when they didn't target Kobakhidze, so there's clearly wide recognition that he is "the" main person.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you find an example of a conflict infobox where a person who calls the shots is put above a government? Mosi Nuru has a good counterexample Placeholderer (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I can answer that with a question. Could you find an example of a country where de facto ruler does not hold any official position? It's not something that happens everyday, so looking at what is on other articles not very useful. We don't have to do something just because another article is like that.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Even in case of absolute monarchies, I don't see a king being mentioned by his name above the country or government in any revolution or war. Generally, persons are not written in "parties/belligerents" section of the infoboxes. Therefore, agree with mentioning in the "lead figures" option. Nivzaq (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Disagree Please see Wikipedia:Avoid other stuff exists. When other articles use infoboxes misleadingly, in violation of WP:VERIFIABILITY, we should not copy their mis-representation of the reliable sources. Please focus on the sources for this particular case. In the above talk page section nobody has given any sources arguing that Kobakhidze or Kavelashvili are the top people in the hierarchy actually getting government ministries and employees (and titushky of unknown status) to carry out their orders. Boud (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

First, if you'll read the policy you cite, you'll note that it says: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Can you explain why you don't think other articles about political conflicts aren't valuable precedent here?

Second, it doesn't matter which individual is at the top. The other side of this is still the Kobakhidze government. Mosi Nuru (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Boud, I see you have made this revision even though the topic was under discussion and the consensus at the time was to keep Kobakhidze government as the side.

I have reverted your edit. Please do not edit war on this further. Wait until a consensus is established in support of your position if you want to change this again. Mosi Nuru (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The current consensus, which is the most recent talk page discussion, is that all the sources agree on Ivanishvili as the effective ruler of Georgia. This new section aims for a possible change to that consensus. Your revert is in contradiction to the current consensus. Boud (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, the argument I see against having Ivanishvili at the top of the government side isn't based on Ivanishvili "not being in charge" — and with that in mind I think it's not right to refer to a section where you are the only contributor in order to say that this discussion is aiming to change an established consensus. My own stance is that, based on all the precedent I know about, it's more appropriate to have Kobakhidze government at the top of the government side even though Ivanishvili is considered the de facto ruler of Georgia Placeholderer (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You are conflating two issues.

Issue 1) Is Bidzina the effective ruler? Current consensus is "yes" (although you are the only editor to have weighed in) This not the issue we are discussing.

Issue 2) Should the infobox list Bidzina as a "Side 2" in the conflict? 5 editors have responded, and the majority say "No, Bidzina is a leading figure, maybe even the leading figure, but he is not 'Side 2.'" Mosi Nuru (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources don't just say that he's the effective ruler, but that he's an autocrat. The only problem here is the choice of an appropriate term. Strictly speaking, Ivanishvili regime could be used, where wikt:regime is used in the sense of governmental system, but the problem would be the ambiguity with the WP:WEASELly connotation of "government that 'we' don't like". To avoid that, Ivanishvili governmental system is clearly a "Side" per the sources. The Kobakhidze government and GD are sub-parts of the Ivanishvili governmental system, per the sources. Boud (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think if there are RS saying the protests as a whole are against the "Ivanishvili regime", they're outnumbered by RS who don't. I think it might be WP:SYNTH to combine sources that say the protests are anti-government and sources that say Ivanishvili is in charge in order to say that the protests are against an Ivanishvili government.

I still haven't seen any precedent for having Ivanishvili at the top. A nearby counterexample where the government side is just "the government" and not the strongman is 2024 Abkhazian protests, where the side is just "Government" (should probably be Government of Abkhazia; might change that after this) even though the ~country is dominated by Putin's Russia.[1] It would also raise the question of how to handle strongmen in charge of strongmen. 2022 North Caucasian protests has Government of Chechnya as a party. If Kadyrov is the official leader of Chechnya, but Putin is in charge of Kadyrov, what would make sense to do? What if it's ambiguous whether or not someone behind the scenes is calling the shots? Depending who you ask, Nazarbayev was still in charge of Kazakhstan for a while (but for how long?) after stepping down in 2019.[2] 2022 Kazakh unrest, which Carnegie Endowment says was what ended Nazarbayev's control, has Government of Kazakhstan at the top. These are examples where people other than the official leader are "in charge", but I'm not sure I fully understand the reasoning for only having individuals at the top in those cases.

To me, what makes the most sense for an infobox and what looks to fit precedent is to have "Kobakhidze government" at the top of the side. To more closely follow precedent would be to say "Government of Georgia" but since the article is about a legitimacy dispute that might not be seen as neutral.

My opinion is the same for 2024–2025 Georgian protests but might as well discuss both here Placeholderer (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Each country and situation is different: the number of cases where the de facto leader is not the official leader is low.

When an institution's real leader is not its de jure leader, the individual who is the de facto leader does matter. Boud (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Torture in the lead

@LeontinaVarlamonva, you have re-added text to the lead that says hundreds of people were tortured during the protests. [3] Although there are more sources now, I still don't see a single one giving a number of people tortured, especially not a number in the hundreds. The specific wording from Amnesty is Hundreds of protesters, dispersed and arrested by police, have faced violence that, in some cases, amounts to torture and other ill-treatment. (emphasis mine)

I will remove this wording from the lead again for now – if you wish to add it again, the BURDEN is on you to prove all of it. Toadspike [Talk] 21:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I added another source for torture and clarified that hundreds were arrested, beaten or tortured, meaning this was not necessarily every case. Nobody can give exact numbers right now for how chaotic these events were but torture has clear evidence.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, using "or" has addressed my concerns here. Toadspike [Talk] 09:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge and move request

A request to merge 2024–2025 Georgian constitutional crisis and 2024–2025 Georgian protests pages into the 2024–2025 Georgian political crisis page.

Reasons:

The both articles essentially describe same events and most of the content in this article is same or copied from the 2024–2025 Georgian protests page. Having two articles seems redundant and both would fit together better in one page. The constitutional crisis and protests are essentially interlinked and can not be separated, so no need to have two articles for similar events.

Requested move 5 January 2025

2024–2025 Georgian constitutional crisis → 2024–2025 Georgian political crisis – Reasons provided above. Nivzaq (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose the merge This article aims at an overview from the constitutional/legal point of view, for which the protests don't have much relevance unless Article 3.2 of the Constitution (v2018) Power is exercised by the people through ... and other forms of direct democracy, and I haven't seen any sources stating that that article of the Constitution is being invoked by the opposition or Zourabichvili to say that the protests are an example of direct democracy. Apart from Article 3.2, protests do not directly affect the legal structure of Georgia as a state. Overall, I see very little overlap of current content between the two articles, even though obviously, there is a relation between them.

The broader political crisis started in 2023 with the first Foreign agent bill proposed to Parliament, which is clear in 2023–2024 Georgian protests, or possibly with the 2020–2021 Georgian political crisis. However, I don't see any sources interpreting the Foreign agents bill as being contrary to the Constitution - it's just repressive, not directly opposed to the EU integration. So those protests are not really justified in the constitutional crisis article.

I see no point in merging two complementary aspects of the crisis into a single article.

On the contrary, in principle a side article missing from 2023–2024 Georgian protests is one about the various versions of the bill itself, including the final version, and any actions taken to implement it, similar to the article Russian foreign agent law. If I understand correctly, NGOs had a deadline of 31 Dec 2024 to report their foreign funding status, and the most obvious place to find info on that would be something like Georgian foreign agent law. Currently, readers have difficulty finding much about that (whether or not the current government is considered valid, it does appear to be still running ministries and carrying out the usual bureaucratic machinery of a government). Boud (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This article and the protests article are closely interlinked because they are stemming from same causes - 2024 parliamentary election and temporary suspension of EU negotiations. Fundamentally, this article covers the legal aspect, while the protests article covers the political aspect of the same event. Also, the Foreign Influence (Foreign Agent) Bill was a different thing and is not related to this protest and there is no continuity, these protests started after 2024 election and are against the government, while the 2023-2024 protests were against specific law. Therefore, the discussion does not concerns the Foreign Influence Bill protests. Nivzaq (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Support the merge. Articles cover the same basic subject matter, to the extent they cover different subject matter the best approach is to have a section for the protests and a section for the parliamentary/legal battle each with a section in the broader "political crisis" article.. Mosi Nuru (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose for reasons explained by Boud. I also think "political crisis" is very common thing in Georgia and its not same as constitutional crisis. This article is focused about complete breakdown of constitutional order in Georgia. I think calling it "political crisis" trivializes what is happening.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

There is only one article named "Georgian political crisis" (despite there being many articles about Georgian protests in various years) and it concerns 2020-2021 political crisis. Actually, the situation is very similar - the opposition refusing to recognize the election results as legitimate and entering the parliament, demanding new elections. Constitutional crisis denotes to the legal aspect of the event, while the protests denotes to political aspect. Constitutional crisis is part of the broader crisis which also encompasses the protests. The alternative term to name the article can also be 2024–2025 Georgian post-election crisis. Nivzaq (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Current situation not similar to 2020-2021, where government and opposition were facing each other and president helping them negotiate. Now there's two claimed presidents, parliament self-convening declared unconstitutional including by people who wrote the constitution, all opposition parties and both living former presidents from different parties. Its total constitutional collapse and calling it "political crisis" is trivializing it.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The situation is largely similar in essence imho. Zurabishvili changing side does not really makes situation different. Moreover, allegations of the Parliament unconstitutionally "self-convening", the opposition not being present, claims of elections being rigged, "former living presidents" opposing the government (Saakashvili and Margvelashvili? I am sure both were on side of the opposition back then too) - all of this was present in 2020-2021 and now too. The only new thing is temporary shelving of EU negotiations but that does not changes the essence of situation imho. It is still same post-election crisis. Nivzaq (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Stephen F. Jones, a political scientist specialising in the South Caucasus, sees the Ivanishvili governmental system as having done three mistakes in a row, that successively got the Georgian population more and more angry: the Foreign agent law, falsifying the parliamentary election, and suspending EU accession. His analysis is not peer-reviewed, but we don't have any peer-reviewed sources so far; the opinion of an academic expert is generally more reliable than that of the media. Boud (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Support to be in line with the 2024 Venezuelan political crisis, a political crisis over a similarly disputed election. Hu753 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

support for the same reason as Hu753 even the Venezuelan presidential crisis of 2019 was not called that way (which was arguably far closer to a constitunional crisis than the current Georgian crisis) Braganza (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

strong support Braganza (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

What makes you think Venezuela should be benchmark? Is there wikipedia rule saying we should forever follow example of whichever article was created first? Why not rename the Venezuela article itself if its "arguably far closer to a constitutional crisis"? There's no rule that says we should follow previous example just because it was first to get a name like that.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

i just can not see what is so "special" about Georgia compared to Belarus or Venezuela. To be honest, i can't even tell what exactly the "constitutional" part is, the election fraud, the formation of the parliament or the presidental election? If it is one of the latter two, why exactly?

The article also mentions "suspen[sion of] EU accession negotiations" or the invasion of Georgia in 2008 as fuel of the constitutional crisis for some reason.

You are right, there is no such direct rule but it should still remain somewhat consistent. Braganza (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It mentions suspension of EU accession as a constitutional issue because it is written in Georgia constitution that government must do everything to ensure full EU integration and it does not give them right to "suspend" it for any period of time, like they can't "suspend" any other part of constitution. Parliament convening without president while case was pending in constitutional court was also clearly constitutional issue.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Really? that is the constitutional crisis? Braganza (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. The constitutional crisis revolves around the different constitutional bodies disagreeing on how the constitution should be interpreted. The election fraud allegations don't constitute a constitutional crisis but a political crisis. The whole crisis revolves around the election dispute, therefore, it should be named the Georgian political crisis. Only part about the alleged "self-convening of parliament" really addresses the constitution, however, according to the Georgian constitution, the President of Georgia is obliged to convene the new convocation of parliament after 10 days after the parliamentary elections were held. President Zurabishvili refused to convene the parliament because she believes the elections were rigged, and she was accused by the ruling party of violating the constitution, while Zurabishvili accused the parliament of self-convening and violating the constitution in return. Once again, this is not really a genuine constitutional crisis - the constitutional crisis involves the constitutional text being misleading or open to interpretation and the different groups quarreling about its interpretations (for example, during the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis the parliament impeaching president but president alleging that parliament had no right to impeach him and ordering the dissolution of parliament, which the parliament argued president had no right to do). In this (Georgian) case, the constitution is very clear and there is no dispute about its interpretation, both sides agree that the president should convene the parliament 10 days after the election - what they disagree about is the legitimacy of the 2024 Georgian parliamentary election, which the president claims were rigged and therefore illegitimate, refusing to convene parliament. And this once again is a continuation of election dispute, which is political crisis and not constitutional crisis.

"The decision of the ruling party to suspend EU accession negotiations" is also cited as a reason of constitutional crisis, which I fail to see how is connected to the constitution at all. The Georgian constitution says the state bodies should pursue the EU integration (this was written in the constitution by the Georgian Dream btw in 2017), but the Georgian government did not "suspend EU accession negotiations" - Georgia was never offered EU accession negotiations and therefore one can not suspend what has not even started. The Georgian government said that it would postpone opening of the negotiations until 2028 but would continue fulfilling all requirments for opening negotiations which have not yet been accomplished. The constitution does not specify anything about timing of opening of negotiations or anything, so I don't see connection - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/georgia-delays-eu-membership-talks-until-2028/3408002.

Moreover, the search results seem more common for "Georgia political crisis" rather than "Georgian constitutional crisis". Rutdam (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

We primarily use WP:RS for interpretations of constitutionality. Can you give references to other legal experts than Georgian legal experts and Stephen F. Jones? All the same, both sides agree that the president should convene the parliament 10 days after the election is rather dubious because Article 38 of the Constitution says no later than the 10​th day after the results of the parliamentary elections have been officially announced, not 10 days after the election. So interpretation is needed as to whether an illegitimate election can have "results" or not; as far as I know the case at the Constitutional Court of Georgia called by Zourabichvili has not finished yet, so whether officially announced is possible while the Constitutional Court case is still pending again requires an interpretation by people with recognisable legal expertise.

There is agreement that Zourabichvili did not open the meeting of parliament. Under Article 38 of the Constitution, The first meeting of Parliament is called by the President, but this has not been satisfied; thus, the constitutional requirements for Parliament to meet are not satisfied. There doesn't seem to be a constitutional rule saying what to do if the President does not open the meeting, e.g. whether or not to wait until the President accepts to open a meeting of Parliament; the possibility of Parliament self-convening is not written in Article 38; so an interpretation of the Constitution is needed. Moreover, Parliament shall acquire full powers once this is acknowledged by two thirds of the Members of Parliament where this appears to mean the majority of the total number of the Members of Parliament is present at the meeting in the preceding sentence. Since GD + its supporters have less than 2/3 of the parliamentary seats, if the official results of the election are considered to be legitimate results, the opposition presumably refused to acknowledge that a majority was present, so it would appear that the Parliament lacks "full powers".

In any case, the question of whether or not to merge depends on reliable sources' views of the Constitution and constitutional procedures for handling violations, not on Wikipedians' interpretations of the Georgian Constitution. Boud (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

like i said above, the article is a mixture of different (legal/constitutional) disputes smashed together. The EU accession negotiations is listed as "escalation" of the same "constitutional crisis" but the EU negotiations has nothing to do with a first meeting of Parliament.

Actually i would argue that the article is not even about any constitutional crisis specifically [yet]. Why are the parts of the constitution you mentioned not even listen in the article anywhere? The word "constitution" is mentioned a total of 6 times (2x not even in the article itself [source & template]). The article is the current state is just about a political crisis. Braganza (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a fair point that what WP:RS see as the constitutional aspects of the crisis were not clearly shown in the article. I have looked for sources and  Done some edits aiming to clarify that. I didn't find the info that both sides agree that the president should convene the parliament 10 days after the election (my emphasis) in any sources, (and it apparently contradicts Article 86 (5a) of the rules for parliamentary procedures in the current situation) so I couldn't add it.

I had earlier overlooked Ivanishvili wanting a 3/4 majority in order to constitutionally ban the opposition. In the context of countries that have a more or less democratic institutional structure, that's more than just "politics".

My impression is that so far we have used very few of the available English-language sources on the constitutional aspects of the crisis; the number of reliable Georgian-language sources is likely a lot higher. Boud (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

still there is the problem about the crisis itself.

Can election fraud trigger a constitutional crisis, i don't think so. Can the president's refusal to open the parliament trigger one, maybe (?) but then any mentions of other things like EU or Russia should be removed.

Looking into other "constitutional crises", its often about clear disputes over the competences:

• 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis: Khan tried to prevent a vote of no-confidence by dissolving the parliament
• 2019 Moldovan constitutional crisis: a dispute other "90 consecutive days" or "3 months", which led to the impeachment of the president only for him to be re-installed
• 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis: dispute over what exactly counts as a vote-of-no-confidence, attempt of dissolving the parliament after a specific number of vonc was reached
• 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis: attempt of striping the legislative powers from parliament

like i said, i see this crisis as far more similar to Venezuela 2019 and 2024, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election or the Impeachment of Han Duck-soo, which are not directly called constitutional crises by the article title, rather than other constitutional crises which i don't see it really keeping up to it. Of course Zurabishvili refused to open the parliament and she still claims to be president but the president has no real power and left the presidential palace without much resistance as far i can tell. Braganza (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The article does not currently state that the constitutional crisis was "triggered by election fraud" alone - the crisis is viewed as constitutional by the sources in many ways, though better wording of the first sentence of the WP:LEAD can quite likely be chosen.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 31 Oct 2024 Georgia is now in a full-blown constitutional crisis fraught with danger.; Stephen F. Jones 3 Dec 2024 The Georgian Dream government tried shifting to Russia – but now faces a popular uprising and constitutional crisis; The Guardian 14 Dec 2024 Constitutional crisis deepens as opposition says election of former footballer Mikheil Kavelashvili is 'illegitimate'; Barron's 20 Dec 2024 Georgia has plunged into a constitutional crisis; Euractiv 1 Jan 2025 The Black Sea nation has been in the grip of an unprecedented constitutional crisis since the ruling Georgian Dream part.

Orbeliani Palace was only the presidential palace for Zourabichvili; it's not a long-term symbol of the presidency like 10 Downing St or the US White House. Zourabichvili chose to leave while retaining the presidency. Boud (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"not currently state that the constitutional crisis was "triggered by election fraud" alone"; yeah and what is the constitutional crisis exactly about? what is THE dispute, the election fraud, opening of the parliament, the presidential election or the EU? it should be a simple question (one can lead to the other but there is still an original dispute), i asked it multiple times but nobody could even tell me [4] [5] [6] [7]

once again i don't see the "extraordinaryness" for this crisis compared to other crises and like Rutdam said, "constitutional crisis" is used but "political crisis" is more common "verfassungskrise" in German is even more scarce Braganza (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You have listed four components of the constitutional crisis, as stated by the sources. The sources are in the article and in this talk page section. It's up to the sources to decide if one of the components is THE most significant.

Given the mixed RM/Merge nature of this proposal, please also remember WP:NOTPAPER: the constitutional crisis and protests are related but complementary topics. Merging and then splitting again later risks creating a lot of unnecessary editing work. Boud (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak oppose I can see how there is benefit to covering these things in the same article but they are still not identical phenomena and "political crisis" risks taking two distinct and parallel events and turning it into something more vague. 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Jorahm (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Note: WikiProject Georgia (country) has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)