Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Elected President
Here we must note that the Chair of the Constitutional Commission and the
Parliament ruled out any definitive approach from the outset by declaring the
following: ... from a purely legal perspective, both direct and indirect election is
legitimate and valid. There are different countries, including ones that practice
the parliamentary system, where president is elected through direct or indirect
vote. Both of these rules are legitimate. The important question for us is to
correctly define which one is more suitable for our country.1
However, as the Commission proceeded with its work, it became clear that the
parliamentary majority favors indirect election of president.
Counties, where the president is an integral part of the executive power and
exercises authority over the country along with the government (countries with
1 See the statement of the chair of the Constitutional Commission
presidential and mixed models of governance), practice direct elections for
at: http://www.interpressnews.ge/ge/politika/415483-irakli-kobakh- president. Thus, in the constitutional/legal tradition direct popular vote is con-
idze-prezidentis-archevis-tsesi-ar-aris-isethi-sakithkhi-romelic-ch-
ven-unda-ganvikhiloth-izolirebulad-skhva-normebisgan.html?ar=A sidered a source and a guarantor of presidents power and his/her political and
executive authority.
Bicameral (+the
7 Ireland Direct
President)
Unitary
1. Direct election - the voters directly cast ballots to choose the president of
the country;
Here we must also note that out of the different types of indirect presidential
elections, having the president elected by a unicameral parliament is the least
democratic since it decreases the degree of legitimization the most.
Based on the examples of the countries provided in the table above, it can be
argued that election of president by the parliament is less justified if the parlia-
ment is unicameral. Allowing decisions to be made by a unicameral parliament
formed through a mixed or proportional voting system would mean allowing
dominance of decisions of the majority party, while in a bicameral system such
risk is mediated by an independent chamber of regional representatives. Differ-
ent terms of service for members of different chambers and periodic renewal
of composition of each legislative chamber provides additional guarantee for
more representativeness and the reflection of a wide range of different positions
among electors of the president.
The president of Germany is the leader of the state and represents the country
in both domestic and international relations. The president does not belong to
the executive or the legislative branches of government, neither at the federal
nor at the state level; instead, the president serves as an independent figure.
By virtue of Article 54 of the Basic Law of Germany5, the President is elected by
the Federal Convention, a body set up for this particular purpose. The Presi-
dential Election Act of Germany, derived from the Basic Law, provides detailed
regulations for election of the president.
members elected by the parliaments of the states (or Lander) on the basis of
proportional representation.
The above rule mitigates the risks related to election of president by the par-
liament only and ensures broader representation among electors (interests of
parliamentary parties as well as the states are considered) and high degree of
presidents legitimization.
Here we should also consider the example of Italy. Despite having a bicameral
parliament, which ensures broader representation compared to a unicameral
parliament, election of President is not the exclusive prerogative of the parlia-
ment.
The president of Italy is the head of the state, who ensures national unity and
serves as a guarantor of Constitutional order within the parliamentary repub-
lic. The president is elected6 by Parliament in joint session of both chambers.
Together with MPs, three delegates from every Region elected by the Regional
Council participate in the election to ensure that minorities are represented
(the only exception is Valle d/Aosta with one delegate only). The number of
delegates totals 1009. The election is by secret ballot and a winning candidate
must garner support from two thirds of the assembly. Multiple rounds can
be held until one of the candidates wins the minimum votes necessary to be
elected president. However, after third round of elections an absolute majority
will suffice.
This way, the example of Western democracies with parliamentary form of gov-
ernance clearly demonstrates that ensuring high level of representation among
electors is a democratic standard. Otherwise, parliamentary system of gover-
nance and a unicameral legislature pose the risk of concentrating the supreme
power in hands of a single party. This happens when different branches of the
political power (legislative and executive) are fully controlled by the majority
party that has won the parliamentary elections. This will also allow the majority
party to exercise indirect control over the judiciary as well, considering that the
legislative authority participates in the process of judicial appointments together
with the president (selection of members of the constitutional and the supreme
courts, selection of some members of the High Council of Justice, which in turn
ensures selection of judges for common court).
Indirect election is certainly more stable, quicker, cheaper and more effective as
it saves financial and administrative resources and time.
However, any rule has its advantages and disadvantages, positive and negative
effects. With regards to election of president, the question should be formu-
lated the following way: do benefits (including financial benefits) of practicing
indirect election outweigh the negative aspects of such rule (including weak-
ening of democracy and the system of checks and balances)? I.e., do benefits
exceed harm?
From constitutional and legal point of view, the president is a stand-alone figure
that doesnt belong to any of the branches of the government, with the role of
an arbiter, which is especially important for any possible confrontation between
the government and the parliament. In order for the leader of the nation to be
Arguments in Favor of the Directly Elected President
Only a directly elected president will be able to act in accordance with moral
principles and dare to defend a different position before the parliament.
Direct election is important for effective realization of the role of the leader of
the state as the guarantor of the countrys integrity, an arbiter of constitution-
al bodies, a constitutional/legal institution with the ability to resolve a political
crisis, as defined by the Constitution. This ensures high political legitimacy of
the president, which is directly related to how the president is elected.
The purpose of the system of checks and balances and the primary objec-
7 Constitution of Georgia https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/
view/30346
tive of democracy is to prevent concentration of power in hands of a single
individual, while who this individual may be, what may be the name of the
8 In countries with parliamentary model of governance, generally
leader of the party that won parliamentary elections becomes the office or the name of the institution (president or prime-minister), is not as
head of the government. In some countries this rule is contained
by their constitution. important. Concentration of full power in hands of the prime minister is as
dangerous as in hands of the president, especially considering that there is
V
no limit to how many terms the prime minister can serve and due to the specif-
ic nature of the parliamentary model, the prime minister also has a control over
the legislative branch of the government.
In view of his minimal rights, losing direct legitimization from the people would
turn the president into a nominal figure unable to realize functions of an arbiter.
The dissonance between high legitimization resulted from direct election of the
president and small powers that the president has in reality, may pose certain
risks. In particular, direct election and high degree of legitimization that comes
from it may cause the president to develop unhealthy ambitions about pow-
er and false impressions about political importance of the his/her persona,
contrary to the constitutional status of president. This may lead to a crisis or a
political confrontation with the prime minister, who is the holder of real power,
especially when their political affiliation and views are different.
On the other hand, limited powers of the president excludes any possibility of a
political crisis as the government will have no problem outweighing the presi-
dents powers.
Political context
Constitutional reform is not just a legal issue but also, and equally so, an
important political matter. Constitutional law is essentially a political law since
it formulates rules and regulations that are subject of political agreement.
Therefore, constitutional/legal decision should be made in view of political
arguments. Constitutions themselves are the fruit and the outcome of politics,
which later lead to certain political implications and directly impact the balance
between political forces and distribution of power.
Political context must absolutely be taken into account. This is exactly what
is meant when they talk about tailoring universal principles to local experience
and taking local specificities into consideration. What works effectively say, in
Arguments in Favor of the Directly Elected President
Germany, may not be as effective in Georgia, due to unique and different past
experiences and political contexts in these countries.
Indirect election will reduce the degree of legitimization of the head of the state
by allowing it to be elected not by the majority of constituents but by a party
that won the parliamentary elections after gaining support of part of the pop-
ulation. This will reduce the political weight of the leader of the country and a
symbol of Georgias unity.
Elections are the most important form of direct democracy, allowing voters to
participate in political processes in a direct manner, express their free will and
influence the decision-making process. In the parliamentary model of gov-
ernance in Georgia, in the system of supreme state bodies the president is
the only official directly legitimized by the people and elected on the basis of
direct, universal suffrage. Therefore, stripping the people, who are the source of
power, of their right to directly elect the president will be a step backwards on
the road to solidifying democracy. This will reduce citizens perception of their
power and will lead to their frustration and alienation from political processes.
Naturally, none of these rules are a panacea and the Constitution of a concrete
country should take into account the local context and experience, and should
be responsive to local challenges and needs. Therefore, in light of the existing
situation in the country, weak democratic institutions, lack of political trust to-
wards these institutions and the powers that the ruling party enjoys, weakening
direct democracy is less than desirable.
Maintaining direct elections for the leader of the nation in a fledgling democracy
like Georgia will prevent turning the president with already limited powers into
a hostage of the ruling partys authority. This way, the presidents power as the
head of the state will derive from a mandate from the majority of constituents
and s/he will be acting as the president of the state, not of a concrete political
force/party.