Accodring to the “Georgian Dream”,¹ Georgian citizens residing outside the country would no longer be able to participate in parliamentary elections. This initiative is fundamentally incompatible with the principle of universal suffrage guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia.

The right to vote cannot exist only formally. A deliberate violation of the right by the state should be considered a case, where the state has a real opportunity to ensure the opening of polling stations abroad, but due to the interests of the ruling party, Georgian citizens are not given a real opportunity to vote. The principle of universal suffrage² imposes a positive obligation on the state to ensure the real participation of citizens residing abroad in elections and to prevent their active voting rights from being reduced to a formality due to narrow partisan interests. Moreover, under the Constitution of Georgia, “The State shall take care of maintaining and developing connections with the homeland for Georgian compatriots residing abroad”.³ By depriving citizens of a long-standing opportunity and restricting their right to vote, it is unclear how the State fulfils this obligation.

The possibility of voting abroad enables citizens living abroad to continue taking part in the political life of their country, even if they are not physically present on its territory.⁴ Ensuring the possibility to vote allows citizens to maintain their ties with the homeland, regardless of geographical, economic or political circumstances.⁵ This issue is particularly important in the case of Georgia, because of the large and constantly growing number of citizens being in emigration. They provide substantial financial support to families remaining in the country and therefore play a significant role in the economic life of the state. ⁶

According to the Venice Commission, taking into account citizens’ european mobility and the individual circumstances of states, governments should adopt a positive approach to the voting rights of citizens residing abroad. The number of countries that enable their citizens to vote abroad is increasing, and, in parallel, depriving Georgian citizens of this possibility is unacceptable.⁷ Furthermore, establishing the rules for voting in parliamentary elections by analogy with local self-government elections is constitutionally unjustified and a flawed practice, and at the same time, it is unacceptable to deprive the citizens of Georgia of this opportunity.⁸

Furthermore, establishing the rules for voting in parliamentary elections by analogy with local self-government elections is constitutionally unjustified and a vicious practice, as these two processes differ fundamentally in their legal nature and political significance. It is also essential to underline that, in parallel with this legislative process, the ruling party is pursuing litigation before the Constitutional Court seeking to ban opposition political parties.⁹ In addition, it is intensifying pressure on independent observing organisations¹⁰ and the media. In a context of democratic backsliding in the country, the adoption of such measures once again demonstrates the intentions of Georgian Dream and further undermines the possibility of holding elections in a democratic environment.

1“Osneba” restricts citizens living in emigration from voting in elections", information portal "Batumelebi", 17 November 2025. Available at: https://batumelebi.netgazeti.ge/news/595131/fbclid=IwY2xjawOHvwlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyCGNhbGxzaXRlAjMwAAEe7Nw3ip6rjQXuUV7B0C5VWP6psHNOZfTlf1YUE-u9cBViiaUjWo4J08MSM7c_aem_HbLoKxcJrh6jl6_G7Cfh1A, Last update: 17.11.2025.

2 It is precisely the principle of universal suffrage that makes it possible to ensure so-called reflective representation in the legislative body, which implies the representation of the interests of all major groups of society in Parliament. See: Ghonashvili, V., Eremadze, K., Tevdorashvili, G., Kakhiani, G., Kverenchkhiladze, G., Chighladze, N., Introduction to Constitutional Law, Meridiani, 2016, p. 276.

3 The Constitution of Georgia, Article 5.8.

4 European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Report on Out-of-Country Voting, CDL-AD(2011)022. (64).

5 Ibid. (66)

6 According to World Bank data, in 2023, Georgia ranked sixth among remittance-receiving countries across Europe and Central Asia, with inflows totaling 4.2 billion USD, which, for the same period, amounted to 13.8% of Georgia’s GDP.

7 European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Report on Out-of-Country Voting, CDL-AD(2011)022. (99).

8 Out-of-Country Voting Learning from Practice, Adhy Aman and Mette Bakken, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Available at: https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/out-of-country voting.pdffbclid=IwY2xjawOH9zZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETF3eTJUS1hGNXNaa21YaEZIc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MghjYWxsc2l0ZQEyAAEeJFZV446Zs1-FgbiyDk98kZWQu1nMP47aaG2UXiqkGsOtJbOpIdsC8oR6ozk_aem_iZTlovAFhfEn3FdApJ3UnA, Available at: 17.11.2025.

9 A constitutional claim filed by members of the Parliament of Georgia (a total of 88 members) regarding the constitutionality and prohibition of the activities of political parties (“Unity - National Movement,” “Coalition for Change – Gvaramia Melia Girchi Droa,” “Strong Georgia - Lelo, For the People, For Freedom!”). Available at: https://www.constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=18680.

10 “Bank Accounts of Seven Civil Society Organizations are Frozen,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty news portal, 27 August 2025. Available at: https://www.radiotavisupleba.ge/a/33514228.html, Last update: 17.11.2025; “Georgian Dream Launches a New Wave of Repressions Against Civil Society Targeting Around 30 Georgian NGOs,” GYLA official website, 22 September 2025. Available at: https://gyla.ge/post/Statemnet-22-09, Last update: 17.11.2025.