Georgia's foreign influence law puts a six-month-old candidate status to the test

On Tuesday 28 May 2024, the Parliament of Georgia overrode the veto of President Salome Zourabichvili and adopted the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence by 84 votes to 4, after most opposition members had walked out of the chamber[1]. The ruling Georgian Dream party and its ally Democratic Georgia hold 84 of the 150 seats; a simple majority of 76 was enough to override the veto[2]. The President has five days to sign the law. If she refuses, the Speaker, Shalva Papuashvili, may sign and promulgate it in her place[1]. The text is nearly identical to a bill the same majority withdrew in 2023 after street protests[3]. The European Council granted Georgia candidate status on 14 December 2023, less than six months ago. The question for the Union is now what that status means when a candidate adopts a law that the Union's own institutions have asked it to repeal.

What the law provides and what the experts said

The law requires non-governmental organisations and media outlets that receive more than 20 per cent of their funding from abroad to register as "organisations pursuing the interests of a foreign power"[3]. Organisations that refuse to register may be monitored by the Ministry of Justice and fined. The law also allows the authorities to demand personal data from organisations and individuals, with fines for non-compliance[1]. Its main provisions take effect 60 days after promulgation, and registration is due within the following month, which places the first registrations a few weeks before the parliamentary elections of 26 October[1]. The government says the law counters "harmful foreign actors" that seek to destabilise the country[3]. Journalists and civil society organisations say its real purpose is to stigmatise them before the elections[3].

The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe examined the law under its urgent procedure at the request of the Parliamentary Assembly and published its opinion on 21 May 2024. It found that the restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of association and privacy fail the tests of legality, legitimacy, necessity and proportionality under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It noted that Georgian law already requires associations to register and to report on their funding, and that the authorities gave no convincing reason why those rules were insufficient. It "strongly recommends repealing the Law" in its current form[4]. The President's veto message of 18 May called the law unconstitutional and said it mirrored the Russian law on foreign agents[1]. The majority overrode the veto a week after the Venice Commission's opinion.

What the Union has said and what it has not yet done

The European Council's decision of December 2023 granted candidate status "on the understanding that the relevant steps set out in the Commission recommendation of 8 November 2023 were taken"[5]. Those nine steps include the protection of fundamental rights, a free space for civil society and the media, depolarisation and the fight against disinformation[6]. On 15 May 2024, after the third reading, the High Representative and the Commission said that the law "negatively impacts Georgia's progress on the EU path" and urged the authorities to withdraw it[6]. On 22 May, Josep Borrell asked Georgia to act on the Venice Commission's recommendation[7]. On 28 May, after the override, the High Representative and the Commission said the Union "deeply regrets" the vote, that the law causes setbacks on three of the nine steps (disinformation, polarisation and fundamental rights), and that the Union and its Member States are "considering all options"[8]. Borrell has said that a decision will come at the Foreign Affairs Council in June[2].

The United States has moved faster. On 23 May, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced a visa restriction policy against individuals responsible for undermining democracy in Georgia and their family members, and a review of bilateral cooperation[9]. The parliamentary speakers of seven Member States (Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, France, the Netherlands and Poland) called on 27 May for the law to be scrapped[2]. The Union as such has so far issued statements.

What this means for our generation

The crowds outside the Parliament are, for the most part, our age. On 11 May about 50,000 people marched through Tbilisi[10]. Students at Tbilisi State University walked out of classes and several institutions declared an academic strike after the third reading on 14 May[11]. The Prime Minister, Irakli Kobakhidze, described the protesters as "misled" young people[10]. One 20-year-old student told Reuters that every important event in Georgia's history "was dominated by young people"[11]. The Georgians who were born after the Rose Revolution of 2003 have known no other foreign policy than the European one, which is written into Article 78 of their Constitution. They are now asking the Union whether candidate status was a promise or a label.

We make four recommendations. First, the Foreign Affairs Council in June should state in writing that the accession process cannot advance while the law is in force, and it should name the three steps on which the Commission has found backsliding, so that the condition for progress is precise and reversible. Second, the Union should redirect part of its financial assistance for Georgia from the central government to civil society organisations and independent media, which the law targets, and it should say that the redirection ends when the law is repealed. Third, the Member States should adopt targeted visa measures against the officials responsible for the violence against demonstrators that the High Representative condemned on 15 May, in parallel with the American policy of 23 May[6][9]. Fourth, the Union should send a full election observation presence for 26 October, including long-term observers, because the law's registration deadline falls in the campaign period and the first fines may be levied against those who report on it.