Policy Paper

Hasty Reform of Self-

Government and
Existing Challenges

Lela Khatridze
December, 2017
 Affairs concerning public needs, distributed
locally, are absolutely managed through local
officials, selected by a community of local resi-
dents and accountable before this very commu-
nity.
To sum up, the fundamental principle of such
governance lies in management of local affairs
by local residents themselves. Such governance
greatly contributes to prosperity of the coun-
try: it keeps people alert, opens their mind by
triggering their enthusiasm for issues of public
concern and by allowing to train and practice
for a public cause.
tion were especially progressive. These amend-
ments increased number of self-governing enti-
ties by adding new self-governing cities, which
was modeled after the best European practices.
Initial proposal of the reform envisaged chang-
es with a much bigger scale3 but following dis-
cussions the proposal dwindled down and even-
tually the status of a local self-government city
was given to Telavi, Gori, Mtskheta, Akhaltsikhe,
Ambrolauri, Ozurgeti and Zugdidi, on top of five
cities (Tbilisi, Kutaisi, Rustavi, Batumi, Poti) that
already had the self-governing status. Local and
international stakeholders/experts welcomed
growth of the number of self-governing cities.

In 2017 we came face to face with a reality

Ilia Chavchavadze, Life and Law
where the government rejected its own reform
and reduced the number of self-governing units.
It stripped the above seven cities of the self-gov-
Local Self-Government Reform: One erning status and merged them into the self-gov-
Step Forward and Two Steps Back erning communities that they were separated
from in 2014. The above initiative was unequiv-
Striving to empower and promote local self-gov- ocally criticized by population, political spectrum,
ernments and ensure that local self-government civil society4 and all stakeholders. Basically the
bodies are as close to local communities as pos- government did not have a single serious sup-
sible is one of the primary areas of progress in porter in this process. It is probably difficult to
contemporary democracies. think of any other case where the reform that
had been approved by public and viewed as an
After Georgia restored its independence, several accomplishment of the government on the road
important reforms were implemented in this area, to decentralization and democratization, was de-
guarantees for independence of self-government stroyed by authors of the reform themselves.
were consolidated at the constitutional level1
and the European Charter on Local Self-Gov- Merging of self-governing units is problematic for
ernment2 was ratified. But there have also been several reasons:
occasional digressions from the course of de-
velopment of local self-government and decen- This is a step backwards on the road to
tralization because the central authorities were decentralization of power;
always reluctant to give up governing leverage
and distribute power between central and local It will reduce citizen participation in
levels of government. self-government, which will have a negative ef-
fect on general level of democratization;
Legislative amendments enacted in 2014 in the
field of self-government reform and decentraliza- It will not help further development of cit-

1 In the Georgian Constitution, a separate Chapter 7 is dedicated to local self-government, see: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/30346#
2 The European Charter on Local Self-Government, see: http://nala.ge/uploads/files/4dea0e16ba5dc.pdf
3 Initial bill envisaged creation of 18 instead of 12 self-governing cities. Entities with a population of at least 15,000 were to be granted the status of a self-governing city.
According to this criterion, 13 new self-government cities were to be created in addition to 5 existing ones. However, the criterion for granting a status of a self-governing
city was changed and seven new cities were formed. They were given the self-governing status because they represented regional centers. 8 more cities fulfilled the
criterion about population size Samtredia, Khashuri, Senaki, Zestaponi, Marneuli, Kobuleti, Tskaltubo and Kaspi. Initial version of the self-government reform, draft of the
organic law of Georgia the Code of Local Self-Government, Article 3.2, see: http://info.parliament.ge/file/1/BillReviewContent/128197
4 Appeal of 121 NGOs to the authorities, see: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1209/geo/

1
ies and villages;
It cannot ensure actual (tangible) optimi-
zation of expenses.
The changes implemented without broad pub-
lic involvement, in a hasty manner and in viola-
tion of law are especially problematic since the
implementation process began several months
before the October 2017 local self-government
elections.
Proposed amendments to the Code of Local
Self-Government5, adopted by Parliament with
three readings and sent to the head of the gov-
ernment for his signature, were vetoed by the
President.6
Although interest about the issue was significant,
population, civil society and political spectrum
did not have an opportunity to participate and
express their opinions; discussions with broad
participation of stakeholders and experts did
not take place. Initially the authorities rejected
reports about abolition of self-governing cities,
instead they only pointed out technical changes
to be made in the Code of Local Self-Govern-
ment related to introduction of the term Mayor
to replace the term Gamgebeli.11 Later when
the pending amendments became known to pub-
lic, the authorities still failed to provide any jus-
tification or substantiate the need to implement
these changes. The ruling partys arguments
were fragmented and scattered in statements
and interviews of different officials.

In view of the President, the spirit of these
amendments weakens the democratic process
and pluralism in the country as well as the de-
gree of public involvement in functioning of the
state. He also declared that the hasty manner
in which these changes were adopted is wrong,
especially three months ahead of the local elec-
tions. In his motivated objections7 the president
shared the position of the civil society8 and po-
litical parties.9
Therefore, the process that preceded initiation of
changes for merging of municipalities, irrespec-
tive of their content, was problematic itself, lacked
transparency and fell short of requirements of the
law. The government made the decision behind
closed doors and left the society facing the fact.
Further, following spread of information about
the initiative, the government rejected the offer
of NGOs to hold discussions and consultations
about the amendments with stakeholders.12

In addition to violating the principle of transparen-

The Parliament of Georgia rejected the Presi-
cy and openness of the process, the legislative
dents motivated objections and overcame the
amendments were drafted in violation of require-
veto10. As a result, only the parliamentary ma-
ments of the law, population of the self-govern-
jority will bear the political responsibility for the
ing units affected by these changes were not
consequences, because all other stakeholders
criticized the proposed changes. engaged in discussions about the issue. These
people were not given an opportunity to voice
their opinion about organization of self-govern-
Lack of Transparency of the Reform ment of their own village or city.
and Procedural Violations
Engaging locals in the self-government reform is
The changes initiated by the authorities were important because it affects their everyday life.
drafted in a somewhat comparative environment. Therefore, not only the Code of Local Self-gov-

5 A draft law on amendments to the organic law of Georgia the Code of Local Self-Government, see: http://info.parliament.ge/file/1/BillReviewContent/153183
6 Statement of the President of Georgia on vetoing proposed amendments to the Code of Local Self-Government, see:
https://www.president.gov.ge/ka-GE/pressamsakhuri/siakhleebi/saqartvelos-prezidentma-adgilobrivi-tvitmmartvelob.aspx
7 For the full text of motivated objections of the President of Georgia, see: https://www.president.gov.ge/getattachment/5c1bdd20-59c2-4e5f-b413-a64b03557997/N8481.
pdf.aspx
8 Appeal of NGOs to the President of Georgia, see: http://droa.ge/?p=5182
9 Opposition parties appeal to the President for using the right to veto: http://1tv.ge/ge/news/view/170040.html
10 Parliament did not uphold the Presidents motivated objections, see: http://parliament.ge/ge/saparlamento-saqmianoba/plenaruli-sxdomebi/plenaruli-sxdomebi_news/
parlamentma-prezidentis-motivirebuli-shenishvnebi-ar-gaiziara.page
11 Statement of the Chair of Parliament, see: http://www.interpressnews.ge/ge/politika/432910-irakli-kobakhidze-saubaria-gamgeblisthvis-mkholod-sakhelt-
sodebis-shecvlaze-mas-sheidzleba-etsodos-meri.html?ar=A
12 Statement of NGOs, see: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1225/geo/
2
ernment but also the Constitution of Georgia
mandates prior public consultations for separa-
tion/merging of self-governing units. In particular,
by virtue of the Constitution of Georgia abolition
of a self-governing unit or revision of its admin-
istrative borders must be preceded by consulta-
tions with the self-governing unit.13
lished at least once a week. Instead of publish-
ing the information, the municipality may publicly
announce it.18 Interested individuals can present
their views to the Government Commission with-
in 20 days. During a public discussion, public
meetings can be held with the local population
of the municipality (municipalities) concerned.19

The Constitution, as the supreme law of the In this way, prior consultation of the local com-
country provides only a general formulation. In munities concerned is required. In 14 self-gov-
the case in question, a self-governing unit en- erning entities that were merged to create 7 en-
tails not only bodies of a municipality but also tities, representative meetings and discussions
citizens that live within the boundaries of the unit. with local communities should have been held.
The organic law of Georgia the Code of Local The government should have listened to and
Self-Government further elaborates on the is- taken into account opinions of locals, however
sue by stating that the Government of Georgia is public consultations were not held in any of the
entitled to apply on its own initiative and based municipalities.
on consultations with the municipalitys council
and residents of the relevant municipality, to theFurther, local councils (Sakrebulos) as well as
Parliament of Georgia with a recommendation Parliament made decisions in violation of the
for establishment or abolition of a municipality.14
law.20 Under the Local Self-Government Code,
Further, according to requirements of the law, thewith the aim of holding consultations about
Governments proposal must be enclosed with merging of municipalities with municipalities con-
documents that reflect the public consultations cerned, the Government Commission should
with residents of the municipality (municipali- have provided them with documents reflecting
ties).15 public consultations in respective municipalities
in addition to other documents. Because con-
Public consultations about establishment/aboli- sultation with the local communities concerned
tion of a municipality are facilitated by a rele- did not take place, local councils did not receive
vant government commission16 (the Government such documents, which means that local coun-
Commission on Regional Development of Geor- cils made the decisions in violation of the law, on
gia). According to the Local Self-Government the basis of incomplete documentation. Similarly,
Code, consultations with local people of the mu- for adopting a decree about merging of munic-
nicipality are held in the form of a public dis- ipalities21, Parliament must receive a document
cussion.17 Before submitting an issue for review that reflects public consultations. Because Par-
to the Government of Georgia, the Government liament was not supplied with such document,
Commission must promulgate the information the legislature adopted the decree22 without the
about establishment/abolition of a municipality. mandatory document about public consultations.
Promulgation is defined as publishing of infor-
mation in print media distributed throughout the Of note is the fact that the obligation of seeking
territory of the municipality concerned and pub- publics input is a standard envisaged not only

13 Para.3 of Article 1011 of the Constitution of Georgia, see: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/30346#!

14 Para.2 of Article 10 of the Local Self-Government Code, see: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2244429
15 Ibid, Art. 11.5.c
16 Ibid, Art. 12.5
17 Ibid, Art. 12.6
18 Ibid, Art. 12.7
19 Ibid, Article 12.6; 12.8
20 Ibid, Article 10.6.g; 12.2
21 Decisions on the establishment and abolition of a municipality, as well as on the determination and change of the administrative center of a municipality shall be taken
by the Parliament of Georgia upon the recommendation of the Government of Georgia. The Code on Local Self-Government, para.12 of Article 10, see:
https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2244429
22 Decree of the Parliament of Georgia, see: http://www.parliament.ge/ge/ajax/downloadFile/69211/987-II%E1%83%A1

3
by the Georgian legislation but also by the Euro-
pean Charter on Local Self-Government, which
suggests the importance of public involvement
in matters related to delimitation of municipality
boundaries. By virtue of the charter, changes in
local authority boundaries should not be made
without prior consultation of the local communi-
ties concerned, possibly by means of a refer-
endum where this is permitted by the statute.23
Although Georgia has rejected to ratify Article 5
of the Charter, the provision is helpful for under-
standing what the CoE standard is.
Because of the said violations, NGOs filed an
action in court demanding abolishment of the
parliamentary decree on merging of the munici-
palities. As of October, the court proceedings are
still pending.24 The courts decision to invalidate
the normative act would mean that the legislative
changes were made and the elections were held
on the basis of a decree that has been invalidat-
ed.
The process of discussion in local Sakrebu-
los was also problematic and incomplete con-
tent-wise. The issue was discussed in a hasty
manner, without participation of local communi-
ties and civil sector. Local communities not only
did not have time to examine the issue and form
a well-reasoned position but also, their majority
learned about Sakrebulo decision post-factum,
after abolition of municipalities. In a number of
Sakrebulos there was a commotion following the
discussions because meeting attendees were not
allowed to discuss opposing views in a working
format.25 This did not live up to the democratic
standards for debates and discussions.
It is safe to conclude that there has been a sub-
stantial violation of procedures prescribed by the
law, which calls legitimacy of the governments
decisions into question. Had the authorities en-
sured citizen participation and had they taken
their views into consideration, we may have had
a different picture, because the changes were
criticized26 by local communities and the civil
society.
Possible Political Motive for Merging
Municipalities
The issue of how local councils (Sakrebulos)
supported self-liquidation must be addressed
separately.27 The process looked rather comical.
Members of Sakrebulos, who normally act in the
interests of their fellow-citizens and fellow-villag-
ers, violated the peoples legitimate right to hav-
ing a self-government close to them and tailored
to their specific needs, and supported abolition
of municipalities.
In all municipalities self-liquidation was unani-
mously supported by representatives of the ruling
party, none of them had a different opinion. This
leads us to suspect that members of Sakrebulo
representing the ruling political force are under
the influence of the center. These suspicions are
further intensified by the upcoming local self-gov-
ernment elections, when possibly every member
of Sakrebulo cares to be included in the party list
or to have the partys support for nomination as
a majoritarian candidate.
Of note is the fact that prior to presenting the
proposal about merging of municipalities to
Sakrebulos, during advisory meetings with the
Government Commission local self-government
officials did not support the idea of merging of
municipalities. For instance, during a regional
meeting in Guria, Gamgebeli of Ozurgeti Munici-
pality stated that the reform in 2014 was a good
reform and I wish that the initial option (breaking
up into 370 entities) had been implemented, but
the government could not do it due to the lack

23 European Charter on Local Self-Government, Article 5, see: http://nala.ge/uploads/files/4dea0e16ba5dc.pdf

24 NGOs challenged the parliamentary decree in court, see: https://gyla.ge/ge/post/arasamtavrobo-organizaciebma-saqartvelos-parlamentis-dadgenileba-sasamart-
loshi-gaasachivres#sthash.GZixhd2Y.dpbs
25 Commotion in the Municipality of Ozurgeti Community, see: http://1tv.ge/ge/news/view/161411.html
26 Maintain the self-governing city for Telavi demanded representatives of NGOs, political parties and ordinary citizens during a rally outside of Telavi City Hall, see:
http://ick.ge/rubrics/politics/34965-i.html; Citizens protest abolition of the citys self-governing status in Zugdidi, see: http://www.ipress.ge/new/72712-zugdidshi-moqa-
laqeebi-tvitmmartveli-qalaqis-statusis-gauqmebas-aprotesteben
27 The process of voting on the issue of abolition of self-governing status in Sakrebulo of Zugdidi City, see the video at: http://droa.ge/?p=3527

4
of appropriate funds. Today the financial issue
is still a severe problem and therefore, we must
find a golden ratio but we must also act in the
interest of the city.28
Clearly, local authorities had supported the
changes that were implemented in 2014, includ-
ing increasing the number of municipalities by
separating 7 self-governing cities from their re-
spective municipalities. As to financial matters,
they believed that the desire to cut expenses
should not undermine interests of a city.
Further, during a regional meeting in Kakheti,
Telavi Mayor announced: Telavi is a historic city
and therefore, in 2014, local community was very
excited to have the self-government restored in
the city, and now taking the self-government
away will not be supported by locals. Therefore,
the initiative will not be supported by the May-
or and Sakrebulo elected by Telavi population.
However, the final decision will be made after
hearing arguments of the Government of Geor-
gia.29 At the meeting Mayor of Telavi did not
agree with the argument about optimization of
expenses according to him, administrative ex-
penses of Telavi are one of the lowest. The gov-
ernment did not offer any additional substantial
arguments, however later Municipality of Telavi
City similar to Ozurgeti Municipality and the re-
maining 12 self-governments supported merging
and self-liquidation.
Following merging of municipalities, seven cities
lost their self-governing status. Usually, urban
population unlike rural one is characterized by
a high level of civic engagement. Further, num-
ber of citizens who are critical of the authorities
is higher in cities, as evidenced by the modern
history of Georgia. This leads us to suspect that
by merging of self-governing cities and commu-
nities, the authorities are trying level out political
protest force and potential in these cities, be-
cause as a result of merging the general back-
28 Document sent by the Government Commission on Regional Development to Sakrebulo of Ozurgeti City Municipality for consultation a proposal to create new
municipalities after merging of the city of Ozurgeti and Ozurgeti municipalities, and annex of the proposal the document reflecting the consultation that has been held
(Guria Regional Meeting)
29 Document sent by the Government Commission on Regional Development to Sakrebulo of Telavi City Municipality for consultation a proposal to create new mu-
nicipalities after merging of the city of Telavi and Telavi municipalities, and annex of the proposal the document reflecting the consultation that has been held (Kakheti
Regional Meeting), p.9-10
5
ground will become more neutral. Merging of cit-
ies with self-governing communities may ensure
that criticism is mildly reflected on political com-
position of Sakrebulo of a merged municipality.
Further, amalgamation of municipalities solidifies
the centralized vertical line, so that it is easier for
the central government to administer and man-
age self-governing units, including with respect
to mobilization of electoral resources, which also
creates suspicions that the changes are some-
what related to the pre-election process.
On the one hand, historic experience in which
authorities were always trying to exercise their
rule on local bodies from the center, and on the
other hand the unconditional support of the initia-
tive by members of Sakrebulos representing the
ruling party while knowing that local communities
were against it, creates doubts that merging of
municipalities was primarily motivated by politi-
cal interests and the desire to create the kind of
self-government that is easy to control.
Small Self-Governments A Mean-
ingful Decentralization
Self-government is the pillar of democratic de-
velopment in a country, allowing citizens to man-
age and administer affairs of local importance
according to their needs and priorities.
Self-government is closest to everyday issues of
people and is directly linked to interests of local
communities. There is a direct correlation be-
tween self-governments proximity to or remote-
ness from local population and improvement of
everyday environment for people, access to ser-
vices, civic engagement and show of local initia-
tives.
Local government with high legitimacy and a
strong mandate guarantees proper development
of mechanisms of a participatory democracy at between government structures and people be-
the local level. Self-government is the link that comes more solid.32
allows the highest degree of community engage-
ment in solving of local problems. There is always a sort of ambiguous fear for de-
centralization in Georgia, fear that it will increase
This is what constitutes the most important prin- the threat of separatism, result in disintegration
ciple of subsidiarity in terms of development of the country33, etc. If we want to build a strong
of local self-government. The principle implies democracy, we must overcome these fears
de-concentration and decentralization of powers, through a dialogue. In this regard, government
exercise of power at the lower level of govern- has a significant responsibility to ensure accu-
ment, which is the closest to the people and has rate planning and implementation of the reform
a good understanding of local needs, unless im- with civic engagement, public discussions and
plementation of these powers at the central level by clarifying importance of the changes.
has proven to be more efficient and cost-effec-
tive. In reality, the principle of decentralization is used
against disintegration. Implemented wisely, de-
According to the Decree of the Government of centralization can be highly beneficial, not only
Georgia no.172 on adoption of the state strat- for meeting local interests and needs but also for
egy for regional development of Georgia 201- restoring territorial integrity in a long-term per-
2017 and creation of a government commission spective. Abolition of the self-governing status
for regional development30, the strategy is based for the cities and strengthening of centralism is a
on, among other things, the principle of subsid- negative message for any possible advancement
iarity. The CoE recommends implementation of in the process. Such approach is wrong because
the principle and application of the principle for in the future, with regards to the occupied territo-
development of municipalities.31 ries, independence and decentralization of local
bodies can become one of the contributing fac-
The main idea of self-government is being as tors to solving the territorial problem.
close to local population as possible, taking their
interests into account and engaging individuals Centralized strategy for overcoming conflicts is
in government processes; otherwise, political- too weak to make social integration possible and
ly motivated decisions can also be made at the neutralize causes of conflict. Advantages of a
central level in an efficient, cost-effective and decentralized model must be taken into account
speedy manner. especially in the process of integration of vari-
ous social groups. Centralization recognizes uni-
Existence and development of small self-govern- ty only from the top, whereas a decentralized
ing entities and self-governing cities is necessary system establishes such unity from the bottom
in order transform decentralization from a princi- and promotes realization of integrative aspira-
ple declared on a paper to a real, tangible good tions coming from smaller unions as much as
that local populations can benefit from. possible. Use of integrative opportunities of de-
centralization is especially important with regards
Decentralization brings government geograph- to national minorities.34
ically closer to the people and the distance be-
tween the decision-making center and citizens In many countries and especially in multiethnic
becomes shorter. Further, sensory/emotional ties ones horizontal distribution of power has be-

30 Decree of the Government of Georgia no.172 of 25 June 2019, see: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1025719

31 CoE Committee of Ministers Recommendation # R(95) to the Member States on the implementation of the principle of subsidiary, see: http://www.mrdi.gov.ge/sites/
default/files/01_1.pdf
32 G.Khubua, Why Decentralization? see: http://www.ivote.ge/statiebi/16550-ratom-decentralizacia.html?lang=ka-GE
33 According to the Patriarch and some politicians, the self-government reform that began in 2013 is directed at disintegrating Georgia, see: https://www.radiotavisupleba.
ge/a/tvitmartvelobis-kodeksi/25190590.html
34 G.Khubua, Why Decentralization? see: http://www.ivote.ge/statiebi/16550-ratom-decentralizacia.html?lang=ka-GE

6
come means for realization of legitimate rights of as a priority. This means that our municipalities
ethnic, religious or other types of minorities in a are far larger37 and their population size is far
manner that not only didnt hurt common national bigger than that of European municipalities.38
interests but also promoted strengthening of in-
tegrative processes within the country.35 The registry of municipalities in Georgia is main-
tained by the National Agency of Public Reg-
Naturally, when interests and rights of each and istry39. Before merging of self-governing cities
every individual or different group are protected and communities, there used to be a total of 71
within existing borders of the state and they all municipalities in Georgia, including 12 self-gov-
enjoy an opportunity to participate in the govern- erning cities and 59 self-governing communities.
ing processes, disintegrative process is weak. Following the changes that stripped 7 cities of
their self-governing status only 64 municipalities
In this way, a smaller self-government close to remained in the country. Although each has a dif-
the people will be beneficial not only for improv- ferent population size, most of these municipali-
ing the level of citizen participation and bringing ties have a population size bigger than European
the government closer to ordinary citizens but it average.
may also prove to be effective for resolving the
territorial problems of Georgia. The picture is completely different throughout
Europe. For instance, in Italy average population
Self-Government Close to the People size of a municipality is slightly higher than Euro-
Recipe for Democracy pean average and totals 7412 people. In France
average population size of a municipality is no
It is the governments vision that merging of mu- more than 5000 people, 5650 people in UK and
nicipalities does not reduce quality of democra- 6200 people in Germany. The number is bigger
cy or decentralization, because the latter does in newer democracies in Europe , which direct-
40

not entail fragmentation but rather, entrusting ly indicates that more developed democracies
self-governments with more power and resourc- have smaller self-governments.
es. 36
In a post-socialist Europe the reform of self-gov-
What the government refers to as fragmenta- ernment began immediately after the Communist
tion is in fact one of the most important prin- regime was over and greatly contributed to dem-
ciples of municipal/territorial arrangement of a ocratic transformation of these countries. Gener-
country and entails the idea of self-government ally, European countries have long resolved the
close to the people. issue of number and size of municipalities in fa-
vor of self-governments proximity to the people
What will help understand Western standard of even in places with bigger units of self-govern-
self-governments proximity to the people is the ment. For instance, a fundamental reform imple-
average population size of municipalities in de- mented in Poland in the late 90s reduced aver-
veloped countries of Europe approximately 6 age population size in a municipality from 40 000
700 people, while in Georgia it is over 60 000 down to 20 000.41
people. This is a significant difference, especially
for a country that has declared rural development In a post-communist Hungary many settlements

35 Administrative arrangement of local self-government: vision of the civil society 2009, essence of self-government, see: http://www.nplg.gov.ge/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.
exe?e=d-00000-00---off-0civil2--00-1----0-10-0---0---0prompt-10---4-------0-1l--10-ka-50---20-about---00-3-1-00-0-0-01-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=civil2&cl=CL2.3&d=HASHebd-
19cf3043f91c3d3918b.3
36 Full statement of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure is available at: http://bit.ly/2ilCGzo
37 For detailed information about number of municipalities in European countries see: Local and Regional Government in Europe: Structures and Competences http://
www.ccre.org/docs/Local_and_Regional_Government_in_Europe.EN.pdf
38 Population size of municipalities in Georgia varies but in most cases it is above the European average, see: http://nala.ge/munic/
39 Municipality Registry, see: http://mreg.reestri.gov.ge/
40 Italian Regionalism: between Unitary Tradition and Federal Processes, 2014, p.90
41 Administrative Division of Poland, see: http://ksng.gugik.gov.pl/pliki/podzial_administracyjny_polski_2011-eng.pdf

7
were able to regain their rights to local self-gov-
ernment and by 1993 the number of lower-level
municipalities had nearly doubled in a short peri-
od of time, from 1607 municipalities to 3108.42 In
2016, number of municipalities in Hungary was
3201.43
Georgia is characterized by difficult geographic
conditions and in view of these conditions and
local terrain, having a small self-government
is more comfortable for local communities and
more convenient for communication with munic-
ipal bodies.

According to the statement of the Ministry of Re-
gional Development and Infrastructure, practice
of European countries demonstrates that cur-
rently many European countries tend to make
municipal units larger (e.g. Estonia, etc.).44
The argument is misleading and it overlooks an
important fact. As a result of reforms, number
of municipalities in Estonia has been decreased,
however Estonia still has far more municipalities
than Georgia, in particular: there are 30 cities
and 183 communities in Estonia45. Average size
of population in a self-governing unit is 6000,
which is close to the European average. This
data is especially worthy of attention because
Estonia is far behind Georgia in terms of its area
(45 227 sq.m.) and population size (1 312 000
people)46.
Against the background of European experience,
Georgian government chose a different ap-
proach. Representatives of the authorities have
stated that Georgia is already a small country
and it does not need small self-governments:
Georgia does not have large cities or large dis-
tricts that would require separate structures of
governance. The idea of self-governing cities
was tried and it did not turn out to be successful
(...) financially or governance-wise, so it is not
necessary to stubbornly continue with something
that you adopted.47 A member of the Georgian
Parliament, Akhaltsikhe Majoritarian MP and for-
mer Mayor stated that in todays situation having
a mayor for a city with 17 000 people is unnec-
essary luxury.48
Small area of a self-governing unit is not a dis-
advantage; on the contrary, it is more convenient
for using direct democracy and for citizen en-
gagement. It brings people together, because
the smaller the municipality, the tighter the com-
munity, and communication between members
of the community and the local government is
easier and more effective.
Further, it is very important that having self-gov-
ernment close to the people increases degree of
accountability of local government. The more a
local self-governing unit communicates with the
population, the more it will realize the responsibil-
ity that it has before the people. A local member
of Sakrebulo, who is close to the people, possibly
living in the same village or the same city, can
not escape responsibility, personal relationships
even, like an official who sits in a remote office
and is a stranger for constituents can.
Bigger, amalgamated territorial entities are fo-
cused more on coordinating with the center and
following political instructions that the center
gives them, unlike small self-governments that
are more concerned with finding ways for solving
everyday problems. A small self-government is
far less politically motivated and far freer from
political influences, which ensures that local civil
servants are free from a political pressure and
they make decisions in consideration of daily in-
terests of local communities, as opposed to a
political conjecture.
Addressing everyday problems of population at
the central level runs into bureaucratic obstacles

42 Michal Illner, Territorial Decentralization: An Obstacle to Democratic Reform in Central and Eastern Europe? http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/
UNTC/UNPAN017664.pdf
43 Hungary, Council of European Municipalities and Regions: http://www.ccre.org/pays/view/19
44 Full statement of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure is available at: http://bit.ly/2ilCGzo
45 Municipalities of Estonia, see: https://www.eesti.ee/rus/kontakty/linnavalitsused_1
46 Information about Estonia, see: https://www.eesti.ee/en/republic-of-estonia/republic-of-estonia/information-about-estonia/
47 Member of the parliamentary majority Guguli Maghradze commented on TV about the governments initiative on optimization of self-governments, see: https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=ih7UYnwNRMc
48 Statement of Akhaltsikhe majoritarian representative, see: http://droa.ge/?p=4462

8
that are difficult and inaccessible for ordinary citi- Sakrebulo) and in this regard, merging of munic-
zens. Effectiveness of solving such problems will ipalities is not a problem.
have a direct effect on trust of citizens towards
the state and democratic processes and over- The above opinion is hardly substantiated or ac-
coming of alienation. Real benefits of self-gov- ceptable because on the one hand, the argument
ernment for citizens should entail minimizing that people are not interested in issues that are
bureaucratic mechanisms, direct, immediate and directly related to their lives and everyday prob-
easy communication, easy access to information lems and have no desire to solve these problems
about services and personal relationships. In a is certainly frivolous. On the other hand, addi-
citizens mind, self-government must be person- tional mechanisms for citizen participation in lo-
alized, close and understandable. cal self-government were introduced in the Code
of Local Self-Government only on 22 July 2015,
One of the most important benefits of a small meaning that local communities had less than
self-government close to the population is pro- two years to adapt to the novelties that were of-
motion of citizen engagement in governing pro- fered and utilize benefits of the reform to the full.
cesses. In this way, self-government close to the
population is highly beneficial for a democracy. It It is wrong to draw long-term conclusions and
makes active participation in a public realm more merge/amalgamate self-governing units on the
easily accessible for citizens and encourages basis of the fact that there has not been any
new leaders including young people and women, significant growth of citizen involvement in the
who have not previously had any political expe- work of self-governments over a short period of
rience, to showcase and develop their capaci- time. Experience has shown that any fundamen-
ties.49 It also ensures democratic engagement tal modification of decentralization plan requires
for individuals and groups who are otherwise un- time for making and implementing changes.50
able to access and reach the central government
and ministries. However, positive shifts were evident even in
such a short period of time. Public assemblies
Creating civic responsibility, overcoming nihilism, are a form of citizen participation in implemen-
helping people feel their own power and real- tation of local self-government.51 According to
ize the actual significance of being the source Lagodekhi Gamgebeli, In terms of village as-
of the power is impossible without promoting semblies, Lagodekhi Municipality is an example
citizen engagement. Overcoming infantilism and of success, where village assemblies were held
improving organization skills are related to the in partnership with non-governmental organiza-
belief that one can solve problems on its own, tions and chosen people were named, so the
and of course participation in processes of imple- instrument is working really well in the villages.52
mentation of public authority is mostly possible
at the most accessible level of the government It must also be considered that over the years
municipal level. most local communities have been disappointed
with political processes and are distrustful of the
While discussing the legislative amendments, political establishment. They do not feel power
government representatives pointed out that citi- in their hands and are doubtful that they can in-
zen participation was already low, people did not fluence decision-making. Therefore, citizens of-
show any desire or initiative to participate in the ten point the finger at the central government
work of local bodies (City Hall/Gamgeoba and and transfer the burden of decision-making to

49 Larry Diamond, Why Decentralize Power in A Democracy? https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/Decentralize_Power021204.htm

50 CoE document The basic principles of the strategy for decentralization and development of self- government for 2013-2014, p.4, see: http://www.mrdi.gov.ge/sites/
default/files/xedva_2013-2014_clebistvis_0.pdf
51 The Organic Law of Georgia, the Code of Local Self-Government, Article 85.4.a. see: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2244429
52 Document sent by the Government Commission on Regional Development to Sakrebulo of Telavi City Municipality for consultation a proposal to create new mu-
nicipalities after merging of the city of Telavi and Telavi municipalities, and annex of the proposal the document reflecting the consultation that has been held (Kakheti
Regional Meeting), p.10

9
them, they escape the difficulty of responsibility
because it is more comfortable to pass on the
burden to someone else. This leads to an apa-
thetic situation, constant immobility and waiting
instead of acting. Overcoming such attitude re-
quires some time and existence of local bodies
that are close to the people.
ment of cities is an important aspect for increas-
ing democratic engagement since it promotes
formation of local elites, creates co-participation
in political processes and the feeling of being the
source of authority, the feeling of power for citi-
zens; it also promotes development of the sense
of civic responsibility.

Therefore, during implementation of the reform The document that justifies merging of munici-
the government should have focused on bring- palities, presented to Sakrebulos of 14 self-gov-
ing the self-government and the people togeth- erning entities by the government for their con-
er instead of pulling them further apart, because sideration, states the following: as a result of
amalgamation is not a way out from this situation. dividing of 7 municipalities, quality of services
If the extent of participation of the population of and access to services has not improved, in
a particular self-governing unit was not large in some cases it was even deteriorated because
a medium-size self-government, naturally it will of ineffective division of resources. For instance,
not be increased after amalgamation of self-gov- public facilities used by urban as well as rural
ernment, instead it will be further reduced. The population (recreational centers, music schools,
central government should have designed mech- theatres, museums, shopping centers, markets,
anisms and incentives for improving the quality etc.) are located in cities. They are equally used
of citizen engagement instead of amalgamating by populations of both types of units, while the
municipalities. burden of maintenance costs is imposed on cit-
ies only.54
It is an axiom that democracy should begin from
the lower level. Citizens will not have trust to- As a counter argument, one can say that lack of
wards central authorities if they feel excluded rural development, lack of adequate infrastruc-
from decision-making processes about everyday ture and absence or lack of facilities open to pub-
issues at the local level. In this way, self-govern- lic is the reason why local population is forced to
ment close to the people is a way for the state leave their place of residence and move to a city.
to be close to each and every individual. This To prevent outflow of rural population, the gov-
is a mutually beneficial process for citizens and ernment must provide incentives by promoting
the country because citizens that participate in access to such services locally instead of point-
governing and decision-making processes have ing the people to the city in order to get such
a sense that the system is generally fair and in- services.
clusive.53 This on the one hand promotes active
citizen participation in solving of local issues and
On the other hand, certain cultural services are
on the other hand, increases accountability of
usually available in major cities and urban centers
self-government bodies before the population.
(e.g. the National Gallery is located in the capital
city) but this should not rule out independence of
Which of the two will benefit from cities and villages in the field of administration/
merging - cities or villages? governance and their specific characters.

If we consider past experience, historically, fol- According to the Minister of Regional Develop-
lowing the Antique period, development of de- ment and Infrastructure, the reform will not de-
mocracy was tied to the process of urbanization teriorate the state of the cities, all cities will still
democracy was a popular event. Empower- be able to use the status of a city. Further, rep-

53 Larry Diamond, Why Decentralize Power in A Democracy? https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/Decentralize_Power021204.htm

54 Document sent by the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure to Sakrebulo of Telavi City Municipality for consultation a proposal to create new munici-
palities after merging of the city of Telavi and Telavi municipalities and annex of the proposal justification for merging of municipalities, p.2

10
resentatives elected in cities will be able to take The new regulation fails to ensure representation
proportional seats in municipality Sakrebulos.55 and protection of citys interests to the extent that
was possible when cities had their own Sakreb-
Having its own Sakrebulo and having a repre- ulos. Increasing the number of majoritarian rep-
sentative in an amalgamated Sakrebulo are two resentatives will not change the picture. This
different things. As a result of changes in 2014, was also stated in the motivated objections sent
populations of self-governing cities and self-gov- by the President of Georgia to Parliament: the
erning communities had their own representa- city of Telavi with 19 000 constituents will have
tive bodies Sakrebulos. In a unit created as 3 majoritarian representatives and Telavi Com-
a result of amalgamation there will be only one munity with slightly more than 37 000 constitu-
Sakrebulo, just like prior to 2014, meaning that ents will have 17 majoritarian representatives [in
Sakrebulos of merged municipalities will include Sakrebulo]. As a result, the weight of a single
representatives elected by cities as well as by mandate in the city of Telavi is over 6 200 con-
communities, which will reduce citys represen- stituents, while the weight of a single mandate
tation. in Telavi Community is over 2000 constituents.
Further, election of 1, 2, 3, 4 or even 5 majoritar-
For instance, prior to the 2014 reform Ozurgeti ian representatives from an administrative center
City had a single representative in Sakrebulo of within a community that exists in a municipality
Ozurgeti Municipality comprising of 45 members, created after abolishment of self-governing sta-
which meant that interests of the city were rep- tus of a city and merging of the city with relevant
resented by a single member of Sakrebulo. After municipality will not ensure fair representation.59
merging of a self-governing city and a commu-
nity, we will get the situation that existed prior to The government also talked about promoting
2014. investments by amalgamating municipalities be-
cause an investor may wish to make the type of
In an attempt to remedy the above problem, the investment that concerns territory of a self-gov-
Parliament of Georgia adopted amendments erning city as well as a community municipality,
to the Election Code that envisage increase of so this will make his/her job easier. However,
the number of majoritarian representatives in the authorities could not specify which investor in
Sakrebulo based on population of a city, in or- particular encountered problems or decided not
der to bolster representation of cities included to invest because of it.60
in self-governing communities.56 The draft law
was vetoed by the president but Parliament over- This argument is especially ambiguous since it
turned it.57 As a result, according to the new rule overlooks the principle of territorial division. For
for determining composition of Sakrebulo, num- instance, if an investor wants to invest across
ber of majoritarian members that represent a city several different municipalities, it clearly should
included in a self-governing community will be not become the grounds for merging of these
determined based on population of the city and units. It is also ambiguous why existence of
can range from 2 to 5 majoritarian members of self-governing cities as separate municipal units
Sakrebulo. 58 would create difficulties in attracting and making

55 Statement of Minister of Regional Development and Infrastructure Zurab Alavidze, see: http://www.interpressnews.ge/ge/politika/435803-saqarthvelos-mthavrobam-mu-
nicipalitetebis-gaerthianebas-mkhari-dautcira.html?ar=A
56 The Parliament of Georgia is considering amendments to the organic law of Georgia, the Election Code of Georgia. The bill introduces new way of determining com-
position of municipality Sakrebulo and in case of cities it will be tied to their population size, see: http://parliament.ge/ge/saparlamento-saqmianoba/komitetebi/regionuli-poli-
tikis-tvitmmartvelobis-da-magalmtiani-regionebis-komiteti-145/axali-ambebi-regionuli/regionuli-politikisa-da-tvitmmartvelobis-komitetis-sxdoma-20062017.page
57 https://www.president.gov.ge/ka-GE/pressamsakhuri/siakhleebi/saqartvelos-prezidentma-adgilobrivi-tvitmmartvelob.aspx
58 In the administrative center of a self-governing community where the number of voters is more than 4 000 but less than 10 000, 2 members of Sakrebulo will be elected
through the majoritarian system. In the administrative center of a self-governing community where the number of voters is more than 10 000 but less than 20 000, 3 mem-
bers of Sakrebulo will be elected through the majoritarian system. In the administrative center of a self-governing community where the number of voters is more than 20
000 but less than 35 000, 4 members of Sakrebulo will be elected through the majoritarian system. In the administrative center of a self-governing community where the
number of voters exceeds 35 000, 5 members of Sakrebulo will be elected through the majoritarian system.
59 Motivated objections of the president, p.4, full text is available at: https://www.president.gov.ge/getattachment/e54cdb2a-ea12-4965-b635-17190af18f1a/N8482.pdf.aspx
60 Interview with Head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure Davit Metreveli: an investor may want to make an investment
that concerns both City Hall as well as municipality territory, so this will make his/her job easier. When asked which particular investor encountered problems because
of this reason, Davit Metreveli responded that he does not have any information on this matter. Full text of the interview is available at: http://netgazeti.ge/news/194966/

11
investments in several different municipalities. stance, population of Telavi City was only 31% of
the entire population of Telavi Municipality, while
In the governments view, dividing municipalities the share of the city expenditures in the munici-
into cities and villages is artificial and their eco- pal budget was 85%. In Akhaltsikhe Municipality
nomic and social situations are closely linked. 40% of the population lived in the city, while the
Spending on development should be based on citys share in the municipal budget was 96%.62
a unified approach for solving of problems of the
entire municipality as opposed to artificial sepa- In this way, before division municipalities cities
ration of city and village budgets.61 consumed more resources of the entire munici-
pal budget than villages did, despite their small-
Despite the above statement, in practice inde- er population size compared to villages, which
pendent existence of city and community bud- leads us to believe that villages will still be put at
gets has proven to be beneficial for development a disadvantage following amalgamation.
of both. In particular, interests, needs and life-
styles of urban and rural populations are differ- The above picture proves once again that villag-
ent. Villages mostly bear agricultural functions es should have independent access and lever-
while cities have different priorities of social life. age for determining municipal budget priorities.
Therefore, different approaches of a local gov- Naturally, this is easier for rural population to
ernment are needed. Urban population is far accomplish within its own self-governing unit,
more active and usually they devour not only among people who have identical or very similar
resources but also attention and their share in problems and priorities. Similarly, a city should
the daily agenda is bigger considering that a city have a budget and governing bodies tailored to
and its population is more powerful from political its specific interests.
point of view. For these reasons, in an event of
merging interests of a village will most certainly The government cites another argument in sup-
be undermined. port of the idea of merging villages and cities:
following division of property, garbage trucks that
When there is a single City Hall/Sakrebulo, at- had been purchased by the municipality before
tention must be divided between a community were announced to be the city property. As a
and a city. Naturally, this will be less than the result, municipality of the rural community that
time and care given to each separately. Further, used to be served by those garbage trucks (if not
because of the geographic proximity rural popu- all, at least villages located near the city) found
lation will be at an advantage because bodies of themselves in a very difficult situation.63
self-government are located in an administrative
center. This means that elected Mayor/Sakrebulo It is ambiguous why this argument has been cit-
may feel more accountable before the city. ed to show disadvantages of separating self-gov-
erning cities, while the document itself notes that
In terms of distribution of budget resources, a most villages were not served by garbage trucks
city may be at an advantage, as suggested by anyways, while on the other hand during division
the budget data prior to 2014: in an amalgam- of a municipality, common property (garbage
ated municipality of Zugdidi, city expenditures trucks purchased with common funds) were not
were at 60%, village expenditures at 40%, while distributed evenly.
urban population accounted for 41% of the entire
municipality population. The situation in rest of Merging of municipalities will restore the old situ-
the self-governing entities is even worse: for in- ation, as the city will continue receiving the clean-

61 Document sent by the Governmental Commission on Regional Development of Georgia to Sakrebulo of Telavi Municipality for consultation justification for merging
of the municipality, p.3
62 Local budget expenditures, Annex 3 of the explanatory note of the 2013 legislative reform, p.5, see: http://info.parliament.ge/file/1/BillReviewContent/128199
63 Document sent by the Governmental Commission on Regional Development of Georgia to Sakrebulo of Telavi Municipality for consultation proposal to create new
municipalities after merging of the city of Telavi and Telavi municipalities and annex of the proposal - justification for merging of the municipality, p.2

12
ing services but this time villages will also have
to pay for it. In addition, a separate Gamgeoba
of a rural community could have paid more at-
tention to improvement of cleaning services for
villages because merging into a single munici-
pality did not improve the situation and the focus
was entirely on keeping the city clean. Therefore,
even in view of the past experience, merging is
not an effective way for solving the problem.
One common argument used against small
self-governments is poor qualification of person-
nel in self-governing bodies, especially in the
regions, while employees who are more quali-
fied do not wish to work in municipal bodies. As
another argument representatives of the govern-
ment also cite frequent overlapping of functions
and competition between municipalities that have
been divided.66

Empowerment of cities and offering access to all Lack of knowledge about ones own functions
necessary services to the population in their own and responsibilities is directly tied to finding
city or in a nearby city will help the population qualified personnel locally and maintaining them.
satisfy their social and economic interests locally, Further, overlapping of functions among divided
realize their capacities and establish themselves municipalities has to do with lack of competence
in a dignified manner. Creating several urban of local bodies and lack of understanding of their
centers instead of one will reduce one-way in- own powers. However, of note is the fact that
ternal migration (to the capital city). Therefore, it the governments decision to reduce number
is important and necessary to increase number of self-governing units will not tackle this prob-
of self-governing cities and not the other way lem. Without creating well-paid jobs with import-
around. ant functions in regions, it will be impossible to
entice people and maintain qualified personnel
Promoting empowerment of self-governing cities locally. Reducing the number of self-governing
throughout Georgia is necessary for equal de- entities and shrinking their functions is not the
velopment of the entire territory of the country, solution; instead, number of municipalities must
including regions, and will help solve the problem be increased and the degree of decentralization
of too much enlargement and overcrowding of must be enlarged.
the capital city.
Further, if we are talking about competencies of
The National Statistics Office of Georgia esti- municipal personnel and their capacity to solve
mates that 57,2 % of the population (2 128.6 local problems effectively, it is unknown wheth-
thousand people) of Georgia lives in urban set- er the government has discussed ways for im-
tlements, while 42,8 % (1 589.6 thousand peo- proving quality of their knowledge and increasing
ple) lives in rural settlements. Out of 3 718.2 their effectiveness, including by promoting rele-
thousand people who live in the country, 1 114.6 vant training programs and supporting engage-
thousand live in Tbilisi.64 The level of urbaniza- ment of civil sector in raising awareness of mu-
tion in Georgia is extremely low. According to nicipal employees and local citizens.67
the UN data, Georgia ranks 137th65 among 228
countries/territories in the World Urbanization In- In light of the above, clearly merging of munic-
dex, legging behind virtually all developed coun- ipalities as a result of legislative changes will
tries. In light of the above, it is necessary pro- not be beneficial for rural or urban development.
mote development of cities of local and regional Moreover, it can hinder speed of their develop-
importance. ment.

64 Estimates of the National Statistics Office of Georgia, see: http://geostat.ge/cms/site_images/_files/georgian/population/Population%20press_28%2004_2017%20geo.

pdf
65 Country rankings in Urbanization Index, see: http://gtmarket.ru/ratings/urbanization-index/info
66 Comments of a member of the parliamentary majority, Guguli Maghradze, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7UYnwNRMc
67 According to the former Deputy Minister of Regional Development and Infrastructure, Tengiz Shergelashvili The Rules for Continued Learning of Local Self-Government
Workers was prepared and adopted on the basis of transitional provisions of the Local Self-Government Code but the reform was stalled in late fall 2016 and has been
frozen since. Full text is available at: http://droa.ge/?p=6047

13
Does the argument about optimiza- lem.69 However, in this regard the government
tion of expenses justify merging of also failed to explain whether it considered any
municipalities? extreme ways for saving administrative costs,
including optimizing workforce; whether it was
The main argument that the government cites possible to achieve the objective of saving re-
in favor of merging of self-governing cities and sources by less painful and, in terms of munici-
communities is financial having 7 instead of 14 pal development, less regressive methods.
municipalities will save administrative costs and
the freed-up money will be used for infrastructur- Further, the improper practice of provision of
al and other projects instead.68 bonuses and supplements was frequent in local
self-governments, and such form of incentivizing
The above argument is worthy of criticism for municipal officials was essentially used on a reg-
several reasons. It is a well-known principle that ular basis and without any justification , which
70

democracy is expensive, because it entails resulted in misspending of budget funds. Intro-

mechanisms for preparing, adopting, enforcing ducing proper practice and establishing concrete
decisions and resolving disputes that operate merit-based criteria for bonuses would have had
on the basis of broad involvement, transparency a cost-saving effect.
and abidance by applicable principles, in order
to rule out usurpation of power by one group of With regards to saving resources, the govern-
people. ment should have discussed a common mecha-
nism for spending of budget resources at the lo-
In this way, the argument about costs cannot be cal level creation of non-commercial (non-profit)
used to justify denial of democracy. The prima- legal entities. Resources spent on such entities
ry question that should have been asked within are mostly payroll costs, while the need to create
the context of the reform is whether the benefit some of these entities is suspicious and ambig-
of saving budget is worth reducing the degree uous. Spending on non-commercial (non-profit)
of self-government. Beyond verbal statements legal entities does not correspond to public ben-
the government has not presented any concrete efits that they bring. The government has made
numbers and research findings for in-depth dis- an announcement about impending changes in
cussions about the issue. this area. Therefore, as a result of reasonable
71

planning it is possible to save some costs in this

A certain number of civil servants is needed for sector and abolishment of self-governing units is
a local self-government unit to provide constitu- not the only way out.
ents with services that they need. Whether the
number of municipal employees is adequate and It must also be noted that merging of two
corresponds to implementation of functions of a self-governing entities to create a single munic-
municipality is a different issue. It is possible that ipality does not mean that administrative costs
number of employees in municipalities is unrea- will be automatically reduced by half and only the
sonably high, and this is an especially pressing administrative office of a single unit will remain. A
matter because hiring practices in local self-gov- self-governing unit created as a result of amalga-
ernments (including having too many positions) mation will have to provide services to far more
and the deeply rooted nepotism remain a prob- people and therefore, it will have to hire more

68 Full statement of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure is available at: http://bit.ly/2ilCGzo
69 The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy was observing selection and certification process in civil service from October 2014 to November 2015 in
all self-governing cities and municipalities in Georgia and found a number of irregularities in the process. Final report is available at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/984/geo/
70 In 2012-2014, in some municipalities bonuses were provided nearly on a monthly basis, without any justification. An administrative body issues a single legal act that
does not provide any justification for providing a financial incentive to a civil servant, see: http://www.transparency.ge/ge/post/report/2012-2014-tvitmmartvelobebshi-100-mil-
ionze-meti-premia-gaitsa
71 According to the Deputy Minister of Regional Development and Infrastructure, legislative changes will be made to allow a municipality to establish only one
non-profit (non-commercial) legal entity, see: http://www.interpressnews.ge/ge/politika/437127-kakha-guledani-2013-tsels-gankhorcielebulma-thvithmmarthvelobis-refor-
mam-ar-gaamarthla-municipalitetebis-gayofa-araefeqturi-iyo.html?ar=A

14
employees. At the same time, the government was necessary for increasing incomes of munic-
has proposed creation of collegial bodies, advi- ipalities. Had the government implemented any
sory councils as a way to compensate for abo- such reform, positive results would have been
lition of self-governing entities.72 Functioning of more evident.
these councils may require some administrative
spending and therefore, we may find ourselves In the process of consideration of proposed
in a reality where results of cutting administra- changes, the government contends that budget
tive costs are not all that impressive in numerical will not be reduced after merging of self-govern-
terms. ing units but rather, budgets of respective mu-
nicipalities will be merged. However, this may
Actual financial costs saved by abolition of not be true because of equalization transfer that
self-governing status for 7 cities will be within serves as an important source for a local budget.
several million laris73, which is not an adequate
justification whatsoever for stripping the popula- Equalization transfer75 is a payment made to the
tion of an important democratic right having a budget of a local self-government unit from the
self-government as close to the people as pos- state budget with the purpose of implementation
sible. of the units exclusive rights. The self-governing
unit can decide independently what to use the
It is also important that self-government created payment for. Equalization transfer is calculated
following division in 2014 had a short period of using a special formula, according to each local
time for functioning. Local self-government elec- self-government unit and pursuant to instructions
tions in 2014 were held in June, while following adopted by the Ministry of Finance of Georgia.76
elections were held in October 2017. Therefore, In an event of merging, merged unit may no lon-
from financial view they only had two full budget ger receive the same payment after any of the
years at their disposal. This is not a very long values in the formula are changed.
period of time for full realization of the reform
and for reaping of tangible results. It is safe to To justify expediency of merging of municipali-
say that such period of time is inadequate for a ties, the Ministry of Regional Development and
serious analysis and drawing of conclusions in Infrastructure states that as a result of division of
a long-term perspective. It is ambiguous what municipalities their revenues were not increased.
research the government relied on for deeming It also confirms that following allocation of an
the reform implemented in such a short period additional transfer from the state budget, sum of
of time ineffective, especially since the deputy budgets of a city and a community municipality
minister himself confirms that far more projects is more than a budget of the amalgamated mu-
were implemented during this time.74 nicipality that existed before,77 while under the
Budgetary Code of Georgia78 equalization trans-
Further, the government has not implemented fer falls under a local self-governing units own
any substantive reform in terms of fiscal decen- revenues.
tralization and allocation of more resources to
local self-governments (e.g. directing a portion The government talks about failure of the 2014
of income tax into the municipal budgets), which reform without highlighting the positive financial

72 According to the Head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure, Davit Metreveli municipalities will be divided into territorial
units comprising of 10-15 elected individuals who will discuss what needs to be done with existing financial resources. The advisory body will provide its opinions to
Sakrebulos. There will be a collegial body on the post and they will not have to go to the center. There will be a two-way not one-way communication with them on the
spot. See http://netgazeti.ge/news/194966/
73 According to the former Deputy Minister of Regional Development and Infrastructure, Tengiz Shergelashvili a maximum of 5,5 million laris will be saved if we send up
to 500 [public] servants home following the 2017 elections, which does not seem to be realistic, see: http://droa.ge/?p=4143
74 Interview with the Deputy Minister of Regional Development and Infrastructure, see: http://droa.ge/?p=3085
75 The law of Georgia the Budgetary Code of Georgia, para.n of Article 6, Article 71.1; Article 73, see: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/91006#
76 Decree of the Minister of Finance of Georgia no.904, dated 30 December 2009, on adoption of instructions for calculating an equalization transfer, see: https://matsne.
gov.ge/ka/document/view/88390#
77 Document sent by the Government Commission on Regional Development to Sakrebulo of Telavi City Municipality for consultation a proposal to create new munici-
palities after merging of the city of Telavi and Telavi municipalities, and annex of the proposal justification for merging of the municipality, p.3
78 The Law of Georgia the Budgetary Code of Georgia, Article 66, para.1, see: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/91006#

15
developments that occurred in the short period of and Ozurgeti Community Municipality82 for in-
time. For instance, according to droa.ge79, sum stance, following division more infrastructure was
of budgets, own revenues and grants of the city improved in the villages and the city; geographic
of Gori and the community of Gori municipal- scope of cleaning services in the villages was
ities that were divided as a result of the 2014 increased, and when the community municipality
local self-government - has been increased af- received separate funds and a concrete area of
ter the reform. Increase of own revenues without operation for cleaning services, the local govern-
transfers and grants amounted to 59,9%. In this ment started taking care of the issue.
way, the reform has clearly brought upon posi-
tive changes in terms of increasing municipalitys In terms of budget revenues it should be noted
own revenues. that after division in 2015 the revenues of both
Municipalities in total was 144.28% more and in
Another positive trend has been identified in 2016 by 158.55% more than budget revenues
connection to Telavi Municipality. According to received prior to division. In 2014, Ozurgeti Mu-
Paata Giorgobiani, Chair of Telavi Community nicipalitys own revenue without a transfer was
Municipality Sakrebulo, the 2014 reform was a GEL 3 163 500. In 2016, Ozurgeti Community
positive step that created a solid foundation for Municipalitys own revenue also without a trans-
decentralization and democracy. The experience fer was GEL 4 702 300, while the citys own
over the last three years has shown that the revenue was GEL 2 926 800, the sum of which
self-government reform had a positive effect on is more than the own revenue of the municipality
prosperity of urban as well as rural population. that existed prior to the division.83
In particular, prior to the division the budget was
GEL 7 347 200, following the division budget of Payments allocated from the Fund for Imple-
the community was GEL 11 108 700 in 2015 and mentation of Projects in the Regions were also
GEL 12 602 910 in 2016. Further, as a result increased. These are the payments that make
of the reform own revenues of the municipali- implementation of large-scale infrastructural proj-
ty were significantly increased. Revenue of the ects possible in municipalities.
amalgamated municipality of Telavi prior to the
division was GEL 2 799 700, following the divi- For instance, compared to 2014, when there was
sion Telavi Community Municipalitys own reve- one municipality, divided municipalities of Ozur-
nue in 2015 was GEL 3 151 100 and GEL 5 241 geti received in total 134% more funds in 2015
420 in 2016. It is also important that there was and 129,8% more in 2016.84
only a slight increase of administrative costs.80
In view of the foregoing, it is safe to conclude that
Problems like organized take out and sorting an objective research will reveal positive budget
of garbage, repairing and asphalting of roads, trends as a result of the 2014 reform, with re-
improving quantitative indicator of water supply gards to financial empowerment of self-govern-
for villages, building athletics and wrestling halls ments, while the governments claim that the re-
according to European standards and repairing form is ineffective is the result of a pre-conceived
stadiums were resolved in Telavi Community.81 negative attitudes and not an opinion created on
Telavi Community did not get such attention be- the basis of a qualified and in-depth analysis.
fore becoming a separate municipality.

Separate existence of the city and the communi-

ty proved to be beneficial for the city of Ozurgeti

79 What changed following division of municipalities of the city of Gori and Gori, see: http://droa.ge/?p=4233
80 Real results of a futile reform using the example of Telavi Municipality, see: http://droa.ge/?p=4443
81 Ibid
82 Why the government rejected the reform that works, see: http://droa.ge/?p=5004
83 Ibid
84 Why the government rejected the reform that works, see: http://droa.ge/?p=5004

16
Self-Government Reform Missed In view of importance of this issue for democratic
Opportunity development of the state, prior to implementa-
tion of the changes the government should have
Despite the short period of time for taking an presented an in-depth research solidified with
effect, it is safe to say that the reform deemed detailed information about accomplishments of
as unsuccessful by the government was not so the implemented reform, challenges and future
unsuccessful after all. It is fundamentally wrong vision. This would have allowed interested indi-
when changes are made without a vision for viduals to evaluate concrete results of the 2014
solving a problem, serious research and analysis reform, beyond verbal statements of the govern-
of adequate empirical experience, future pros- ment representatives, both in terms of political
pects or potential. It is recommended to provide and financial viewpoint, because the above in-
comprehensive answers to any questions that formation confirms, contrary to the governments
public may have and substantiate the need for claims, that the reform was viable and had good
changes, especially before the local population future prospects. The process of adoption of the
concerned. changes should have been more thoughtful, less
hurried and compliant with requirements of the
The governments main argument in the process law.
of consideration of proposed changes was opti-
mization of costs but this is doubtful. However We believe that revisiting these issues and re-
even if the argument had merit, saving of costs newing the discussions will be unavoidable in
is not an adequate justification for supporting the the future, because bringing self-government as
changes if results are worthy of expenses that close to the people as possible is a foundation of
have been incurred. The closer the state is to the democratic development, especially considering
people, the bigger the extent of democracy. This that it needs to be decided how many levels the
does not only concern the issue of solving local self-government will have and how it will be or-
problems by local population because they know ganized. However, it is unfortunate that merging
their own needs and ways for addressing these of municipalities will become a great obstacle to
needs better than officials of the central govern- the process of development of self-government
ment; rather, this concerns improving access of in the country, which is clearly a step backwards
local communities to benefits of democracy and on the road to decentralization.
promoting citizen participation in implementation
of self-government. Recommendations

A significant part of constituents feels alienat-
ed from governing and political processes, and
this will be further deepened by amalgamation
of self-governing entities. Administration of a
healthy political process locally and formation of
local elite, new faces in politics will be delayed.
Generally, citizen engagement in governance, in
a political process is not realized through bodies
and ministries of the central authorities because
it is both impossible and impractical. Instead, it is
realized at the lower level, through existence of
local self-government close to the people.
The government should consider the following
key issues in planning and implementation of fur-
ther changes:
Present a long-term vision about develop-
ment of self-government specifying future areas
of development of municipalities and planned
steps;
Future reform of self-government should
be based on citizen engagement, bringing local
governments closer to people, accessibility of
services and the principles of effective decentral-

17
ization;

Conduct the reform process in a transpar-

ent manner and in an inclusive environment;

Communicate with local population in the

reform process; plan the reform after understand-
ing needs of local population. Ensure participa-
tion of local communities in preparing the reform
and in discussions about the reform, instead of
presenting for support changes that have already
been prepared;

Promote and support citizen engagement

in self-government activities in order to raise civ-
ic awareness;

Support development of small and medi-

um-size cities into urban centers, which will cre-
ate different spaces that are necessary for hu-
man development and prevent concentration of
population in a single area;

Implement adequate measures for mean-

ingful support of rural development, including
creating a self-government tailored to needs of a
village, relocating administrative and governance
centers from cities and regional centers to villag-
es, improving geographic access to self-govern-
ment;

Implement full fiscal decentralization, sup-

port municipal budget and local economic activi-
ties.

18