Arguments in Favor of the Directly
Elected President
LELA KHATRIDZE
APRIL, 2017
1 See the statement of the chair of the Constitutional Commission
at: http://www.interpressnews.ge/ge/politika/415483-irakli-kobakh-
idze-prezidentis-archevis-tsesi-ar-aris-isethi-sakithkhi-romelic-ch-
ven-unda-ganvikhiloth-izolirebulad-skhva-normebisgan.html?ar=A
Introduction
In political life in Georgia, election of the president is a hotly debated issue
within the Constitutional Commission. While the existing regulations provide for
election of the leader of the country through universal, equal and direct suf-
frage, the possibility of indirect election is now being discussed.
Discussions within the Constitutional Commission about election of the head
of the state are mostly linked to the parliamentary model of governance in the
country, with proponents of indirect election generally highlighting specificities
of the parliamentary model. Their arguments can be grouped under the follow-
ing two categories: political/legal and technical.
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.
The present paper examines advantages and disadvantages of direct and
indirect election of president in countries that practice the parliamentary model
of governance, based on the experience of developed European democracies
and by taking into account local political/legal context in Georgia. The paper
also addresses the threats that introducing indirect elections for the he of the
country may create for Georgia.
Election of president and forms of governance:
Political/legal argument
The main argument in support of indirect popular voting is the constitutional/
legal and political logic of the parliamentary model of governance.
In countries with parliamentary model of governance, the president as the
head of the nation is usually a symbolic figure with mostly ceremonial role, and
because of the presidents status there is no need to create a foundation for a
high political legitimacy of the 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
presidential and mixed models of governance), practice direct elections for
president. Thus, in the constitutional/legal tradition direct popular vote is con-
sidered a source and a guarantor of presidents power and his/her political and
executive authority.
In the parliamentary model of governance the status of the president is similar
to the status of a King (monarch) in a constitutional monarchy, as described by
the formula the King reigns but does not rule.
An axiom of the constitutional law is that there are no true and irreplaceable
rules, correct and incorrect models. Validity and usefulness of a particu-
lar rule must be assessed against unique local context and political situation.
There is no single model that works for every country. Constitutional and legal
regulations create a general framework that must be tailored to a concrete
environment and must be responsive to challenges that the country faces.

When comparing Georgia to Western European countries with parliamenta-

ry model of governance, and insisting to introduce indirect popular vote for
electing president citing the motive of sharing experience of developed democ-
racies, it is important to keep in mind that levels of democratic experience and
foundation of the objects of comparison are not comparable and therefore,
making such direct comparisons will lead us to wrong conclusions. The mech-
anisms that work effectively, say, in German political landscape, may prove to
be ineffective in Georgias objective political setting.

If we look at the experience of European democracies, we will not find an ap-

proach that justifies introducing indirect presidential election by existence of a
parliamentary model of governance. In absolute majority of European countries
with parliamentary model of governance today, the leader of the state is elected
through direct popular vote, as illustrated by the table below:
 Arguments in Favor of the Directly Elected President

European republics with parliamentary system of governance 2

Presidential Election Parliament (supreme Territorial Structure

Country representative body)

1 Austria Direct Bicameral Federal

Indirect (by the
2 Albania parliament)
Unicameral Unitary

3 Bulgaria Direct Unicameral Unitary

Bicameral (the so-
Indirect
4 Germany (by a special body)
called hidden bicamer- Federal
al legislation)

Indirect (by the

parliament; if no
candidate receives
5 Estonia the required votes, Unicameral Unitary
the president is
selected by an
electoral college)

6 Turkey3 Direct Unicameral Unitary

Bicameral (+the
7 Ireland Direct
President)
Unitary

8 Iceland Direct Unicameral Unitary

Indirect by the
electoral college
9 Italy (consisting of MPs Bicameral Regionalistic
and delegates of
regional councils)
10 Latvia Indirect Unicameral Unitary

11 Litva Direct Unicameral Unitary

12 Macedonia Direct Unicameral Unitary
Unicameral
13 Malta Indirect
(+ the President)
Unitary

14 Moldova Direct Unicameral Unitary

15 Montenegro Direct Unicameral Unitary

16 Poland Direct Bicameral Unitary

17 Portugal Direct Unicameral Unitary
18 Greece Indirect Unicameral Unitary
19 San Marino Indirect Unicameral Unitary
20 Georgia Direct Unicameral Unitary

21 Serbia Direct Unicameral Unitary

2 The table provides the list of
countries with parliamentary or 22 Slovakia Direct Unicameral Unitary
similar model of governance.
23 Slovenia Direct Unicameral 4 Unitary
3 On April 16, Turkey will be holding
a referendum about changing the 24 Hungary Indirect Unicameral Unitary
parliamentary form of governance.
25 Finland Direct Unicameral Unitary
4 In 2008, constitutional court of
Slovenia recognized the parliament
26 Czech Republic Direct Bicameral Unitary
of Slovenia as incompletely
bicameral.
27 Croatia Direct Unicameral Unitary

5 The Basic Law of Germany https://www.bundestag.de/
blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/ba-
sic_law-data.pdf
This way, judging by the situation in European states, clearly it is not a common
rule to have the leader of the country elected by indirect popular vote - by the
parliament only.
In general, there are several types of presidential election processes in parlia-
mentary republics:
1. Direct election - the voters directly cast ballots to choose the president of
the country;
2. Indirect election president is elected by the supreme legislative body
(parliament);
3. President is elected by MPs and regional representatives;
4. President is elected by a body set up specifically for that purpose.
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.
In indirect election of the president, when the electoral college is comprised of
representatives elected at various times and based on various rules, a relatively
adequate reflection of changes in political weather and attitudes is ensured and
therefore, outcome of presidential election is more democratic and legitimate.
During discussions about indirect presidential election Germany is often cited
as an example; however, in Germanys case broad representation is ensured
among electors, which is impossible to have in a unicameral parliament elected
through a mixed or a proportional system.
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.
The Federal Convention is convened by the Bundestag President, who is
responsible for preparing and organizing the Convention. Composition of the
Federal Convention is defined by the Constitution, according to which the
Convention consists of Members of the Bundestag and an equal number of
 Arguments in Favor of the Directly Elected 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).

Under such circumstances, political and constitutional role of the president

becomes especially important. Having the president chosen by the Parliament
under the Constitution would mean that there would no longer be a body at
the supreme level of the government that will be free from the majority partys
influence.

Indirect elections may lead to having a president who is controlled by a ma-

jority party and is biased in favor of the majority that chose him/her. Since the
president can serve two terms, it is most likely that he/she will choose not to
confront the parliamentary majority, even with a valid reason, since they hold
the mechanism for the re-election. On the other hand, since the president holds
the power to dissolve the parliament, the parliament will make sure to choose
the candidate who is acceptable and loyal as much as possible to the parlia-
6 The Constitution of Italy https://www.senato.it/documenti/
mentary majority.
repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf
Technical arguments
As to technical arguments, proponents of indirect election often argue that
such rule is efficient and economical.

Keeping in mind the complexity of administration and financial expenses, gen-

eral elections takes a significant toll on the state. Therefore, some believe that it
is illogical for a poor country like Georgia facing the challenge of limited financial
resources to be spending too much effort on election of a symbolic figure while
there are cheaper ways for choosing the candidate to hold the office. Abolish-
ment of direct presidential election may lead to saving a few million in the state
budget.

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?

Democracy in general is a great luxury, which is exactly because it inevitably

requires procedures that are expensive, complex, time consuming but most
importantly, procedures that ensure participation of people like for instance,
general elections, diversification of decision-making bodies.

Non-democratic authoritarian governments on the other hand are much more

efficient, as they dont require spending of resources to maintain elections or
various independent institutions, as the institution that makes decisions also
exercises control and discharges executive power. However, for obvious rea-
sons, progressive part of the humanity does not abandon democracy due to
any such arguments.

This way, improving economy at the expense of weakening democracy by re-

ducing direct influence of people as source of power does not look reasonable,
especially in a country like ours where democracy is in need of further consoli-
dation.

Presidents role in the system of power and the mechanism of

checks and balances

In countries with the same parliamentary model of governance as Georgia

president does not belong to any of the branches; instead, the president acts
as an arbiter between different branches of the government and is distanced
from the executive power discharged by the government under the leadership
of the prime minister. Such role of the president is important for having an oper-
ational mechanism of checks and balances, especially between the president,
the parliament and the government (the prime minister).

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

7 Constitution of Georgia https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/
view/30346
8 In countries with parliamentary model of governance, generally
leader of the party that won parliamentary elections becomes the
head of the government. In some countries this rule is contained
by their constitution.
Arguments in Favor of the Directly Elected President
able to fulfill the function of an arbiter during a political crisis or a confronta-
tion between parties, it must be the public support not the parliament that
provides his/her legitimacy.
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.
Status of the president is determined by the Constitution of Georgia. In par-
ticular, by virtue of para.1, Article 697, the President of Georgia is the head of
the state of Georgia and a guarantor of integrity and national independence
of the country.
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.
Presidents independence is especially important for exercising important
powers like vetoing legislative acts, judicial appointments, dissolving the
parliament, selecting candidacies for offices envisaged by the Constitution.
Countries with consolidated democracies are not affected by the problem of
operation of the system of checks and balances as much as Georgia is. In
this respect, it is important to maintain the role of the president as an import-
ant political figure.
Historically, discussions about changing the existing model of governance in
Georgia were tied to attempts of concrete subjects to tailor the Constitution
to their needs.
Following the constitutional reform in 2004, concentration of great power in
hands of the president jeopardized democratic balance in the country and
jolted the scale of checks and balances in favor of the institution of presi-
dent.
The constitutional reform in 2010 resulted in the parliamentary model of
governance where significant portion of the power is concentrated in hands
of the prime minister. The constitutional reform in 2010 was largely motivat-
ed by the desire to empower the institution of prime minister in light of the
political context that existed at that time, as opposed to creating a balanced
model.
Considering the existing parliamentary model of governance8 and the polit-
ical picture in Georgia, the prime minister is the most influential figure in the
country. As the head of the government and the leader of the party, he has
full control over the executive and the legislative branches of the govern-
ment.
The purpose of the system of checks and balances and the primary objec-
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
office or the name of the institution (president or prime-minister), is not as
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.

Following the reform in 2010, changes in the Constitution of Georgia were

made in favor of the prime minister. The text is formulated in a way that almost
leaves no space of freedom for the president. Majority of rights of the head of
the country are presented as an obligation to implement these rights.

In Georgian reality, against the background of a strong prime minister, lack of

presidents powers is compensated by high degree of political legitimacy of the
president. The President with limited powers has the mandate directly granted
by the people, while legitimization of the powerful prime minister is indirect and
comes from the parliamentary majority elected by the people. This allows the
head of the state to act as an arbiter and curb powers of the prime minister.

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.

Such precedent has already occurred in Georgian reality, when a confrontation

between the president and the prime minister turned into a personal confron-
tation, like for instance, about who would sign an international agreement or
attend an international summit.

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.

This way, political context where a constitution is created or a constitutional

reform is taking place, has a direct and immediate impact on these processes
and is a direct participant of the reform, and certainly neither this Constitutional
Commission will be able to escape the existing context.

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.

Why is direct election of president important?

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.

Georgia doesnt have a rich democratic experience, political/legal culture of

voters is developing, while democratic institutions are not strong enough and
there is a dire social/economic situation in the country. In view of all this, any
steps made towards weakening democracy (abolishing direct election) and
reinforcing party influence on branches of the government (election of president
by the parliament would mean that decisions will be made by a majority party)
is risky.

To improve political culture in the country it is important to maintain direct elec-

tion, as an additional basis for debates, discussions, direct citizen engagement
and accountability of political subjects.

Interestingly, majority of European states with parliamentary systems practice

direct presidential elections. Direct and universal suffrage guarantees that the
elected official the leader of the nation will be the president of the whole
country, not just a representative of a concrete group.

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.