Government’s absence at president’s speech benefits no one
By Messenger Staff
Wednesday, April 1It would have signaled a higher standard and better democracy if the president’s annual speech in the parliament on March 31 had been preceded by discussions over Giorgi Margvelashvili’s alleged messages, and not about the format or absence of the Cabinet.
Margvelashvili’s first report in parliament last year took place without the presence of the government members. The same situation occurred this year.
The government’s behavior was proof that the president is no longer the country’s leading figure, and the Cabinet is not his subordinate.
The second heated issue over the speech was about the debates.
The opposition requested a debate to be held after the president’s speech concerning the country’s most challenging issues.
However, the majority turned down the request, saying that they had nothing to debate over with Margvelashvili.
Several ministers have pointed fingers at the United National Movement (UNM). They stress that the amendments in the constitution were created by them, and that the president’s decreased role is of their doing.
“The UNM fitted the constitution to its interests, and the intentions of the former president, who wished to take the post of prime minister. Based on the amendments, the president lost its former influence, and we should respect this reality,” Energy Minister Kakhi Kaladze said.
It should be noted that the current government is less respectful to the inheritance received from its predecessors.
Even in the case that the president is no longer the most powerful politician in the country, he still preserves a lot of obligations and represents Georgia internationally.
It would have been more reasonable from the government’s side to attend the important event. In this case, they would have killed three birds with one stone.
Their presence would have dispelled speculation over the disagreement among the president and the prime minister, would have demonstrated the current government’s respect for state institutions, and this would have definitely bolstered Georgia’s international image.
If we want to advance and create a democratic state, we should respect the state’s interests in the first place, and put aside the trivial quarrels that make the country look silly in the eyes of the international community.
Such unprofessional action only serves to benefit Georgia’s political foes.