The process of democratization in the prism of law-making: Rule of Law vs. Rule by Law

After 2012, a number of legislative changes became the subject of criticism by the President of Georgia (repeatedly veto’d), political and non-political, international and local organizations (including the Venice Commission) and academic circles. Many international and local actors see flaws/shortcomings in terms of democratization in the changes and talk about "usurpation of power", "appropriation of power", "abuse of power". The Rule of Law is a set of rules that are common (same) and acceptable to everyone. Rule by Law is a situation when the rulers create a constitution, laws, and regulations that serve mainly to keep them in power.

The research hypothesis posits that within the law-making process of the higher legislative body, the prevailing principle is Rule by Law rather than Rule of Law. It suggests that one of the primary objectives of this legislative body is to advance and safeguard the interests of the government team, maintaining power through a form of superficial democratic law-making. This dynamic impedes the process of institutionalization and democratization of the modern management model. The main goal of the research is to study and analyze the protection of the Rule of Law and the principle of "bottom-up" democracy by the highest legislative body, the Parliament, in the law-making process. The subject of the research is to identify the mechanisms of control and influence on the part of civil society institutions in the law-making process.

The head of the project is Tamar Charkviani, the research is financed within the framework of the internal university funding competition of Caucasus University.