Georgian Parliament official says party bans should not be viewed differently in Georgia and Europe

Archil Gorduladze, Chair of the Georgian Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, on Tuesday criticized what he described as double standards in assessments of party bans, arguing that measures regarded as democratic progress in Ukraine, Moldova and other European countries should not be portrayed as democratic backsliding when implemented in Georgia.

Gorduladze said that 22 political parties had been banned in Ukraine over the past three years, eight in Moldova, and approximately 150 across Europe over recent decades. He also claimed that four successor parties had been banned in Moldova in July 2026.

“Those affiliated with the National Movement and the forces standing behind them are trying to convince the public that banning unconstitutional and anti-state political parties in Ukraine, Moldova and across Europe is a triumph of democracy, while similar measures in Georgia represent democratic backsliding,” Gorduladze said.

He argued that the state had both the right and the responsibility to protect the constitutional order by taking legal action against political organizations that violate the Constitution.

“Society deserves to see the activities of unconstitutional parties prohibited in Georgia. Democracy has the right to defend itself, and, above all, the government has an obligation to ensure that parties that trample on the Constitution — and what are effectively foreign-agent networks operating under different forms — are assessed under the law, prosecuted and banned,” Gorduladze said.

He added that the contrasting assessments of party bans in Georgia and other countries reflected what he described as a broader pattern of inconsistent standards in European criticism of the Georgian government.

Gorduladze drew a parallel with the controversy surrounding Georgia’s law on transparency, arguing that similar legislation could be accepted or recommended in European countries while being portrayed as a threat to democracy in Georgia.

“It is exactly the same narrative as the one surrounding the so-called ‘Russian law.’ France can reportedly adopt a transparency law, and the European Union can recommend such legislation, while the adoption of the same law in Georgia is presented as undermining democracy,” he said.

Gorduladze concluded that Georgian legislation and government decisions were consistent with European standards and guided by national interests, which he described as essential to ensuring the country’s peaceful future.