Maka Botchorishvili, Georgian Dream MP and Chairperson of the Committee on European Integration, sat down with GEORGIA TODAY to discuss the widely contested “Foreign Agents” law (Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence) and what it means to her party and for Georgia’s future. The interview has been redacted for clarity.
There was neither request from the EU nor a public demand backed up with referendum results for this law. Who or what made you think there was a need for it?
First, we have to look at the decision-making process in Georgia and the role of non-governmental and civil society organizations. There are over 20,000 such organizations registered in Georgia and they are part of our political life. One of the EU’s recommendations also relates to enhanced civil society engagement in decision-making process.
It’s a factor that requires a more transparent approach. The weight of political responsibility of course is on the shoulders of politicians, but as it is in any democratic society, and as we in Georgia also have to take into account the positions of civil society and non-governmental organizations. I believe we have an absolutely legitimate right to know more about them. People and the government should know what the interests are behind these organizations which want to be part of the political process in Georgia. We want to inform our citizens more and protect and prevent there being unwanted results in our political processes that can come from any lack of transparency.
Imedi TV and PosTV in the past suggested that civil rights movements and NGOs like Show Movement and ISFED wanted to overthrow the government. If one of the main arguments for adopting this law is to find out who’s behind such anti-constitutional acts, why didn’t GD introduce it sooner?
In recent years, we have seen that the actions, positioning and behavior of these organizations created grounds for unconstitutional developments in Georgia. One of the most evident was during the 2020 elections, when ISFED made a mistake in suggesting parallel vote counting, which led to protests and a parliamentary boycott which, at the end of the day, caused the country to suffer and risked our reputation. Georgia has no luxury to lose time on wrong actions like this.
Such moves need to be studied properly, and we think that transparency could create that preventive measure for everybody, for donors, for organizations to think twice before they do something that might damage Georgia’s interests or reputation, and instead to encourage them to focus on promoting what is in the interests of Georgian citizens.
Mamuka Mdinaradze said that in March 2023, the ruling party and donor organizations made an unofficial agreement that in exchange for killing the draft law, donor organizations would make the process of financing local NGOs more transparent. Who were those donor organizations?
When we introduced this law for the first time, we had to show our partners the lack of transparency and justify why we thought the law was in the interests of Georgia’s development. Throughout this year, we have mentioned a couple of those organizations. One example is the European Endowment for Democracy. The Speaker of Parliament mentioned several times that he had written to them asking for a more transparent approach with regards financing. I don’t want to name others or make any distinction among countries, partners or funds. This should be the rule for everybody who wants funding in Georgia and who wants to influence Georgia’s social or political life.
No donor organizations have said that they were in talks with the party about this matter.
I can show you the letter. I don’t know if it’s public, but I know that there were a couple of letters, requests to look at the situation and take into account Georgia’s legitimate concern to have more transparency in funding. Unfortunately, we didn’t get a reply, nor moves for a transparent approach in funding.
The right approach among partners would be to have a more transparent relationship, and this angle of the law is taken very incorrectly. We are a young democracy, one which has received lots of aid and assistance from our partners. This money has played an important role in the development of the country, and we are very grateful for it. I think citizens should know who those people are who are helping to develop this or that sector in Georgia, and there is no reason why one should hide if one is doing something good in the interests of Georgia, in the interests of Georgian citizens, in the interests of the Georgian nation.
Making parallels to such laws in undemocratic countries is absolutely inappropriate. Georgia has an established democracy, is a candidate country of the European Union, and it is simply not correct to put Georgia on the same level as Russia and have the same expectations from Georgia and the Georgian government as you might have from Russia.
No-one should be afraid of this law. It is about transparency, not to shut down civil society organizations. There is no ground to think so. Saying so questions the democratic credentials of Georgia, and is absolutely irrelevant to Georgia’s European way and European integration.
Is Georgia an established democracy or a developing one?
Any democracy needs constant work to keep what we have. Georgia is young but already has an established democracy. We see how active citizens can be in Georgia. Nobody is repressing them for their views, political or otherwise. Transparency is important for Georgia’s democratic development. The participation of citizens in this process is to keep the process transparent. The civil society organizations here are a little different from what we see in Western European countries in terms of getting funds mostly from outside and sometimes people don’t realize these differences. One Western journalist asked me why civil society organizations are part of the political decision-making process when people vote for the government to be responsible for political decisions. In Georgia, we have a specific situation where civil society organizations want to play and are playing an important role in that decision-making, and I think that is something that we have to take into account.
Knowing this, why did you not introduce the bill earlier, after you came to power?
Maybe it would have been better to adopt this law earlier, when we saw that civic organizations were playing such an important role in Georgia’s development and social and political life. Sometimes, circumstances dictate what you need to do and when you need to do it. But “better late than never”. This society is not the same society we had decades ago. This is different kind of society. The young generation has different ideas about Georgia because they were born and brought up in a different Georgia than ours. They have much higher expectations and compare Georgia to much more developed countries.
We need to find correct ways to develop, to keep our society engaged in these processes and to learn to respect the elections, to respect those who win, and also to respect the rights of those who are represented in Parliament when these political intentions are genuine and in the interests of the Georgian population. We need to learn in this process of democratic development and not be too emotional about certain things.
When explaining why the law is crucial for Georgia, the ruling party often mentions Shame Movement, ISFED, or Tbilisi Pride, but they never talk about those NGOs working on economic development, education, public health or agriculture. Why?
What we are talking about is a general rule for everybody. We are extremely grateful to those donors and those partners who have invested so heavily in Georgia and Georgia’s development, and I don’t think there is a single citizen in this country who hasn’t benefited from those good things, but they need to understand what information and transparency serves for Georgian citizens.
This law creates a preventive measure against promoting unconstitutional activities by NGOs, especially when they are financed by our partners and create additional diplomatic problems in these relationships.
Transparency is not just a Georgian issue, and Georgia is not the only country where it is discussed – donors demand it, beneficiaries too, in different countries, in the US and EU. Citizens have rights to know where their money is spent, where taxpayers’ money goes.
GD MPs Irakli Zarkua and Dimitri Samkharadze said that after this law is adopted, no pro-LGBT, anti-Church or anti-sovereignty organizations will remain in the country.
I’m not familiar with such a statement, but one thing is clear when we talk about partners, donors and donor assistance: It is important to look at the needs of the country, and we have very good practice of doing so. In 2014, when the Association Agreement was signed with the European Union, we had excellent cooperation with donor organizations, providing them with directions where we would need their expertise to implement the AA conditions, and make good progress for the country. This should be back in our relationship with donors. But we shouldn’t forget that, aside from those partners, there are other countries who have interests here, and we need to make it transparent where this money is going.
I think we have a lack of genuine and frank discussion, one without extreme approaches and labeling. The place is being killed for healthy discussions and positions with arguments; a normal, calm space for discussion. When they, say, label this a “Russian” law, I know it not the right thing. But I need to hear arguments from them why they think that this law might kill civil society in Georgia. And they have no arguments.
The laws introduced by the EU and France place emphasis not only on the source of financing, but also on the activities of the entities. Couldn’t Georgian dream do the same?
I don’t think this is the right approach, to create different groups of non-governmental, organizations. Who will define it? That would be complicated in Georgia’s case. I think the simplest approach we took with this law is transparency for everybody, full stop: No assessment of the activities. Even the law says it can’t be used to hamper the operation of this or that or organization. What is important to understand is the objective of the law. When we make a mistake understanding the objective of a law, that’s where interpretation starts. I do follow the discussions in different countries in the EU. Nowhere is it easy, and everywhere exist different positions about such laws, even about the European directive, which is discussed in the European Parliament. That’s normal, that’s democracy. There should be different opinions about it – that is the right approach to have, the way Europeans do it: Discuss it, everybody voices their opinions and fears, if such fears exist, but also safeguards, if there are safeguards needed to protect the better operation of civil society organizations. That would be healthier, but, unfortunately, we are very far from that healthy discussion, and we see that this process is in the streets rather than in Parliament, which is not helping to promote understanding of the objectives of the law.
Is there a single NGO financed by Western donors which has said that if the law is adopted, they will continue operating in Georgia?
I don’t remember having such a discussion, but I don’t think that this law is creating any unfavorable ground to have future cooperation with donors working in the interests of Georgia and its citizens. Just work transparently and continue doing the good things you are doing.
Caritas Georgia said: “If the draft law on transparency of foreign influence is adopted, those people who are in need will no longer be able to receive assistance from us.”
That is part of the international discussion we are having about the law, if it can be called a discussion; we do hear statements from outside the country, and we do hear concerns on the international level. But, again, they lack arguments. If you see the problem in something, you have to indicate what the problem is. Transparency itself cannot be a problem even in international relations. If we are talking about good faith and partnership and friendship, especially strategic partnership and being a candidate country for the European Union, why should transparency be a concern for the European Union at all? If the EU is helping us in the process of integration, there is nothing for it to hide. If there is a misunderstanding of the objective of the law and somebody thinks it is targeting non-governmental organizations to kill them, that’s another thing, and is not the case in this law. The nature of discussion locally and internationally should be very much oriented to arguments and understanding why this law is needed: It is needed for the better future of Georgia, the more secure and stable future of Georgia, and stable political processes in this very, very difficult neighborhood, where lots of bad things are happening around us.
So, you admit there are no guarantees that if the draft law is adopted, organizations funded by the West will remain in the country, and yet your party plans to adopt it? Is it worth it?
I’m sure every single citizen outside protesting the law wants a stable and good future for Georgia. So if we are talking about foreign assistance for that future, what is there to hide? Why not continue? Why not, if today they are helping Georgia to be more prosperous, a better, more beautiful country, with a European future, and I’m sure we will have a very intensive process of European integration where there will be lots of European funds needed, as all other candidate countries need it in this process, alongside expertise from our friends and colleagues. I don’t see that this law, which is focused on transparency, can be an obstacle for partnerships based on good faith.
Don’t you think that what scares them most is that each and every one of them will be labeled as foreign influence agents with no arguments? Who would want to be called an agent?
Well, first of all, there is no term in the law as “agent”, but “foreign influence,” and talking about foreign influence, we have to look at the facts. Foreign influence exists globally, and there are different means to implement – and for us to tackle – that foreign influence. Foreign influence does not necessarily mean something bad. We are talking about the best interests of the country, because that is the worry and we have to look at that and work out what the angle is.
So, no matter what they do, just because they receive funding from foreign countries, they are working for foreign powers?
The law defines those who are implementing or active in foreign influence. The concern here is stigmatization, right? Europeans also discuss their directive on that, what the right name is to explain to the public who is who and what they are doing. In Parliament, we talked about that labelling and we couldn’t decide on the right terminology. We are open to discussing the right name for it. But if the money is coming from outside the country, then “foreign” is apt. There’s no stigma. Every embassy is a foreign influence, right? We have our own embassies and that is Georgian influence or Georgian interest in this or that country, and that is normal. The law does not cover that part because that is absolutely clear to everybody. We are talking about organizations here, those which function with funding from other governments, but who are supporters or implementers, or whatever we can call them, of mainly the interests of those governments or of those organizations or actors. So what’s wrong with asking which interests they are serving? I mean, mostly we are talking about coinciding interests. But if we are talking about something that is against Georgia’s interests, that is a different thing. I don’t think that those partners who are voicing concerns have any ground to do so.
Some of your colleagues, including Rati Ionatamishvili and Givi Mikanadze, have received funds from donor organizations. Can we assume they were working for a foreign influence in the past?
Yes, and they have done many good things. I myself have had excellent cooperation with many organizations, and I hope I will continue to do so. I don’t see anything negative working for an organization that is implementing foreign interests in the country, if this interest absolutely coincides with the interests of the Georgian people and Georgian state.
Many of the people working with these organizations are Georgian. They do not necessarily originate from the donor countries- The organizations hire Georgians and they work for these organizations. We are not talking about individuals with this law – that is the key here. And no individuals should have the understanding that they will be labeled, or registered anywhere. No! We are talking only about organizations, and nobody talks about the people who are working for these organizations.
Then why are the high officials of the EU and NATO against this draft law?
Of course, it is not pleasant to hear the statements against it, especially when somebody is referring to Georgia’s European future, something which is extremely sensitive for Georgian citizens. It is important to be responsible for what we say. The Prime Minister answered their concerns well, offering them the chance to present their legal opinions. Why is transparency against anything related to democracy and the European future of the country? If somebody has concerns, if somebody wants to go deeper into these discussions, if somebody wants to help, sees this as a problem for Georgia’s future development, for stability, for development of Georgia’s democracy; if they have any recommendations, how it can be fixed or handled, we would be happy to discuss it. But making a statement, saying that the law, which has not been studied by any of these people, is against European integration is not helpful. It fuels negativity and kills the space for discussion, and that’s dangerous. It is dangerous for any democratic society not to have discussion around its issues.
Perhaps your MPs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs could travel to the Western capitals and explain to the high officials of the EU and NATO why there are no problems with this law?
Georgian laws should be discussed in Georgian Parliament. Every sovereign country has a place where they discuss their own laws. Of course, these laws have international angles and there are plenty of international organizations that are giving assessment or recommendations to countries, and we know that the law is being discussed by the Venice Commission, who can propose legal arguments about the law. We will see what they say.
Wasn’t the Venice Commission against adopting this law last year?
No, we just took it off the table, there was no discussion. But this law has already been sent to the Venice Commission. And, again, we have an open door – if someone has legal arguments how this law can be framed, any ideas are welcome. We have a need to make this process transparent. And if anybody has a better idea than registering organizations that are receiving foreign funds in one registry, if there is something else legally binding in the world to oblige organizations to make their funding transparent, let us hear it. If you see something is bad, you have to say why it’s bad.
What we see around the world are registers, registries for lobbyists and this or that. We have registries for our financial declarations, and nobody is killing anybody over it, and we are not dead after we publish our financial declarations. Vice versa: we understand it is for a healthier democratic process in the country to have a more transparent political process.
You said that the place where such things should be discussed is Parliament. Why did PM Kobakhidze invite ambassadors of different countries to talk about it live on TV?
They are representatives of those countries or organizations that are voicing concerns, and they are the most legitimate representatives of any opinion from those countries or organizations.
The door is open to arguments, and that is why the offer was made to ambassadors, if you have any good ideas coming from capitals or relevant organizations or relevant players, please bring them to the table and discuss them, because we are talking about transparency. We don’t believe Georgia needs to be discussed in any other state, especially bad ones that have the perception about Georgia they have about Russia. We do believe that this Georgian law, which is being discussed in Georgian Parliament, is very much needed for Georgia’s democracy and the democratic development of the country, but legal arguments to the reverse are welcome.
You say none of the EU and NATO high officials have any arguments, and yet they criticize this law.
So far, no, we have not heard any arguments about any article of the law. What we see are only perceptions and very incorrect interpretations of the objectives of the law.
Do you believe Mr. Borrell when he says this legislation could compromise Georgia’s EU path?
Well, these strong statements that we hear are sensitive to both Georgian citizens and officials. But we are not told why transparency can be an obstacle to European integration. Arguments are needed in this, because we, as a partner of the European Union, partner of other players in this modern world, are saying that if you have concerns, just tell us the objective grounds of your concerns. Maybe we can somehow find a solution.
We are extremely grateful to the leaders of those 27 member states who made the decision last December on Georgia’s EU candidacy. They took a historic responsibility on their shoulders. I don’t know whether they will be in power tomorrow or how they will end up in their own country’s history, but for Georgia, these 27 leaders made history.
27 or 26? As I remember, Prime Minister Orban left the table.
Well, he is a very vocal supporter of Georgia’s European integration, and I don’t want to question the support we have from Hungary. In talking about Georgia and responsibility for Georgia and Georgia’s development, it cannot lie on the shoulders of the 27 EU member states. The responsibility for Georgia’s stability, for Georgia’s better future, for Georgia’s democratic development, lies on the shoulders of Georgian politicians here in this country. Just as it does in any other country.
Including for Georgia’s EU and NATO path?
Of course, that as well, but that depends a lot on the other side too. Integration is not a one-way street. That’s why we need to talk and that’s why it is important to open negotiations about the EU accession. We need to clearly know the conditions, not just hear statements, because we all know that the door of the EU, which is open for us, will mean full integration of Georgia after a few years, and these years should be used to talk about how we are doing that, on which conditions. We have to understand that Georgia will have its positions and the EU will have its own, and we have to work to bring these positions closer together. We are looking forward to closing this chapter of speculation, which started a long time ago and was very, very active over the last two years, seeing the questioning of Georgia’s European path, which is absolutely irrelevant and is used to destabilize Georgia internally.
We want to sit down at the table and talk how we can bring Georgia to the EU as soon as possible. We know that we have lots to do at home, and we also know that the EU itself needs to prepare for the next enlargement, and I think we also deserve transparency in this process, to understand how this discussion is being handled in the EU and what we are doing on our side to access the EU.
Do you think that if the draft law is adopted, the EU will still open negotiations on accession with Georgia?
I don’t think we should use such things to blackmail or to talk like this with our partners. We all need to understand that European integration is not an easy process, and we need to overcome different obstacles in the coming years. It will be much easier for Georgia and much more profitable for Georgia as a country, and as a nation, to have unified positions in this process. That’s how we can keep Georgia united. That’s how we can keep Georgia protected within the EU, because nobody else will protect your interests if you don’t do so, and that’s normal. Nobody else is protecting French interests in the EU other than the French government. It is a union of 27 countries having their own interests and presenting those interests around the table, and when you want to join that club, we know this club has its own rules, and we have to adjust. That’s why we need negotiations, how, when, what the timeframe of implementation is. All those countries which are members of the EU have negotiated their own European integration path. And that’s what we are looking for; to have not simple statements and labels and perceptions, but very serious discussions, because Georgia’s accession to the European Union is not a simple thing- is an absolutely new geopolitical reality for us, and we do have some things to talk about in this reality.
Is it worth adopting this law if it may create problems for the country?
That’s speculation. At the end of the day, we don’t know what the main ground for the 27 member states will be for making decisions. Of course, there should be nothing that creates additional obstacles in this process. Our goal in this is transparency, to keep stability and the democratic development of the country on track, and not to let anybody deviate from this democratic development. I do think that we need to be heard in an honest way and not to have only the perceptions and irrelevant parallels with other states held up. This discussion needs to be more substance-oriented so as to make this relationship more beneficial for both sides.
Does the law not stand in contradiction to Article 78 of the Constitution written by PM Kobakhidze himself – “The constitutional bodies shall take all measures within the scope of their competences to ensure the full integration of Georgia into the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization”?
No, it does not. You cannot simply undermine the whole intention of the Georgian government and all the work the Georgian government and Parliament have done. The government is representative of the country, and is working towards the country’s European integration. Georgia’s application for EU membership is not a joke, nor is all that we have done to bring the country to that very level. It wasn’t easy. It involved very complicated reforms and the transformation of the country in a difficult, unsecure environment. Once 20% of your country is occupied, once you have a foreign military presence on your territory, it becomes extremely challenging to do what we are doing, and, honestly, our many partners and colleagues are impressed with what Georgia has achieved.
I’m 100% sure that, at the end of the day, everybody will understand the real objective of this law, and everybody will see that Georgia does not want to silence anybody. People will eventually understand that Georgia is not a country which can be silenced, that Georgian society is not a society which can be silenced, and that this is not a government which has the objective to silence anybody.
In December, the European Council granted Georgia candidate status on the understanding that it would take the steps set out in the Commission’s recommendations. How many of those nine recommendations have been fulfilled, and what are your expectations for this December?
Work on these recommendations has been done in different directions. Of course, those recommendations that are related to important topics in this relationship, like corruption and judicial reform, require constant work. What has been done so far will be assessed by the European Commission. The elections are part of those recommendations, and I believe that everything that is related to free and fair elections in this country is very important. There are many challenges that need to be tackled in this process, not to repeat what we had before, and not to lose time on the next steps needing to be taken regarding the EU and the country’s development. We need to be careful and work hard on different areas and not just tick boxes.
The recommendations are related to our political life and dynamic of development, and I do believe that Georgia has done many things to make us proud, like when we talk about fighting corruption or improving the judicial system. I think these steps will be appropriately assessed. We also share challenges with the EU, for example, disinformation. If you look at the media coverage, it’s very difficult to get your voice heard and to receive objective information about Georgia. The disinformation or misinformation coming from Georgia also influences that process.
We don’t believe that Georgia is behind any other candidate country in having the right to enter into the process of negotiations with the EU, and I think that it is extremely important to do so as soon as possible.
On April 29, GD held one of the biggest rallies in the history of modern Georgia. The slogan of the rally was “Homeland, Language, Faith”. Do implementing the nine EU recommendations contradict these words written by founding father of Georgia, Ilia Chavchavadze.
I don’t think European integration, the mother of the recommendations, can contradict or will contradict anything related to Georgian identity and Georgia. I praise these words. They are not just three words for me. It’s the whole philosophy of Georgia and philosophy of what we are fighting for and what we are protecting and why we need the EU. It’s key to understanding what Georgia wants and what the importance and meaning is of the EU, and why we aspire to be part of it: To protect what we cherish.
What is it your party wants to prove, either to the people of Georgia or to our international partners, by adopting this law?
We are not trying to prove anything; we are just addressing a challenge for our country. And we are addressing something that we think is very important: To prevent bad influence on Georgia’s democratic development. And this is not a fight to prove who is strong or weak, or who is bad or good. This is just something that we think is in Georgia’s interests for the better development of Georgian democracy. It is, again, only about transparency and transparency in the political process, especially when we talk about the wider political process, and decisions where we see non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations as players. That’s what we are talking about, and that’s very important to understand.
Exclusive interview by Erekle Poladishvili
