Why the Foreign Influence bill should not be adopted in Georgia by Davit Omsarashvili
Because the foreign influence bill is being debated right now in Georgia, and my article is from last year, I decided to Google Translate this statement from our union's labor lawyer
Talking about the foreign influence bill goes into a different context, I have my opinions and I had to say them. Just shouting about which country's law is not going to give us anything, and I can't even enter into a dispute about it. At some point, the time should come to expand the topic and go deeper. I will say in advance:
I believe that the draft law "On transparency of foreign influence" should not be adopted due to the following arguments:
1. During the adoption of the law, the internal situation of the country, the reality in which we live, should be taken into account first of all. The law should be derived from the real need and should not be artificially imposed on the society. The draft law should actually cut and solve the existing problem and adequately respond to the challenge. Therefore, when you initiate a draft law, first of all, you should present the problem precisely, unambiguously, in an argumentative way, why it is necessary to adopt the law, what problem it solves, and also why solving this problem is so important that it is worth "wasting" time on it. After that, the question should be answered: how to solve the problem specified in the draft law completely and thoroughly so that other interests of the country are not damaged. This draft law does not consider any of the above.
The fact is one thing, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a large amount of foreign funds entered our country. Of course, it is important to know the influence of foreign money on the governance of the country. Moreover, it is important to find out with what money our country is run.
We don't have any research on how grants affect the political and social situation of the country, or how business money affects the same. There is no similar type of research on media. There is no data on this. Therefore, everything had to start with this.
It is a fact that, due to the fact that the state has not been able to perform its functions for years, non-governmental organizations have emerged that have taken over these functions (or been included in some cases).
It is also a fact that in some cases grants have played a vital role in improving the legal and social status of members of society.
Nor is the a priori opinion correct that since the organization uses money imported from abroad, it necessarily serves the interests of another country.
However, here, of course, it is possible that there is a certain problem related to the difficulty of funds received from abroad, the solution of which deserves serious work, and not such a bill that has been initiated.
The most important thing when getting acquainted with the draft law is the explanatory card. (For those who don't know, this is a mandatory document that must accompany the draft law and justify the need and consequences of its adoption).
If you read the explanatory note of the bill under consideration, you will see that there is no justification written in it. Moreover, in my opinion, it is a shame to write such things. This is public disrespect, to say the least. It is poor performance and unprofessionalism.
The simplest example of unprofessionalism is that in the explanatory card there is such a column: the problem that the draft law aims to solve:
The problem is not explained at all. No statistics, no research. But here is what it says:
"It should be noted that similar legislation and practice exist in such countries as, for example, the USA, Australia, Israel; In particular, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is in force in the USA; In 2018, Australia adopted the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act (FITSA) modeled after the US law; In 2016, the Israeli Knesset made a similar amendment to the 2011 law on the obligation to disclose entities supported by a foreign political party"
- if this is not the complex and shame of a small country, then what is it?
What is important here:
2. The argument that some country has an identical law (even if it is the USA or some European country), I believe that it does not create a basis to blindly adopt an exactly similar law. I always have the same position on all laws. We cannot accept draft laws that are simply translated from other languages as law, devoid of any research and scientific arguments.
"It is the same in the EU" is not an argument at all. No matter how strong and good the draft law is brought from the country, it may not be successful in our country. But what happens to us?
- Research, science is absolutely dead. Argumentative reasoning is dead. Therefore, we do not know what the problem actually is. How to solve it either.
- Our universities have turned into money machines. It became a business. without any content. They are no longer involved at all. New knowledge is hardly created anymore.
- Both the government and most of the elite entities are completely disconnected from the people and do not really know their needs, although (both play the role of caring for them
In this country, laws have been passed for years only with the interests of some group in mind. Legislation and public control are almost zero.
Accordingly, this led to the fact that with such a high level of justification, with such a level of explanatory card, this draft law was also introduced. Imagine, this is a bill that somehow they knew would cause interest. It is impossible to imagine what is happening with other bills.
Advocates and critics of this bill on both sides have no respect for the people. Therefore, instead of reasoned discussion, they stage plays. Show
Legislators should not frame the reasoning as follows: "What is the problem with filling out the declaration once a year?" It is possible that there is no problem with putting any sign on the arm, but is this a sufficient argument for passing the law?
In fact, when the problem is not clearly defined, the ways to solve it will be clearly wrong. For example, this bill does not say anything about business and business lobbying. If the problem were to be raised, there would certainly be many questions about the business sector and politicians as well, with what funds they participate in state management.
For years we have been talking about the fact that business lobbyists sit in the parliament and not only prevent necessary and urgent legislative changes, but also pass laws that serve their own interests. Businessmen have been creating and managing parties for years. We all know that their abandonment of businesses is just a formality. Companies rebranded to wives or other family members, of course, mean nothing. However, the author of this bill does not explain why this is not a problem, and does not answer the question of what the difficulty of only one direction will give me if the problem remains a problem.
Unreasonableness, incompleteness, introducing the topic at an untimely time and looking at only one side create the basis for saying that the goal of the authors of the draft law is not actually to correct and improve something, but personal interest.
3. The fact that the problem is not clear and precise means that this bill affects those who should not be affected by the rule. For example, professional associations, unions, health centers and similar organizations.
At the very least, if we want to pass a similar type of bill, a lot of discussions are needed.
In my opinion, it is necessary to distinguish between organizations according to their activities.
4. In addition, the draft law is based on the term "implementation of the interests of a foreign state", which is not clearly defined. This uncertainty can lead to organizations being labeled as such simply for receiving foreign funding, even if their activities are independent.
The process explained in the bill is too bureaucratic, which will cause problems for many organizations. Among them, the smallest and perhaps the most necessary organizations, especially in the regions.
The draft law does not specify the criteria used by the Ministry of Justice to decide whether an organization meets the definition of "advancement of the interests of a foreign government". This lack of transparency can lead to unfair decisions.
In short, the initiated bill has many problems. First, it is not properly substantiated, is vague and contains too many risks of harming state interests.
original Georgian is here