It can be said that the whole state, its political elite and citizens were moving slowly but consistently towards the political crisis in Georgia.

The reasons are many, though few if any think about them. But the way out of the crisis is difficult to find if the causes of the crisis haven’t been identified, first the diagnosis must be made and then the treatment begins. In politics, as in medicine, only the treatment of symptoms can’t lead to recovery if their underlying causes haven’t been identified and defeated.

The Georgian political system is full of challenges, which are in the form of chronic diseases. Periodic problems, including the present, are merely the manifestation of the symptoms of illness and the waves of illness. We only relieve periodic crises, and the treatment of diseases is always postponed indefinitely in the future. Meanwhile, according to the international community, Georgia has developed into a hybrid democracy, which is more inclined towards authoritarianism than democracy.

Of course, some of Georgia's political problems are typical of transitional democracies in the post-Soviet space, however, it is noticeable that some of the problems are of original Georgian origin. Of course, external factors, the policies of neighboring countries and the international situation are important, but there are problems without them.

One of the main political problems of Georgia is that the form of government elected by the citizens of Georgia - representative democracy - doesn’t work effectively, because it isn’t possible to ensure the fundamental principle of this form of statehood - representation - which is largely due to the inability or failure of political parties (If such exists at all in Georgia according to its academic definition) to fulfill their purpose and role in the political system, as well as the inefficient electoral system. Political parties are the main tools for ensuring representation.

During the recent crisis that began in 2019, the international community and local political elites presented the conditions set out in the March 8, 2020 agreement as a solution. The next time the treatment was chosen without being diagnosed. The negotiations and the subsequent agreement document implied that the cause of the problems of the political system was the majoritarian elections in the mixed electoral system. A fully proportional agreement couldn’t be reached (in fairness, the idea of full proportionality also originally came from the ruling party, and in the opposition spectrum it was supported only by a deep minority), However, with the involvement of international partners, Georgian political parties agreed that the electoral system for the 2020 elections would be based on 120 proportional and 30 majoritarian mandates, fair distribution of constituencies, a 1% electoral threshold, and a lock-in that ensured that the party received less than 40% of the vote wouldn’t be able to form a parliamentary majority and consequently form a one-party government.

At first glance, the terms of the March 8 agreement looked excellent, but last year’s parliamentary elections sparked a new crisis, or deepened the existing one. According to a large part of the citizens of Georgia, the ruling party rigged the elections, and according to the conclusion of the international community, the elections were held on the verge of legitimacy. Simply put, the elected parliament incorrectly reflected the expressed will of the citizens of Georgia, or this reflection was flawed. The terms of the March 8 agreement may have been good and effective for any consolidated democracy in Central or Eastern Europe, but not in Georgia. The reason is that the crisis, the problem, the disease of

the system in Georgia is chronic and the March 8 agreement turned out to be a treatment of symptoms again. The symptoms disappeared at that moment, or created the illusion that they had disappeared, but reappeared within a few months.

The new crisis turned into a political stalemate, which didn’t help either the ruling party or Georgia's international partners. The parliamentary boycott of the opposition parties created a stalemate in the country, which exposed the growing authoritarianism in the country - a state with a one-party parliament isn’t sold as a democracy in the West, as a result of which Georgia's foreign policy vector couldn’t be turned "Western". For the West, its own reputation was at stake - spent political, diplomatic and financial resources didn’t produce the desired result.

Georgia's failure doesn’t suit either Europe or the United States - it is difficult for its own citizens to explain internally why their taxes went to the unsuccessful project of democratization of Georgia. And from a foreign policy point of view, any failure move by Georgia on the path to democratization and European integration can be seen as a failure of the West and a success for Moscow. It is difficult to admit mistakes, especially when it strengthens the opponent, in this case Moscow and authoritarian rule.

The international community is still involved in resolving the crisis, with international partners and political elites again seeing the root of the problem in the electoral system, however, this time the agreement document included redistribution of political power and judicial reform along with electoral reform. Regardless of whether the terms of the so-called "Charles Michel Agreement" will be fulfilled, the fundamental problem and challenge of the Georgian political system won’t be solved. The ruling party is not fulfilling the signed agreement, but even if it does, only the crisis can be eased at this stage than before the next crisis. The reason for this is that neither the March 8 nor the Michel agreement agree on the main problem, which is to ensure the principle of representation - the reflection of the will and power of the people in political institutions.

The problem is not the lack of a majoritarian electoral system, or the rule of staffing election commissions, but the violation of the principle of representation and the lack of party competition necessary for a democratic form of government.

In consolidated democracies, electoral systems provide a routine procedure where political forces are allowed to represent citizens for a limited period of time in a competitive and fair environment. Each state chooses the electoral system that most effectively ensures the expression of the will of the people and its reflection in the election results, considering the cultural, historical or other factors that characterize this or that state. However, in consolidated democracies, for a functioning political system and effective democracy, the mere functioning of the electoral system is not enough, a fair playing field must be ensured and, most importantly, there must be competition between and within political parties. Political parties are an essential part of democracy.

Only a change in the electoral system and the transition to a fully proportional system in Georgia will only temporarily solve the problem, in fact it will be deepened and prolonged until the shortcomings of the system explode with new force in the form of the next crisis.

The majoritarian electoral system is used by several dozen successful democracies, including the United States, the United Kingdom, the mixed electoral system works successfully in the Federal Republic of Germany and other democracies. The lack of representation in Georgia is not the fault of the majoritarian system and it can’t be solved by a fully proportional electoral system. There is a reasonable probability that a fully proportional system will exacerbate the problem of representation with rigid lists.

Such suspicion is based on the party system and party policy of Georgia. One of the main reasons for the lack of representation is the existing political groups registered as political parties. No electoral system will work effectively, no mechanism for redistribution of political power in parliament will work unless political parties are in fact political parties and fail to fulfill the role and purpose of parties in a democratic political system, including the main function - the representation of the wider social strata, the identification of the political goals of the people and the expansion of the space for democratic discourse. In the case of Georgia, this is exactly the problem we have to deal with, Georgian political parties are in fact a unity of situational partners gathered around one person or a very small group of people, who don’t have a clear ideology and defined goals, depending on the figure of a leader who is either charismatic, don’t have functioning intra-party structures and intra-party democracy. In political parties, all power within the party is monopolized by the leader or a small group of people, party funding is opaque, and decisions about money management are made opaque by the leader or a small group of people.

Georgia's party system is shifting to a more dominant party system, with a thirty-year history of independence showing that creating a systemic opposition has become an impossible task, with the ruling parties disappearing as soon as they lose power or the leader leaves politics.

Such political parties can’t create a fundamentally important competitive environment for democracy, the minimum or zero level of intra-party democracy precludes the participation and representation of supporters and members in the political process, which is reflected in the national parliamentary elections. The existence of the most important factors of the political system - political parties - in such a hybrid state precludes the provision of representation in a democratic regime, moreover, such political parties prevent the creation of real representation. A fully proportional electoral system with rigid lists will exacerbate the problem, as the composition of voter lists will depend entirely on the party leader or the people with the leader who will pour black money into the party-created coordinator structure.

Under the existing party system and party policy, there is no electoral system that would more or less manage to uphold the principle of representation, which is the basic foundation for a democratic model of government. The efforts of the international partners, the resources they have spent (which is still being spent continuously) in terms of the development of intra-party democracy, party building or party development in Georgia are so far fruitless. In this context, the agreements reached by the same partners and through them to improve the political landscape, which mainly focus on changing the electoral system, only provide temporary solutions to crises and can’t solve the main problem, can’t cure the main disease of Georgian democracy, which is the lack of representation.