The 1921 Constitution VS The 1978 Constitution - Vol 3 - Ideology

When discussions about ideologies begin, in most cases prior to the French Revolution, the foundation of almost any political power was transcendental; that is, the legitimation of power did not stem from any tangible or comparable basis, but on the contrary, power was always justified by religion. After the French Revolution, ideology underwent changes, and today it offers us the foundations of state structure, including: what is the role or purpose of the state in the life of an individual, where do the boundaries of an individual's freedom or rights lie, what value system does a particular right have, etc. Law carries a crucial function precisely because, during the clash of different rights, it provides answers to important questions for society through this very clash—including whether ideology is necessary for the individual at all, and if so, in what dose it should be used in the state during the exercise of governance;

Categorizing ideologies into concepts is more of a philosophical issue, but this too is important because the 1978 Constitution is so ideologized that without ideology, it is simply a cascade of unbelievable concepts. Therefore, I will try to compare the ideology of the 1921 Constitution of independent Georgia with the ideology of the 1978 Soviet Constitution of Georgia;

The word "ideology" is not found in the 1921 Constitution, but various provisions allow for interpretations that clarify the issue of ideology. Such is, for example, Article 1: "The permanent and unalterable form of political structure is a democratic republic." "Republic" is an understandable term, and it directly relates to the people (Res Publica – public/people's affair). The manifestation of democracy in the form of a republic can take many shapes, but its most important distinguishing feature is the change of government through elections. The government is elected either directly (presidential system) or formed by an elected parliament (parliamentary system)—to put it simply and understandably. It is also noteworthy that during the drafting of the 1921 Constitution, the majority of the participants in the Constituent Assembly were from socialist parties; for example, out of 130 members, the Social Democrats alone secured 103 seats. Therefore, it was more socialist than liberal, although this did not prevent the 1921 Constitution from establishing more rights for the individual;

The Social Democrats recognized the path of reform rather than the path of revolution (as Marxism preached). To make it clearer: Marxism explained everything by the "class struggle," and from their perspective, "due to the natural state of class struggle, revolution is necessary." The Social Democrats used and also relied on "liberal foundations" for their struggle. For that era, these liberal foundations meant adopting reforms through which the modernization of the economy was possible, rather than a direct "dictatorship of the proletariat." Modernization, of course, implied a market economy rather than an "irreconcilable class struggle.";

It is also noteworthy that the Social Democrats, despite their attitude toward socialism or their doctrine, recognize/establish Georgia as a sovereign state in the very first article of the 1921 Constitution ("Georgia is a free, independent, and indivisible state"). The 1921 Constitution begins precisely with these three foundations: freedom, independence, and indivisibility. It is also worth noting that the 1921 Constitution does not have a preamble (which today's Constitution of Georgia has); however, in some cases, the Act of Independence of May 26, 1918, can be considered as such. This Act begins with the following provision: "From henceforth, the people of Georgia are the bearers of sovereign rights, and Georgia is a fully empowered independent state," "The political form of independent Georgia is a democratic republic." Additionally, the Act of Independence declares full neutrality (Article 3), desires to establish good-neighborly relations with all other nations (Article 4), ensures both civil and political rights in Georgia (Article 5), opens the path for the development of all nations existing on its territory (Article 6), and until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, governance is ensured by the National Council along with national minorities (Article 7);

The ideological line of the 1921 Constitution is more evident in Chapter 13, which describes socio-economic rights. For example: "The Republic cares for the dignified existence of its citizens" (Article 113), "Labor is the foundation of the existence of the Republic, and ensuring it is a special obligation of the Republic," "Citizens left unemployed shall be provided with assistance by finding work or in the form of insurance." The Constitution also regulated a fixed working time: "Normal working time for hired employees must not exceed 48 hours a week; moreover, once a week the worker must rest continuously for 42 hours. Exceptions regarding working time are determined by law" (Article 123), etc. Additionally, Chapter 16, Article 143: "No religion holds superiority," Article 144: "Expenditure from the state treasury and from the funds of local self-governments for the needs of religious affairs is prohibited." The latter is an echo of a purely secular state, where the state and the church were separated by the constitution. The main purpose of secularism as a phenomenon is that "the state is governed by civil laws that hold legitimation from this civil society, through persons elected by them, unlike laws created on the basis of scripture." This principle is always crucial for a state governed by the rule of law, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the forced disregard of minority rights by the majority;

It is also significant that the 1921 Constitution declares itself as the most important law; all other laws must comply with it. Furthermore, the Constitution determines that "The guarantees and rights enumerated in the Constitution do not negate other guarantees and rights which are not mentioned therein, but inherently derive from the principles recognized by the Constitution" (Article 45). Overall, to explain it simply, the influence of socialism on the 1921 Constitution itself is of course significant; however, it does not reject the rights that later became the foundation for the majority of modern states governed by the rule of law. Overall, the Constitution is presumed as the social contract of the nation: "Sovereignty belongs to the entire nation; the parliament exercises the sovereignty of the nation within the limits of this Constitution" (Article 52). Such, one might say, ideology of our first constitution was due to the fact that socialist parties dominated Georgian politics at the time. Nevertheless, "according to the assessment of the German constitutionalist, Professor Wolfgang Gaul, 'The 1921 Constitution was considered one of the most progressive constitutions of its time and contained many social-democratic elements.';

It is also noteworthy that the Constitution used a term defining an unalterable form of the state: "The permanent and unalterable form of political structure is a democratic republic." On the one hand, the 1921 Constitution sought to expand the freedoms of the individual; on the other hand, the expansion and/or ensuring of the individual's freedoms did not affect the responsibility of the state, which, for example, was expressed in "Citizens left unemployed shall be provided with assistance by finding work or in the form of insurance" (Article 119). It can be assumed that the 1921 Constitution possesses its own ideology of a purely social republic through which the development of society should occur, but its operation in real time must not restrict anyone, including the most important: "the individual as the most legally valuable entity.";

As for the ideology of the 1978 Constitution, it directly begins with the glorification of the "Great October Revolution," and then continues: "The Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, guided by communist ideas..." For example, Article 6: "The leading and guiding force of Soviet society... is the Communist Party, which serves the people," "The Communist Party determines the general perspectives of the development of society, the course of the internal and external policy of the USSR... and leads the great creative endeavor of the Soviet people, imparting a planned, scientifically-based character to its struggle for the victory of communism." In the same constitution, one can find ideological phrases and terms that were elevated to constitutional principles. Article 14: "In accordance with the principle of socialism 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his work,' the state exercises control over the measure of labor and of consumption." Overall, state ideology was equated with party ideology, whereas a constitution must exist precisely so that no single existing ideology becomes dominant. Article 50 of the same constitution indicated: "In accordance with the interests of the working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system." Article 51: "In accordance with the aims of communist construction." Meaning, the legal good of the personality as a given was equated with the interest of the party. For example: the freedom or development of the individual as a given had to be based solely and exclusively on rules already drawn up and confirmed by other individuals, and this rule was "the construction of communism." And what was this communism?;

Asking a far-reaching question: can a free communist even exist at all? In itself, communism means that "social classes, money, and the state must be abolished." But how can this happen if the individual only has the right to think according to the party line? For a clearer example: you have your enterprise where you employ several people to whom you pay amount X, and you create product X; and then a certain group of people comes and says, "True, the money is yours, but all of this belongs to your employees; but not even to them, rather to the state, which I—the Communist Party—represent." This unimaginable paradox is even more visible in a simple fact: in communism, neither private property nor a free market exists, and you certainly do not find hierarchy anywhere; the role of the state simply fades away. Yet, in its own 1978 Constitution, "everything is carried out precisely in the name of the state.";

Or what could the interests of the working people be? A mass interest, at that? Is it possible for a specific group to have such a massive interest that encompasses all other groups in such a way that it is reflected in the constitution? For example, based on the interests of blueberry lovers, could a constitutional article regarding the protection of blueberries be adopted, where everyone else who has never even heard of blueberries is required to align their actions with the interest of this group? While the interest of another group, for example, is completely different? Democracy is nothing more than the manifestation of the will of the people (whose class division is not the purpose of the constitution, since people naturally divide into parts based on individuals), which is expressed, for example, by reacting to the passage of a bill, the existence of public control over the government, etc. The ideology of the 1978 Constitution itself stood on the "class struggle"—that is, not on guaranteeing rights, but on "opposing classes." In this struggle of classes, an ideology must exist that has an answer for everything: "what an individual should know and what they should not know." Should an individual know that they are an individual? Under the 1978 Constitution, the answer is negative;

Should an individual possess a public interest and even link their actions to the public interest?! The 1978 Constitution answers everything with only one response: "In accordance with the interests of the working people." But here is the question: what is the interest of the working people? Is private property the interest of the working people? Freedom of speech? Higher salary/compensation? These questions are not even raised in the 1978 Constitution; it only talks about the interest of another, which ultimately was "the interest of the Communist Party," since other parties simply did not exist;