Abkhaz politicians call for stronger parliament and renewed public trust

SUKHUM / AQW'A — A round-table discussion in Abkhazia has called for a reassessment of how the country’s parliament is formed, with participants warning that the quality of political representation has become a central challenge for the state.

The meeting, organised by the Republican Political Party United Abkhazia on Wednesday, 8 July, brought together politicians, former deputies, experts and public figures to discuss what kind of parliament Abkhazia needs as it seeks to balance the legacy of the early 1990s with the demands of the future.

Although debates about parliament often begin with elections, candidates and campaign promises, speakers argued that a more fundamental question remains unresolved: what kind of people should enter public office, and whether the current political system is capable of bringing forward those prepared to think beyond immediate interests.

According to United Abkhazia leader Alkhas Barzania, one of the defining features of the early 1990s was the representative character of the legislature. He said the first generation of parliamentarians retained strong links with their professions, communities and social responsibilities.

“The executive branch should work on a professional basis, but the legislative branch must remain representative,” Barzania said.

He argued that Abkhazia’s parliament needs more people with practical knowledge of different sectors, including doctors, teachers, scholars and entrepreneurs. The parliamentary mandate, he said, should be understood not as a step in a personal career, but as a form of public responsibility.

“Parliament should bring together people who go there not for a position, but for the opportunity to take part in solving state problems,” Barzania said.

Former foreign minister Sergei Shamba, a deputy in the first parliament from 1991 to 1996, said the political process in the early 1990s had been built around the idea of the country’s future.

At that time, he said, public debate was not limited to local infrastructure or short-term demands, but focused on the principles on which the state itself should be built.

“We were not offering people a water pipe or a road,” Shamba said. “We were discussing a project for the country’s future and the principles of its structure.”

Shamba said one of the problems in contemporary politics was that elections were increasingly dominated by short-term concerns, while strategic questions about national development were pushed aside. He called for political debate to return to broader questions about the state and its long-term direction.

David Pilia, also a deputy of the first parliament, recalled the conditions in which the first Supreme Council was formed. He said the selection of political representatives had then been treated as a matter of exceptional responsibility.

“At that time people understood the danger facing us. When candidates were chosen, education, experience and public authority were taken into account, but above all, the reliability of the person,” Pilia said.

Reflecting on the beginning of the war, he said the society of that period had faced decisions that required both courage and responsibility.

“However difficult it was, we had to preserve our country,” he said.

Other speakers focused on the mechanisms through which future politicians are selected and trained. Sokrat Jinjolia, a public and state figure and former deputy, said Abkhazia lacked a stable system for preparing professional political cadres.

He argued that political parties should play a greater role in developing programmes, forming teams and taking responsibility for those they put forward.

“A party system makes it possible to form professional cadres, create programmes and bear responsibility for one’s representatives,” Jinjolia said.

He said parliament should not be formed on the basis of a candidate’s personal financial resources, but through clear political programmes and public trust.

Abesalom Kvarchia, a member of the Public Chamber, described parliament as the institution that sets the rules for the state.

“Parliament is the most important institution, the one that creates the rules of the game for the state,” he said.

Kvarchia warned that if no legislative changes were made, future elections would produce the same results. Parliament, he said, should not be reduced to solving isolated everyday problems, but should determine the long-term direction of the country.

Fatima Kamkia, director of the Institute of Economics and Law at the Academy of Sciences of Abkhazia, urged participants to look beyond electoral mechanisms and address the question of values.

She said the existence of state institutions alone did not guarantee their effectiveness, warning that Abkhazia’s political and legal system continued to experience failures despite the formal development of state structures.

Kamkia argued that politics must answer not only how power is organised, but also what goals that power serves. Political forces, she said, should be responsible for formulating common meanings and turning them into real development programmes.

Shamil Adzynba, leader of the People’s Party, placed particular emphasis on electoral culture and public responsibility. He warned against the transformation of elections into a transaction based on short-term benefits.

“Every sale of a vote is a sale of the sovereignty and independence of our country,” Adzynba said.

He said responsibility for the quality of government lies not only with politicians, but also with society, which shapes the demand for particular types of representatives. Like several other speakers, he called for a stronger party system and changes to electoral legislation.

The round table did not produce a single agreed model for the future of Abkhazia’s parliament. Participants proposed different approaches, including changes to the electoral system, a stronger role for political parties and the return of professionals to legislative work.

But there was broad agreement that the problem goes beyond one political party or one election cycle. At the heart of the discussion was a deeper question: how society forms its political elite, and what standards it sets for those entrusted with making decisions on behalf of the state.

Speakers suggested that the ability to hold such a discussion calmly, without slogans or ready-made answers, may itself be a first step towards building a parliament capable of meeting the challenges ahead.