The Georgian political scene continues to unfold around the draft law on foreign agents, with Mamuka Mdinaradze, who leads the parliamentary majority and serves as the secretary general of the Georgian Dream-Democratic Georgia party, urging opponents to calm the discourse. In discussions captured by the news portal newsgeorgia.ge, Mdinaradze underscored that the ruling bloc does not find grounds to oppose the bill and emphasized the intent to move it forward. He noted a sense of urgency within the majority to secure passage before the spring session concludes, pointing to the last Friday of June as the target date for votes and decisions in parliament.
Mdinaradze also stated that the decision to reintroduce the foreign agents bill did not come from nowhere. According to him, the parliament would reexamine the measure after a consultative process with the political council, reflecting the party’s aim to balance legislative initiative with broader political consultation. This marks a deliberate effort to bring the dialogue about transparency and influence into the country’s legislative arena once more, with a view toward clear regulatory standards for foreign influence in domestic affairs.
Earlier, Sozar Subari, who chairs the Georgian People’s Power party, voiced support for a law described as the “transparency of foreign influence.” Subari argued that adopting such a law would be essential to safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and democratic institutions, framing the issue as one of national self-determination and prudent governance. The debate centers on ensuring that foreign influence is transparent and accountable within Georgia’s political landscape, potentially shaping how political actors operate in the public sphere.
Historically, the political process around this measure has been fraught. On March 10, 2023, the Georgian parliament voted decisively against the foreign agents law in response to large-scale protests that swept the country. At that time, Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili indicated that authorities did not plan to revisit the proposal, highlighting a moment of political tension and public scrutiny over foreign influence and regulatory approaches. The episode remains a reference point in contemporary discussions about how Georgia manages external involvement in its political processes.
Aside from the central law itself, the legislative environment has seen occasional tensions among MPs, including moments that resembled close confrontations over proposals described as analogous to foreign-law frameworks from other nations. Those episodes illustrate the level of contention surrounding the issue and the diverse viewpoints within Georgia’s parliamentary landscape about how to address foreign influence while preserving democratic norms and parliamentary decorum.