The Georgian Dream party’s Supreme Leader, Irakli Kobakhidze, has framed the impeachment discussion surrounding President Salome Zurabishvili as unlikely to gain the necessary cross-party support. He argued that the opposition cannot muster the required votes in the 150-seat parliament, suggesting that achieving 100 votes would be out of reach, and that any formal impeachment motion is not destined to succeed. According to him, a vote on impeachment would more aptly take place next week, if at all, given the current political arithmetic and coalition dynamics.
Kobakhidze contended that Zurabishvili engaged in actions that diverged from constitutional norms during her international travel, which targeted EU member states, but he insisted the governing coalition would not bend to moves lacking broad parliamentary backing. He emphasized that the odds of assembling a solid majority are slim under present conditions and cautioned against pursuing a path that could fracture cross-party consensus or set an unstable constitutional precedent.
In a separate remark, Mikhail Sarjveladze, another member of the Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia faction, indicated that the Parliament would generally lean toward impeachment if the Constitutional Court determines that Zurabishvili has violated the country’s fundamental law. He warned that a court ruling confirming a breach could produce a difficult-to-reverse outcome, underscoring the lasting impact of judicial findings on the political process.
Earlier, European Union officials weighed in on funding priorities and defense commitments in the region, while reminding observers that Georgia’s future depends on a careful balance of accountability, constitutional procedures, and the country’s broader relationship with European institutions. The current atmosphere frames presidential actions, sovereignty, and the executive-legislative balance within the context of Georgia’s evolving ties with the EU and its regional security interests. Supporters of impeachment argue that the president’s conduct could establish a dangerous precedent warranting closer parliamentary scrutiny; opponents contend that any move should follow due process and constitutional safeguards.
Across party lines, analysts monitor how the Constitutional Court might respond to petitions already filed and how lawmakers will proceed if formal charges are brought. The unfolding narrative highlights how institutional checks and balances function in a parliamentary system and the challenges that arise when factions interpret constitutional provisions in relation to foreign policy decisions. The outcome will hinge on the interaction between judicial assessments, parliamentary votes, and public sentiment, set against Georgia’s strategic orientation toward European integration and regional security considerations.
Observers stress that the process remains deeply tied to the interpretation of constitutional norms surrounding presidential authority, the responsibilities of the presidency in shaping international engagement, and the balance of power within the ruling coalition. As the state navigates this period, the emphasis is on ensuring due process and adherence to constitutional frameworks while debates continue about how executive actions abroad should be weighed in light of domestic sovereignty and political accountability. The situation underscores the fragility and resilience of parliamentary democracy in Georgia as it negotiates foreign policy, internal governance, and the evolving expectations from partners in North America and Europe. In this environment, the path forward will be determined by a careful synthesis of legal rulings, legislative support, and the voices of citizens tracking developments through media and public discourse. (citation: regional observers and European policy briefings)”