Peter Rozic: “Lustration is not the form of legal or moral judgement but the form of political judgement solely”

interpressnews

Interpressnews interviewed Peter Rozic the reasearcher of the Georgetown University in the issues of politics and practice of lustration in Eastern Europe and Georgia regarding the motivation, efficiency and shortcomings of Lustration Law adopted on May 31st by Georgian Parliament.

Peter Rozic: Out of 30 states of Eastern Europe the Lustration Law has been adopted only in 12. 18 states still do not have it. The word lustration is connected to the light and represents a certain ritual of purification exercised by different political groups in different states.

Lustration takes place before or after the fight. A lustration of political significance took place in Rome, during the era of the emperor Trajan. It should be noted that those 12 countries where the Lustration Law was adopted significantly differ from each other. The goal of these laws is to restrict the political activity of the former officials of the regimes. This is an attempt to look through the past and to restrict or prohibit the state or public activity of former officials in new reality.

In certain countries, the Parliament did not even discuss the theme of adoption of Lustration Law. It was not adopted in my native country Slovenia either. There are states where the voting took place in the Parliament but the law was not adopted. In certain countries the law has been adopted but it has not been carried out in life. In those 12 countries where the law has been adopted we can say that the law is strict, averagely strick or ordinary. It should be noted that the strict laws are adopted in the states where the communist regime is rather strict.

The public discussions before the adoption of Lustration Law were possible only in democratic countries. The law happened to be effective in these democratic countries. However, even in these types of countries the results of Lustration Law are often used for political competitorship. In this regard, the Lustration Law can be considered anti-democratic. In order to fully operate the law, the certain level of democracy is needed.

Russia could not adopt the Lustration Law in 1991. At that time Russia was more democratic than Georgia today. However, Georgia adopted Lustration law in 2011 and Russia has not adopted it yet. A lot of talk occurred in 90ies in Russia regarding the adoption of Lustration Law, but it was not possible to do so. Galina Staravoitova actively worked for Lustration Law in Russia but after her tragic death practically nobody worked on this law. President Eltsin was not persuaded to adopt this law by the people who advised him to appoint Egor Gaidar as a Vice Premier.

President Gamsakhurdia who was a dissident and did not like communists did not adopt the Lustration Law either. There can be two reasons behind this – he himself was connected to Special Services or he did not want the supposed connection between his father and Special Services to be disclosed to public.

It is hard to say whether or not a law can establish justice but the fact is that it has a strong political connotation. It is unquestionable that in democratic conditions during the political competitorship the past has significance, but Lustration Law enforcement puts many challenges forward the state and society. I will repeat that more democratic a state is, easier it will overcome the dangers developed after the enforcement of Lustration Law.

While adopting the Lustration Law the motivation and legal issues must be taken into account. I have not finished studying the practice of Easter European countries in this regard, but I can still talk about certain results. The lustration in Germnay was conducted with this slogan – “you better come to me, or else I will come to you.”

Germany adopted strict law on lustration and implemented it swiftly. This should not be surprising since many German citizens worked in the famous Special Service of German Democratic Republic entitled Stasi. A rather strict lustration law has been adopted in Czech Republic and it has been implemented rather swiftly. Poland adopted a strict law on Lustration in 1996. Finally this law was adopted in 2007. However, its full implementation has not started yet. A citizen in Poland is just asked whether he/she was part of the regime. If he/she lies the punishment is strict. The necessity of adoption of lustration law was stipulated by different reasons in different countries. In the Czeckh republic the adoption of Lustration law was stipulated by different reasons, specifically after the “velvet revolution,” in ten days the proclamations were spread that the Communists would return to the power. This hastened the adoption of the law. The Communist Party was not prohibited in Czech Republic. Czech Communists still have their representation in the Parliament. There is no prohibition on the presence of Communists in the elective bodies. However, there are certain restrictions in their activity in the executive bodies.

The special strictness of law in Germany was connected to the issue of need of decolonization. The talk concerns the decolonization of the former democratic republic. Thus, the adoption of the law was politically motivated.

It is evident that adoption of Lustration Law was very motivated politically. It is very sad that the civil society in Georgia is weak and it was not the initiator of this law. It is sad that before the adoption of the law, the public discussion never took place regarding the Lustration Law and its concrete articles. In 2007 it was not managed to adopt the law in Georgia but now when there is the same kind of situation in terms of danger from Russia like in 2007,  it was possible to adopt it in 2011.

One of the initiators of the Lustration Law in 2007 told me that the deputy Tortladze by whose initiative the law was adopted this year repeated the law word by word composed by him in 2007. I think the adoptin of Lustration Law in 2011 can have several explanations. The government might have wanted to carry out some anti-Russian conduct or it decided to support the opposition initiative. There might be a more serious explanation – since the former high officials of Saakashvili government happened to be related to Russia, the MIA requested to adopt the Lustration Law. If some deputies refrained from the adoption of this law, nobody dared to resist after the May 26th developments.

Thus, I think that the adoption of Lustration Law in Georgia was motivated by internal and external danger factors. Nobody argues that Russia is danger, but I would say that Georgia is overly alarmed by Russia. People related to Soviet Special Services will never be able to return to the power in Georgia. Despite this, they are still perceived to be related to these structures.

On the question to why the anti-terrorist context was tied to the Lustration Law, Peter Rozic’s answer is such – “the government is afraid that only lustration will not be enough. In case of enforcement the lustration is not the form of legal or moral judgement but the form political judgement solely.”