"Past" newspaper writes:
"One of the topics that regularly appears in the political discourse and is at the center of public discussions is the question of whether or not the opposition will take the parliamentary mandates. At the same time, the topic continues even in the case when it was announced in an argumentative manner to continue the struggle in the parliament as well.
The issue of mandates is often presented as a principled choice or a manifestation of a serious political crisis, but in-depth analysis shows that all the hype around mandates is a completely false agenda. The dilemma of taking or not taking a mandate is artificial and does not express the real content of political processes, because in parliamentary countries or systems of representative democracy, the mandate is not a gift or an object of personal choice, but a legal and political delegation given by voters, which has clear functions.
When discussions focus on whether opposition forces should enter the legislature or boycott it, public attention is diverted from the actual political content and institutional issues.
A mandate is merely a tool, a legal status that ensures the capitalization of public voices in the system of public administration. Rejecting it or using it as a bargaining chip in no way changes the true weight of political forces or the nature of the challenges facing the country. On the contrary, the generation of such artificial topics creates the illusion of political activity, where real strategic steps are replaced by formal procedural issues.
International experience and the political history of different countries clearly document that the tactics of refusing parliamentary mandates or not taking them have never led to systemic changes or effective resolution of political crises. For example, the opposition forces in Georgia have repeatedly announced that they will not recognize the election results and boycott mandates, trying to attack the legitimacy of the government. But time has shown that such steps only lead to the marginalization of the opposition, depriving them of an official platform and financial and organizational resources, while the ruling majority continues legislative activity without any significant obstacles. Ultimately, the opposition forces are forced to return to parliament, which once again proves the futility of that agenda.
A similar picture can be seen in the history of Eastern Europe and the Balkan countries, where the opposition's boycott of parliamentary processes and refusal of mandates did not have the expected effect. From an institutional point of view, the state machine and the international community are always guided by legal procedures. If the elections have been held and the results have been recorded, the physical presence of the mandates or their refusal does not cancel the established political realities. Therefore, to talk about how taking a mandate is cooperation with the government, and not taking it is a radical struggle, means to simplify politics and reduce it to the level of everyday perceptions.
In countries with developed democratic traditions, such as Great Britain or the member states of the European Union, similar discussions about the mandate are generally absent, because the political culture does not allow to make the vote given by the voter an object of speculation. Even in the most acute political controversies or crises, the parties understand that parliamentary representation is a duty, not a privilege that can be waived for political expediency. The mandate is the legal instrument of the political struggle, and giving it up is tantamount to voluntarily leaving the battlefield, which is unacceptable for serious political units.
Thus, the topic of mandates is artificially kept in the information field to mask the lack of real agendas and substantive discussions. On a serious analytical level, the question of whether or not to take a mandate cannot be considered as a political factor or a strategic choice. It is just a technical and procedural reality, and public debates about it are not only fruitless, but also harmful, because they distort the role and importance of political institutions in the formation of the state.
More details in today's issue of the newspaper
