Economists go over to policy

Eka Lomidze

Parliament has always had the deficit of scientific economists and lawyers. Prominent economists that have already been in policy take part in the present parliament elections.

Three of them – Vano Chkhartishvili, Lado Papava and Avtandil Silagadze.- have been ministers of Economy at different times, and Roman Gotsiridze was a vice-prime once.
It is noteworthy that the people know particular mechanisms of making solutions in the Parliament. Today they have again emerged to the political arena, though in a different form.
Lado Papava: “The Parliament has never had a sufficient number of economic scientists. The matter is as follows: is there demand for economists in the country? Certainly, there is not. I can not understand political leaders who do not enter economists and lawyers at the top of their political lists, instead they are proud of actors and sportsmen. I do not understand what these actors and sportsmen might do for the consideration of budget project in the Parliament. I get the impression they need this for lobbying their business. The future Parliament will, probably, be of lower level than the present one”.
Vano Chkhartishvili – “When considering the professional membership of the present Parliament, one can see that the present parliament can not boast of having many economists and lawyers. The Parliament, certainly, has worthy and qualified specialists, but I think that legal and economic texts should be handled with more attention and carefulness in the upper legislative body. My opinion seems to be shared by my friends and colleagues who think that economic issues can be settled effectively through the Parliament authorities”
Roman Gotsiridze – “Prominent economists were less noticeable in this Parliament. The situation was better in the previous Parliament. Let us assume that there will be more economists in the new parliament than in the present one. Approaches have been changed today. Nowadays people who want to come to the Parliament aspire to immunities. Immunity does not mean protection in this case. Protection is the very fact of being in this circle. Ministers do not have immunity, but have you ever seen an arrested minister or a vice-minister or any other high-rank official? It is absurd when people speak of abolishing immunity of deputies. It is not due to immunity that deputies are not detained. It is rather because they are part of a prominent class. There should be immunity in Georgia at least for avoiding political prosecution. People who understand that nothing can be changed by speaking through microphones in the Parliament refuse to take part in the Parliament elections; many prominent lawyers and economists do now wish to be parliament members.
Absurd processes are going on in our policy. Election lists are headed by singers and sportsmen. For example, Schwarzneger was an actor, and then he went over to policy and became a governor. Has California failed to find a better specialist? The democratic process there condones deviations because forbidding people of art participation in policy would be tantamount to autoritarism. People chose Schwarzneger, but they will soon understand that he will not make a good governor. Yet, Scwhrazneger is more than 60 years old, and when a sportsman goes to policy and decides to take part in elections, it means he put up with his fortune, and that it is his swan song. Therefore, there is devaluation of professionalism and parliamentarism in the elections. The Parliament should have professionals as it is a legislative body, and 90% of work time should be spent at work. There is quite the reverse in our Parliament – 90% of work time is spent by parliament members for speaking through microphones, while 5% is spent at work.