• Pussista@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s great that she’s gonna veto a bad bill, but isn’t it counterproductive to democracy if a president can just veto what the parliament does? Like one person holding the power of a whole parliament?

    • ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Once vetoed the bill goes back to the legislative branch, where they can overrule a veto if it reaches a certain supermajority. Or they could change it and send it back up the line as a new bill

        • Vincent@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think usually something like that is intended to as a counterweight, to prevent power from centralising.

          However, to prevent the scales from tipping too badly, a sufficient majority in parliament can override the veto, and I believe the party that’s pushing this (Georgian Dream) has enough seats to be able to do this.

          (Caveat: I’m not Georgian, so this is just based on somewhat above average interest in politics and in the country, following my local news.)

        • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I think it’s supposed to act as a soft power veto by sending the bill back for one more reading. Unfortunately soft power is not a thing in ex-Eastern bloc countries

          • Pussista@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ok, that makes sense in principle, although, as you said, it leaves much room for abuse. Thanks for explaining it!