The new legislation to create a mental health database shows the state is reverting to old mechanisms of control deeply rooted in the Soviet past.
Don’t just read the news, help create it.
For just $5 a month, you can fund reporting that gives you in-depth insight into the Caucasus.
Over the past 30 years, Georgia’s mental health system has evolved along a difficult path, often marked by structural barriers. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union — with its legacy of institutionalisation, political misuse of psychiatric diagnoses, and severe human rights violations — the country set out to build a modern, rights-based, person-centred mental health system.
Key objectives of Georgia’s mental health reforms have been the gradual closure of large, insular psychiatric institutions, the development of community-based services, and the strengthening of a human-rights-oriented approach. This process requires not only infrastructural transformation, but also reducing stigma, ensuring financially and geographically accessible services, preparing trained professionals, and integrating contemporary, evidence-based practices.
Yet, new legislation now threatens to roll back much of this progress.
On 9 December, the Georgian Parliament passed amendments to the law on firearms, which simultaneously introduced changes to 14 other laws — including the law on mental health. The amendments oblige the Health Ministry to create a comprehensive database of individuals with mental health problems by 1 March 2026.
The bill’s explanatory notes state that ‘for public safety’, such individuals would face restrictions on firearm possession, driving licenses, and other rights. The Interior Ministry would play an active role in the creation and management of this database. Notably, no mental health professionals were consulted or involved during the drafting of this legislation.
In the broader context — particularly after the ruling Georgian Dream party’s public statement on 28 November 2024 regarding the suspension of Georgia’s EU integration — the proposal is not surprising. It demonstrates that the country’s democratic progress has stalled and that the state is reverting to old mechanisms of control deeply rooted in the Soviet past.
How political psychiatry is finding a new life in Georgian propaganda
The Soviet Union’s toxic legacy of conflating dissent with mental ‘instability’ is remerging in the government’s attitudes towards protesters.
Framing mental health as a public safety issue is fundamentally misguided. It will worsen the country’s overall mental health situation and poses several significant issues:
It is a violation of personal data confidentiality — mental health information is one of the most sensitive categories of personal data. Granting access to a state agency whose mandate is not medical creates immediate risks of rights violations.It will deter people from seeking help — fear of being entered into a state-controlled registry will prevent people from seeking timely professional help, widening the treatment gap and exacerbating existing mental health challenges.It reinforces stigma — manipulating mental health within a ‘security’ narrative fuels stigma. It is false to assume that individuals with mental health conditions are inherently ‘dangerous’, ‘violent’, or ‘aggressive’. By spreading this narrative, the state further hinders social inclusion and community integration.
Georgia has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which obliges the state to protect human rights, respect personal data confidentiality, and ensure access to mental health services. The amendments directly contradict these commitments, threatening to cause significant harm and creating barriers to accessing professional care.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has described stigma and discrimination in mental health as a ‘global human rights crisis’. Its guidance is unequivocal: mental health information must remain confidential; states must promote inclusion, not encourage discrimination; and centralised databases pose a high human rights risk.
Moreover, such databases can undermine the trust-based relationship between doctor and patient, placing professionals in an ethical dilemma: protect patient confidentiality or ‘comply’ with state demands.
The initiative to create a mental health registry is especially concerning, given how closely it mirrors current Russian practices. At the request of Russia’s Interior Ministry, the country’s Health Ministry drafted a bill in May 2024 granting law enforcement access to confidential medical records of individuals with mental health conditions deemed ‘prone to committing socially dangerous acts’.
These databases are used not only to restrict firearm possession and driving licences, but also in employment screening — particularly for public sector jobs. Crucially, these registries are permanent. Individuals are never removed, resulting in long-term, systemic limitations of rights.
The Russian law, which entered into force on 1 March 2025, is a clear signal that centralised registries created under the banner of ‘public safety’ quickly shift into instruments of state control, legitimising repression.
Opinion | How Georgian Dream is criminalising human rights
The regime’s goal is to place those who dare to expose the regime’s cases of human rights violations in a constant state of uncertainty.
European practice in mental health data governance stands in stark contrast to such centralised and punitive models. In Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, Norway, and other EU countries, core principles prevail: confidentiality, informed consent and the use of data solely for medical, research, or service-improvement purposes — supported by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The establishment of a mental health registry, if the Ministry of Internal Affairs has access to it, is not merely an administrative reform — it is a clear indicator of the country’s political direction. The government is disregarding international standards and constitutional rights, choosing instead to replicate authoritarian models in which ‘security’ is placed above citizens’ fundamental freedoms. The result will not be greater safety — instead, it will increase the restrictions of the rights of people with mental health conditions; intensify stigma; reduce access to professional help; and overall, deteriorate Georgia’s mental healthcare.