Print
See related documents
Election observation report | Doc. 11651 | 23 June 2008
Observation of the Parliamentary elections in Georgia (21 May 2008)
Bureau of the Assembly
1. Introduction
1. The Bureau of the Assembly decided, on 25 January
2008, to set up an ad hoc committee of up to 30 members to observe
the parliamentary elections in Georgia, subject to receipt of an
invitation. At its meeting on 18 April 2008, the Bureau appointed
Mr Mátyás Eörsi (ALDE, Hungary) as Chairperson of this ad hoc committee.
2. Based on the proposals made by the political groups in the
Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Group of the European People’s Party (EPP/CD)
- Mr Pedro Agramunt, Spain
- Mr Rony Bargetze, Liechtenstein
- Mr Andres Herkel, Estonia
- Mrs Danuta Jazłowiecka, Poland
- Mr Eduard Lintner, Germany
- Mr Piotr Wach, Poland
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Mrs Elvira Cortajarena, Spain
- Mr Zahari Georgiev, Bulgaria
- Mr Kastriot Islami, Albania
- Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Poland
- Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Italy
- Mr Andrew McIntosh, United Kingdom
- Mrs Tineke Strik, The Netherlands
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Mr Remigijus Ačas, Lithuania
- Mrs Ganira Pashayeva, Azerbaijan
- Mr Łukas Zbonikowski, Poland
- Mr Yury Zelenskiy, Russian Federation
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
- Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Hungary
- Mr Andrea Rigoni, Italy
- Group of Unified European Left (UEL)
- No Representative
- Venice Commission
- Mr Owen Masters, United Kingdom
- Secretariat
- Mr Chemavon Chahbazian, Deputy to the Head of Secretariat, Interparliamentary Co-operation and Election Observation Unit
- Mr Bas Klein, Co-Secretary, Monitoring Committee
- Mrs Daniele Gastl, Assistant, Interparliamentary Cooperation and Election Observation Unit
- Ms Gaël Martin-Micaleff, Venice Commission, Council of Europe
3. The ad hoc committee acted as a part of the International
Election Observation Mission (IEOM), which also included delegations
of the Election Observation Mission of the OSCE PA, the European
Parliament, the NATO PA and the Election Observation Mission of
the Organization for Co-operation and Security in Europe’s Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR).
4. The ad hoc committee met in Tbilisi from 18 to 22 May 2008
and held meetings with the Head of the EU delegation, the Head of
the OSCE Mission, the Special Representative of the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe, the EU Special Representative for the
South Caucasus and the representative of NATO in Georgia. The ad
hoc committee also held meetings with the representatives of political
parties competing in these elections, the Chairperson of the Central
Election Commission, the Head of the Observation Mission of OSCE/ODIHR
and his staff, representatives of domestic and international NGOs,
as well as representatives of the mass media. Immediately after
the elections the ad hoc committee met with the President of Georgia.
5. In order to draw up an assessment of the electoral campaign,
as well as the political climate in the run-up to the elections,
the Bureau sent a pre-electoral mission to Georgia from 23 to 26
April 2008. The cross-party pre-electoral delegation consisted of
Mátyás Eörsi (Hungary, ALDE), Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee and
Head of Delegation, Kastriot Islami (Albania, SOC), Andres Herkel
(Estonia, EPP/CD) and Ganira Pashayeva (Azerbaijan, EDG). Unfortunately,
the Unified European Left Group (UEL) was unable to send a representative
to take part in the mission. The memorandum and the press statement
on the visit of the pre-electoral mission appear in Appendix I.
6. The IEOM concluded that: “Overall, these elections clearly
offered an opportunity for the Georgian people to choose their representatives
from amongst a wide array of choices. The authorities and other
political stakeholders made efforts to conduct these elections in
line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments. The International
Election Observation Mission identified a number of problems which
made this implementation uneven and incomplete”.
7. On election day, the ad hoc committee was divided into 11
teams, which observed the vote and vote count in and around Tbilisi,
as well as in Bolnisi, Marneuli, Mtskheta, Gori. The joint press
release issued by the International Election Observation Mission
after the elections appears in Appendix II.
8. The ad hoc committee received the support of the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission in Georgia and would like to thank
Mr Igor Gaon, Special Representative of the Secretary General of
the Council of Europe in Georgia for his assistance.
2. Political and legal context
9. The elections took place in a severely polarised
political climate, characterised by a considerable lack of trust
between the contesting parties and a low level of confidence in
the electoral process among the population. The effects of the domestic
crisis of November 2007 continued to be perceivable, albeit less strongly
than before the presidential election of 5 January 2008. Russia’s
moves to unilaterally increase its political and military ties with
Georgia’s separatist regions, following Kosovo’s UDI in February,
and NATO’s assurances of Georgia’s eventual membership in the Alliance
at the Bucharest Summit in April radicalised the political environment
even further. The government was forced to simultaneously deal with
both the threat to national security and territorial integrity and
the complex process of electoral and political reform, decisive
not only for consolidating democracy but also for its relationship
with Euro-Atlantic institutions.
10. On 5 January 2008, in parallel with the extraordinary presidential
election, a non-binding referendum was held in which the Georgian
people were asked whether they wished to have parliamentary elections
in the spring of 2008, as demanded by the opposition, or in autumn
2008, as foreseen in the previously amended constitution. More than
79% of voters in Georgia responded in favour of parliamentary elections
in spring 2008.
11. In the aftermath of the state of emergency in Georgia, a dialogue
was initiated between the ruling and opposition parties to resolve
the political crisis there. This dialogue led, inter alia, to an agreement to reform the
electoral system. As part of this reform, it was originally agreed
to change the electoral system for the 50 majoritarian seats in
parliament from a first-past-the-post system to a system of regional
proportional lists. However, following the United Opposition’s retraction
from the negotiated agreement by refusing to vote on constitutional
amendments on 11 March 2008, and upon strong insistence from the
majoritarian MPs, the amendments were changed to such an extent
that, in the end, not only was the first-pastthe-post system maintained
for the majoritarian seats, but the number of majoritarian seats
was increased from 50 to 75, while the number of proportional seats
was reduced by the same number to 75.
12. On 21 March 2008, the parliament adopted amendments to the
Unified Election Code (UEC) on the basis of constitutional changes.
Following the adoption of the amendments to the Election Code, the
President of Georgia signed, on 21 March 2008, a decree for the
holding of the parliamentary elections on 21 May 2008.
13. According to the changes to the Constitution and UEC of Georgia,
75 members of the parliament are elected through party lists based
on the proportional electoral system, with a 5% threshold, while
75 are elected on the basis of the majoritarian electoral system.
A majoritarian candidate, who receives more votes than others, representing
not less than 30% of the election participants in the respective
district, shall be considered to be elected (Article 105.5 of the
Election Code).
14. The ad hoc committee regrets that the UEC does not require
single-mandate constituencies of equal or comparable size as is
recommended in the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission Code of
Good Practice in Electoral Matters. Paragraph 2.2 of this document
states that “the permissible departure from the norm should not
be more than 10% and should certainly not exceed 15% except in special
circumstances”. In the case of Georgia, the variations range from
6000 to over 140000 voters. Such large variations
undermine the principle of equality of the vote. In addition, the
amendments to the UEC abolished, contrary to the Venice Commission recommendation,
the possibility for individual candidates to participate in the
parliamentary elections.
15. Amendments to the UEC introduced several previous recommendations
of the IEOM: the number of members of the district election commissions
(DECs) increased from 5 to 13; the period for voters to check their
entries on the voters’ lists increased to fourteen days; the period
for lodging complaints on administrative acts of the election administration
was defined as one day; and the form of the summary protocol was
simplified and a precise procedure was defined for requesting and
viewing the video camera recordings. These amendments to the UEC
are welcomed by the Assembly; however, the UEC still needs to be
further improved in various areas.
16. Notwithstanding the exceptional circumstances leading to these
elections being held some six months earlier than foreseen, the
ad hoc committee reminds the Georgian authorities of the Code of
Good Practice in Electoral Matters of the Venice Commission, which
states that: “the fundamental elements of electoral law, in particular
the electoral system proper … should not be open to amendment less
than one year before an election”. While it understands that, due
to the result of the plebiscite, time to prepare for the parliamentary election
was short, it regrets that, once again, major changes had to be
introduced to the election system as late as two months prior to
the elections. These last-minute changes exhausted the already failing
public confidence in the election system and gave the opposition
reason to believe that the changes were specifically geared to provide
electoral advantages to the ruling party. It
is therefore very important for the newly elected parliament to
start working from day one of their mandate on revising the electoral
system so as to create an electoral system that could provide a
truly equitable basis for fair competition. Optimally, this work
should be completed by the end of 2008, with the widest consensus
possible in the Georgian Parliament.
17. The low level of public trust in the electoral process, stated
by the pre-electoral mission in its statement of 25 April 2008,
persisted well into the election day. The unresolved disputes surrounding
the conduct of the presidential elections, the publicly perceived
reluctance of the authorities to investigate and/or the lack of communication
on the substantiated allegations of intimidation during the previous
elections, the predictability of election results and the lack of
viable campaign programmes by most opposition parties, were among
the main factors that contributed to an overall public disinterest
in these elections, which was evidenced by a 4.7% drop in voter
turnout (51% compared to 55.7% in January).
18. The external tension linked to the situation in Abkhazia and
South Ossetia did not only have an impact during the pre-election
period. On election day, at about noon, near the village of Khurcha,
in Zugdidi region, unknown attackers opened gunand shellfire on
the voters arriving from the Gali region. As a result, one woman resident
of the village Nabakevi was seriously wounded and two buses were
burnt out.
3. Election administration
19. Following the recent amendments to the UEC, the Central
Electoral Commission (CEC) is now composed of 13 members. The chair
of the CEC and five other members are nominated by the President
of Georgia and approved by the parliament. The seven other members
are appointed by parties financed from the state budget. In response
to the previous recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly, the
Georgian authorities made efforts to reconstitute the District Election
Commissions (DECs) in order to make them politically more balanced.
The DECs are now composed of 13 members: six members are nominated
by the CEC on the basis of open competition and seven members are
appointed by parties financed from the state budget. As for the
Precinct Election Commissions (PECs), six members are nominated
by the majority of the relevant DECs and seven members by parties
financed from the state budget.
20. The CEC made obvious efforts to work in an active and more
transparent manner and to conduct a more efficient voter information
campaign on different aspects of the election process. The training
of members of DECs and PECs was assessed positively by the Election
Observation Mission of the OSCE/ODIHR. While handling of complaints
and appeals clearly improved compared to the January elections,
these procedures still remain a challenge for Georgia in the future.
Also, the CEC did not always function in a collegial and independent
manner, as provided by law. The ad hoc committee members were informed
by opposition parties and NGOs about their lack of trust in the
impartiality of the CEC. It should be noted that before the opposition-induced
changes of the UEC in December 2007, Georgia had introduced a professional
composition of the CEC, which had also been criticised for its government
bias. Partly because of shortcomings in the activities of election
commissions, and partly because they were constantly the target
of political attacks, a considerable part of the electorate does
not trust the CEC and the election administration in general.
21. One such incident took place on 21 April 2008, when Ms Nino
Burjanadze, the Chairperson of the Parliament of Georgia and one
of the key figures in the political life of Georgia over the last
ten years, announced, in a surprise move, that she would not run
in the parliamentary elections. Her decision generated some controversy
regarding the list of candidates of the ruling “United National
Movement” (UNM) submitted to the CEC, with the opposition accusing
the ruling party of failing to respect the deadline for submitting
its list. After a stand-off between the opposition and ruling party
representatives on the CEC, the UNM list was made available. This
incident raised some questions about the manner in which this issue
was handled by the CEC and underscored the need for full transparency
in its work in order not to create unnecessary speculation.
22. The ad hoc committee welcomes the initiative of the CEC to
sign a joint memorandum with four leading Georgian NGOs on 18 April,
on a common interpretation of Article 73 of the UEC regulating the
use of administrative resources and participation of central and
local public officials in pre-election campaigns. The ad hoc committee
believes that the impact of the joint memorandum still needs to
be further examined.
23. Complaints and appeals procedures were simplified and clarified
to some extent, but nevertheless remained complex and ambiguous.
A three-stage procedure was introduced in order to create a clearer system.
However, some confusion was noted by observers. According to the
information of the Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF), 42 cases were
filed in the courts, 36 cases were examined and eight cases were
satisfied. The newly introduced deadlines proved to be too short
for procedural fairness and due consideration of complaints or appeals.
A number of complainants and decision makers were reported by the
IEOM to have faced difficulties in meeting these deadlines. A significant
number of complaints were not considered for procedural reasons.
24. In general, the election administration failed to exercise
its broad authority to investigate and address campaign violations
on its own initiative. In addition, election commissions and the
courts generally did not give due consideration to complaints and
appeals, leading to an apparent bias in favour of the ruling party
and public officials. In some cases they refused to hear relevant
witnesses or take note of evidence, applied questionable interpretation
of the law or failed to provide legal reasoning for their decisions.
The CEC did not discuss and analyse complaints in a systematic and
legalistic manner, and in general did not adopt legal reasoning
for its decisions.
4. Voter registration
25. On 16 May 2008, within the legal deadline, the CEC
announced that the total number of voters registered on the voters’
lists was 3 456 936, and extended the period for public scrutiny
of voters’ lists from twelve to nineteen days.
26. In pursuance of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary
Assembly following the 5 January 2008 extraordinary presidential
election, the amended UEC abolished election-day registration, which
was a matter of major concern.
27. The ad hoc committee welcomes the work done by the CEC on
the voters’ lists, which have been improved. Every citizen had had
the possibility to check on the voters’ website whether he or she
was on the list. However, the opposition and local NGOs continued
to express concerns about the accuracy of the voters’ lists, especially
in rural areas, as well as about the transparency of the procedure
for incorporation of the names of voters from additional lists into
general lists.
5. Candidate registration
28. On 1 April 2008, 23 parties out of 60 were registered
by the CEC to participate in the parliamentary elections. The other
37 parties were refused registration on the grounds of deficiencies
in applications or lack of lists of supporters. According to the
amended UEC, the parties without representatives in the parliament have
to collect the signatures of 30000 supporters within six days. Despite
the reduction in required number of signatures from 50000 to 30000
for these elections, and regardless of formally being in compliance
with the Venice Commission’s recommended 1% of the electorate, the
requisite number of supporters’ signatures appears to be high.
29. On 8 April 2008, three electoral blocs were created among
registered parties. As a result, the three blocs and nine political
parties participated in the elections, which provided the voters
with a wide range of choices.
30. According to the constitution and amended UEC, only political
parties and electoral blocs registered by the CEC can submit lists
and present majoritarian candidates, which thus excluded individual
nominations for the 75 single-seat constituencies. The ad hoc committee
regrets that the amendments removed the possibility for independent
candidatures in the parliamentary elections, contrary to Venice
Commission recommendations.
6. The media and the campaign
31. After the extraordinary presidential election in
January 2008, according to the agreement between the ruling party
and the opposition, a new board of trustees of the Georgian Public
Broadcaster (GPB) was elected, with members from the ruling party
and the opposition. The GPB took the initiative to sign a memorandum
of understanding between GPB and all electoral contestants on impartial
campaign coverage.
32. The media generally provided voters with a diverse range of
views. In particular, public television gave the electorate an opportunity
to compare parties and candidates through talk shows and debates,
including those between the UNM and United Opposition.
33. Reports and opinions vary as regards the impartiality of private
broadcasters. The ODIHR EOM reported that most private broadcasters
were less impartial and as a result did not cover the activities
of all electoral contestants in an objective manner. This was the
case as regards campaign news coverage in favour of the UNM party,
even though the law on broadcasting (Article 54) guarantees non-discriminatory
media coverage by both public and private media. In comparison,
according to the media monitoring conducted by Gorbi, contracted
by Transparency International (TI) in Georgia, 93% of the television
coverage was noted as being neutral. The prime-time pre-election
media monitoring summary report quotes 80% of the altogether one hundred
and thirty-eight hours of political air time on four major television
channels serving the opposition campaign compared to 20% serving
the UNM campaign, the United Opposition covering 22% against 20%
for the National Movement. Although Georgian law stipulates that
even private media should treat all election contestants equally
and impartially, the ad hoc committee generally believes that privately
owned broadcasters in a democracy do not need to be objective and
impartial as long as the freedom of media allows the activities of
different broadcasters with different political views.
34. On the other hand, the ad hoc committee noted cases of non-respect
by political parties and individual candidates of the dignity of
the journalists covering the campaign and of their non-participation
in debates organised by the media. The case of the mutual boycott
by both the Rustavi 2 channel and the United Opposition, for example,
undermined the fundamental right of citizens to be informed.
35. In general, the election campaign lacked focus on issue-based
debates, with few exceptions. Most political parties concentrated
their efforts on trying to discredit each other, while the issues
relating to major challenges for Georgian society as a whole, such
as unemployment, poverty or pensions were not given enough prominence.
36. One of the major concerns during previous elections was the
misuse of administrative resources by authorities. Regrettably,
in these elections some alleged cases of such practices were again
reported by the ODIHR long-term observers, especially in rural areas
of Georgia. For example, distribution of fuel vouchers in some regions
allegedly coincided with the campaign activities of the ruling party. After complaints
by the opposition, there were no further reports of the distribution
of vouchers by the authorities. Representatives of the opposition
parties and local NGOs informed the ad hoc committee about cases
where regional governors had been engaged in campaigning for the
ruling party. Regional governors, in contrast to elected officials,
are indeed prohibited by law from campaigning.
37. During the election campaign, reports and allegations of intimidation
decreased significantly in comparison with previous elections. However,
when such cases were reported, they were, in general, from rural
areas. The ad hoc committee was informed about a number of allegations
by opposition parties of intimidation, especially of potential majoritarian
candidates, aimed at persuading them to refrain from standing in
the elections; there were also cases of pressure by local officials
on opposition activists, and threats of loss of jobs made to school
teachers if they were working for opposition candidates. Although
difficult to verify, these allegations are of concern and testify
to a polarised election climate.
38. The ad hoc committee welcomed the timely and clear responses
by President Saakashvili and the Ministry of Interior against illegal
practices during the election campaign. The CEC, in collaboration
with the Ministry of Interior, launched an enhanced public awareness
campaign, including via television advertisements, against any form
of intimidation or harassment. In response to the allegations of
intimidation against teachers, the Ministry of Education introduced
a number of safeguards intended to prevent politically motivated
abuse at educational establishments. The public defender, teachers’
unions and NGOs were addressed and called upon to co-operate actively
and to react swiftly to any allegations of pressure or intimidation.
7. Election day, vote count and tabulation
39. The voting took place in a generally calm atmosphere
and was well organised. Some tensions and shortcomings, such as
interference in the election process by unauthorised persons were
observed, mostly in rural areas. Local observers also reported cases
of alleged intimidation.
40. The authorities reacted rapidly to reported violations, with
the CEC announcing the cancellation of the elections in 13 polling
stations on the election night itself. At the time of writing of
this report, the number of polling stations where election results
were cancelled amounted to 45. This is a positive step towards openness compared
to the January elections, when only eight polling station results
were cancelled.
41. Members of the ad hoc committee noted, as a positive development,
the fact that the CEC was able to start posting polling stations’
results and protocols on the website shortly after midnight on 22
May.
42. The ad hoc committee also stressed the important role of non-party
domestic observers and NGOs present in 83% of the polling stations
visited.
43. According to the final results announced by the CEC on 5 June
2008, the elections were won overwhelmingly by the UNM, with 59.18%
of the vote (119 out of 150 seats). The UNM obtained 73 seats in the
single-mandate constituencies, the two other seats being won by
the candidates from the Republican Party. The bloc “The Joint Opposition
(National Council, New Rights)” obtained 17.73% (17 seats); the
party “Giorgi Targamadze – Christian-Democrats” – 8.66% (6 seats);
and the party “Shalva Natelashvili – Labour Party” 7.44% (2 seats).
The other electoral contestants received less than 5% of the vote
and failed to enter parliament.
8. Complaints and appeals
44. The ad hoc committee was pleased to note the efforts
made by the authorities in the attitude of the election administration
towards the handling of complaints and appeals compared to in previous
elections. Firstly, following recommendations by the Assembly and
others, the jurisdictions of the election commissions and the courts
were clarified and the complaints procedure was simplified in the
amended UEC. A three-layer appeals process was introduced, with
clear time frames for the filing of complaints and appeals, as well
as for decisions by the election commissions and the courts. In
addition, the amended UEC allows for technical errors in complaints
and appeals to be corrected and prohibits their rejection solely
on technical grounds.
45. Secondly, the ad hoc committee welcomes that, as a result
of these changes, very few complaints were rejected on technical
grounds, unlike during the recent presidential election, when the
rejection of complaints on technical grounds was a main point of
concern. The CEC, in collaboration with four major local NGOs, developed
a scheme for complaint procedures prior to the election day that
followed an agreed reading of the UEC. However, in practice, the
one-day deadline stipulated in the UEC proved to be too short for
procedural fairness and due consideration of complaints and appeals
for both complainants and decision makers. A number of complainants
and decision makers were reported to have faced difficulties in
meeting these deadlines. As a result, too many complaints were not
considered for procedural reasons. This was compounded by the fact
that, in the UEC, deadlines for appeals are calculated from the
time a decision is reached on the original complaint, and not from
the moment the decision is received by the complainant, which can
affect the possibility for due process.
46. Thirdly, the ad hoc committee welcomes that the handling of
complaints and appeals drastically improved on election day and
afterwards, which indicates that the authorities took seriously
the concerns expressed over the handling of complaints and appeals
made in the pre-election period. Extensive training for election
administration and court personnel enabled a more thorough consideration
of complaints. Following complaints, the results in 13 PECs were
cancelled on election day and the courts annulled the results in another
12 precincts. At the moment of writing, the results in 45 precincts
have been set aside.
47. According to information provided by the IATF, during the
pre-election period, 42 cases were filed in the courts, of which
36 were examined (eight cases were decided in favour of the complainant).
On the election day, a total of 1 233 cases were examined at PEC
level, 339 at DEC level and 17 at CEC level. The DECs imposed sanctions
in 45 cases. The courts of first instance examined 41 cases, of
which 11 were satisfied. Fifteen cases were appealed to the court
of higher instance. In the course of investigation, the courts heard testimonies
of over 100 witnesses. In two cases, CCTV footage from the precincts
was reviewed.
48. Despite the efforts of the authorities, the manner in which
complaints and appeals were handled in the pre-election period gave
rise to concerns. The OSCE/ODIHR EOM, as well as others, noted that
election commissions, together with the courts, seemed to give little
consideration to the merits of the complaints and were seen to stretch
the interpretation of the law in favour of the ruling party and
authorities. It was reported that in some cases they refused to
hear witnesses or take note of evidence and failed to give legal
reasoning for their decisions. The ad hoc committee would like to
stress that, especially in a highly polarised political environment,
rife with allegations of intimidation and electoral misconduct,
a credible complaints and appeals process is essential to ensure
public trust in the electoral process. Only through a credible complaints procedure
that is perceived as being impartial can allegations be effectively
and satisfactorily addressed and remedied or dismissed.
49. The ad hoc committee calls on the authorities to re-evaluate
the deadlines and procedures for complaints and appeals in the light
of the experiences of the parliamentary elections, with a view to
establishing a credible complaints and appeals process that can
inspire the highest public confidence. In addition, the authorities
should ensure that any electoral shortcomings are fully investigated
and, where misconduct is found to have occurred, the perpetrators
are prosecuted and victims remedied in accordance with the law.
9. Conclusions and recommendations
50. The parliamentary elections in Georgia were marked
by a significant improvement in the election environment, in particular
in the capital city, in comparison with the January 2008 presidential
election.
51. These elections offered the Georgian people an opportunity
to elect their representatives in the parliament in a generally
calm atmosphere and to choose from wide range of distinct political
alternatives.
52. The ad hoc committee welcomes the improvements introduced
in the election process that contributed to genuinely democratic
elections. These include:
- lowering of the threshold for entering parliament from 7% to 5%, as suggested in the recommendations of the PACE;
- improvement in the accuracy of the voters’ lists;
- abolition of E-day voter registration;
- balanced representation of the opposition at the level of the DECs;
- more balanced representation of the opposition in the board of trustees of the Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB);
- simplification of the complaints and appeals process;
- simplification of summary protocols;
- defining the procedure for viewing video camera recordings.
53. The ad hoc committee also noted improved efficiency and professionalism
of the election administration, notably in handling the complaints
and appeals, while still identifying several problems in this field,
which need to be addressed in the near future.
54. On the other hand, the ad hoc committee is concerned about
the seriously low level of public confidence in the election process
in Georgia. The last-minute changes in the electoral system – which
implied politically-motivated actions prior to the elections – the
absence of consensus between the main political stakeholders on
the most important elements of the electoral system (regardless
of who is responsible for the failure of negotiations on this matter),
did not help restore public confidence in the election process.
55. The ad hoc committee is convinced that free and fair elections
are only possible in a society that has a profound trust in the
electoral system and in the election administration. In this regard,
regrettably, these elections did not make full use of the democratic
potential of the people of Georgia.
56. In order to restore public confidence in the democratic process
in Georgia, the ad hoc committee recommends that the following steps
be taken:
- the CEC, IATF and the relevant committee of the newly elected parliament should evaluate the amended UEC, in close co-operation with international and domestic non-party NGOs involved in the elections process, in the light of the problems identified during the 2008 extraordinary presidential and parliamentary elections;
- the newly elected parliament should initiate, as soon as all political forces join in the work of the parliament, a fully transparent and credible consultation process with a view to a substantial revision of electoral legislation that would take into account all previous recommendations and elaborate a system that would provide the necessary conditions for the conduct of fully free and fair elections. This process should be based on an as broad a public consensus as possible and should aim at being completed in 2008, well ahead of the local elections to be held in 2010;
- the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe should be involved in this reform work from the outset;
- more specifically, the single-mandate constituency boundaries should be bought into line with the principle of equality of vote;
- the voters’ lists should continue to be scrupulously updated at regular intervals before the next elections;
- the complaints procedure and appeals system should be extended time wise so as to allow complainants sufficient time to submit complaints, and the different instances ample time for procedural fairness. To this end, it could be considered to extend the constitutional provision on summoning the parliament to thirty days after the election date;
- all proven violations of the election legislation must be investigated without exception and the public should be informed about the concrete results of such investigations;
- public broadcasters should ensure fair and balanced media access for electoral contestants, as guaranteed by law. In particular, the inordinately high cost of paid political advertising, which is ten times higher than that of rates for commercial advertisements, limits the possibilities for contestants to campaign on television on an equal footing. Laws on the role of public broadcasters should be reconsidered so that privately-owned broadcasters do not need to be objective and impartial as long as the freedom of media allows the activities of different broadcasters holding different political views;
- all political parties, including the opposition, should avoid giving any statements inciting violence or containing threats and intimidation.
57. The ad hoc committee welcomes the effective and useful work
which was carried out by many domestic NGOs at all stages of the
election process.
Appendix 1 – Ad hoc Committee to Observe the Parliamentary Elections in Georgia (21 May 2008) – pre-electoral mission (Tbilisi, 23 to 26 April 2008)
(open)Memorandum prepared by Mr Mátyás Eörsi (Hungary, ALDE), Chairman of the ad hoc committee
1. The pre-electoral mission visited Tbilisi from 23
to 26 April 2008 to assess the preparations and political climate
in the runup to the parliamentary elections in Georgia, scheduled
for 21 May 2008. The cross-party pre-electoral delegation consisted
of Mr Mátyás Eörsi (Hungary, ALDE), Chairman of the ad hoc committee
and head of delegation, Mr Kastriot Islami (Albania, SOC), Mr Andres
Herkel (Estonia, EPP/CD) and Ms Ganira Pashayeva (Azerbaijan, EDG).
Unfortunately, the Unified European Left Group was unable to identify
a representative available to take part in the delegation.
2. The press statement issued by the delegation at the end of
the visit is appended.
3. During its visit to Tbilisi, the delegation met with, inter alia, the President of Georgia,
the Speaker of the Parliament, the Chairman of the Central Election
Commission, the Chairman of the Supreme Court, the Public Defender,
representatives of opposition and governing parties, representatives
of political parties not represented in the parliament, representatives
of the international community in Georgia, as well as representatives
of the mass media and civil society. The pre-electoral mission wishes
to thank the Parliament of Georgia, as well as the Special Representative
of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in Tbilisi, for
the excellent programme and logistical support provided to the delegation.
4. On 5 January 2008, the day of the early presidential election,
a non-binding referendum was held, asking the Georgian people whether
they wished to have parliamentary elections in the spring of 2008,
as demanded by the opposition, or in autumn 2008, as foreseen in
the recently amended constitution. More than 79% of voters of Georgia
responded “Yes” for parliamentary elections in spring 2008.
5. In the aftermath of the state of emergency in Georgia, a dialogue
was initiated between the ruling and opposition parties to resolve
the political crisis there. This dialogue led, inter alia, to an agreement to reform the
electoral system. As part of this reform, it was originally agreed
to change the electoral system for the 50 majoritarian seats in
parliament from a first-past-thepost system to a system of regional
proportional lists. However, during the discussion on the constitutional
amendments in parliament, the amendments were changed to such an
extent that, in the end, not only was the first-past-the-post system
maintained for the majoritarian seats, but the number of majoritarian
seats was increased from 50 to 75, at a cost of 25 proportional
seats. These constitutional amendments were adopted on 12 March
2008. On 21 March 2008, the parliament adopted amendments to the
Election Code in line with these constitutional changes. Following
the adoption of the amendments to the Election Code, the President
of Georgia signed, on 21 March 2008, a decree for the holding of
the parliamentary elections on 21 May 2008.
6. In line with the changes to the constitution and Election
Code, 75 deputies will be elected via a proportional system on the
basis of closed party lists with a 5% threshold. In addition, 75
deputies will be elected via a majoritarian system in singlemandate
constituencies. A majoritarian candidate who receives more votes
than others, but not less than 30% of the election participants
in the respective district, shall be considered elected (Article
105.5 of the Election Code).
7. The pre-electoral delegation noted that a number of amendments
to the Election Code address previous recommendations by the Assembly
such as, inter alia: the abolition
of the supplementary voters’ lists and voter registration on election
day; the lowering of the threshold from 7% to 5%; the simplification
and clarification of the election-related complaints and appeals
procedures, as well as the introduction of party representation
on the District Election Commissions. Regrettably, the amendments
abolished, contrary to Venice Commission recommendations, the possibility
for independent candidatures in the parliamentary elections.
8. For these parliamentary elections, nine political parties
and three electoral blocs have been registered by the CEC.
9. The democratic conduct of the upcoming elections will be crucial
for restoring public trust in the democratic process in the country.
The pre-electoral delegation was therefore seriously concerned about
the widely reported low level of public trust in the electoral process,
which is essential for genuinely democratic elections and the legitimacy
of their outcome in the eyes of the Georgian public.
10. The political climate in Georgia remains charged and polarised,
albeit less tense than before the presidential elections. A major
point of political controversy is the failure to implement the reform
of the electoral system in line with the original agreement between
the opposition and ruling party, for which both sides blame each
other. The continuing polarised climate is not helpful to changing
Georgia’s election habits towards a constructive issue-based campaign
and undermines the public confidence in the electoral process.
11. The delegation welcomed the fact that reports and allegations
of intimidation have decreased significantly in comparison with
previous elections. However, it noted some allegations by opposition
parties of intimidation, especially of potential majoritarian candidates,
to refrain from standing in these elections. The delegation called
upon the authorities to fully and transparently investigate all
substantiated allegations of intimidation they are made aware of,
in order to ensure the confidence of the Georgian public in the
fairness of the election process.
12. The members of the pre-electoral mission were informed about
concerns linked to the voters’ lists. The delegation recalls the
fact that the problem of voters’ lists was a matter of great concern
during the presidential elections. The attention of Georgia’s authorities
was drawn to the need to ensure the accuracy of the voters’ lists.
While it is understood that in the short time between the presidential
and the parliamentary elections the voters’ lists cannot be fully
improved, the delegation calls for closer co-operation between CEC,
the civil registry and government bodies. The accuracy of the voters’
lists is also a key element for increasing public trust in the electoral
process. On a positive note, the period during which voters can
check the voters’ lists has been increased up to fourteen days;
every citizen can check on the website whether he or she is on the
list.
13. On 21 April 2008, Ms Nino Burjanadze, the Chairperson of the
Parliament of Georgia and one of the key figures in the political
life of Georgia over the last ten years, announced, in a surprise
move, that she would not run in the parliamentary elections. Ms Burjanadze
had been expected to head the list of the United National Movement
(UNM) in these elections. This announcement was made shortly before
6 p.m. on 21 April, which is the deadline for submitting the parties’
lists to the CEC. Apparently, the reasons behind her decision are
linked to the failure to reach agreement with the rest of leadership
of the UNM on the composition of the list of the ruling party.
14. Ms Burjanadze’s decision generated some controversy regarding
the list of candidates of the UNM submitted to the CEC, with the
opposition accusing the ruling party of failing to respect the deadline
for submitting its list. After a stand-off between the opposition
and ruling party representatives on the CEC, the UNM list appeared,
but this incident raised some questions as to the manner in which
this issue was handled by the CEC. The pre-electoral mission stressed
in this respect the importance of full transparency in the work of
the CEC and the election administration in order not to create unnecessary
suspicion.
15. The pre-electoral mission welcomed the political will expressed
by the authorities to organise parliamentary elections in line with
the Council of Europe standards. However, it also stressed that
the democratic conduct of these elections will depend solely on
the full implementation of the electoral framework by all stakeholders,
in good faith, during all stages of the political process.
16. The pre-electoral mission underlined the crucial role of the
media, especially the electronic media, in the electoral process,
in ensuring truly equitable access of all electoral contestants
and balanced coverage of their campaigns. In this context, it called
upon all political parties and individual candidates to respect
the dignity of the journalists covering the campaign and to participate
in debates organised by the media. It welcomed in this respect the
announcement by both the Rustavi 2 channel and the United Opposition
to end their mutual boycott.
Appendix 2 – Press statements
(open)Democratic conduct of upcoming elections crucial to restore trust in the Democratic Process in Georgia (Tbilissi, 25 April 2008)
Despite efforts to conduct Georgia’s elections in line with standards, observers identify problems (Strasbourg, 22 May 2008)