See related documentsElection observation report
| Doc. 14784
| 14 December 2018
Observation of the presidential election in Georgia (28 October and 28 November 2018)
Author(s): Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau
Rapporteur : Mr Andrej HUNKO,
Germany, UEL
1. Introduction
1. At its meeting on 31 May 2018,
the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly decided to observe the presidential
election in Georgia and to this end set up an ad hoc committee comprising
31 members and the two co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee.
The Bureau also authorised a pre-electoral mission comprising eight
members (one from each political group and the two co-rapporteurs
of the Monitoring Committee). At its meeting on 29 June, the Bureau
appointed Mr Andrej Hunko (Germany, UEL) as Chairperson of the Ad
hoc Committee; the Bureau took note of the declarations on absence
of conflict of interests of candidates for the observation mission
and approved the composition of the ad hoc committee (see Appendix
1).
2. In accordance with the co-operation agreement signed between
the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (Venice Commission) on 4 October 2004, representatives from
the Venice Commission were invited to join the ad hoc committee
as legal advisers.
3. The Bureau sent a pre-electoral delegation to Georgia on 19
and 20 September 2018 to evaluate the state of preparations and
the political climate in the run-up to the election (see Appendix
1).
4. At the end of its two-day visit to Georgia, the pre-electoral
delegation found that the general environment was appropriate for
the holding of democratic elections. However, following discussions
with various interlocutors, it considered that it was necessary
to stress that there was still room for improvement and that the
period of time left until election day should allow at least some
of these improvements to become reality. It did not anticipate that
there would be misuse of administrative resources during this election
campaign, as was reported to have happened during previous elections.
It underlined however the need for complete transparency concerning
the campaign financing of all candidates.
5. The ad hoc committee was part of the International Election
Observation Mission (IEOM), which included delegations from the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe (OSCE) (OSCE PA), the European Parliament, the Parliamentary
Assembly of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO PA) and
the election observation mission of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic
Institutions (OSCE/ODIHR).
6. The ad hoc committee met in Tbilisi from 26 to 29 October
2018, where it met, among others, the main candidates running for
election, the Chair of the Central Election Commission (CEC), the
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR observation election mission and the members
of his team, and representatives of civil society and the media.
The programme of the ad hoc committee’s meetings is set out in Appendix
2.
7. The international election mission observing the presidential
election concluded that Georgia’s 28 October presidential election
was competitive and professionally administered. Candidates were
able to campaign freely and voters made their choice without restrictions.
As for the election campaign, the PACE delegation noted that the
system of campaign expenditure was surprisingly generous, with money
coming from the State budget and private donations – and this in
a country with a high level of poverty. It also noted the presence
of a considerable number of so-called “technical candidates” campaigning
in favour of other candidates, using media time and public funding:
this meant that there was not a level playing field, which did not
improve public confidence in the democratic electoral process (see
Appendix 3).
8. The election observation mission wishes to thank Mr Cristian
Urse, Head of the Council of Europe Office in Georgia, and his staff,
as well as the Secretariat of the Georgian delegation to PACE, for
their help in preparing and organising the pre-electoral visit.
2. Political context and legal framework
9. On 28 October 2018, Georgia
organised the 7th presidential election since the independence of
the country in 1991. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe has observed all elections in Georgia since 1995. The context
of the 2018 presidential election differed considerably from that
of previous presidential elections – this presidential election
was the last time the Georgian electorate elected their president
by direct vote. The current President Guiorgui Margvelashvili decided
not to compete in the 2018 presidential election. As a consequence
of the recent constitutional amendments, for this presidential election only,
the
Georgian voters elected a president for a six-year term.
To be elected, the candidate must
obtain the absolute majority of votes in the first round in order
to be elected. Otherwise, a second round is organised two weeks
after the official announcement of the first round results between
the two candidates with the best results in the first round of the
election.
10. The legal framework is composed of the following texts: the
Constitution of Georgia of 1995; the Organic Law of Georgia “Election
Code of Georgia” (adopted in 2011, last amended in July 2018) (hereinafter
“the Election Code”); the Organic Law of Georgia on Political Unions
of Citizens of 1997; the Law of Georgia on the State Audit Office
of 2008; the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting of 2004; the General
Administrative Code of Georgia; and Sub-law legal acts adopted by
the CEC.
11. The PACE observation delegation recalls that Georgia has signed
and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5)
and its Additional Protocol (ETS No. 9), which enshrine a number
of principles crucial for an effective and meaningful democracy,
such as the right to free elections (Article 3 of the Additional Protocol),
freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, as well
as prohibition of discrimination (Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the
Convention).
12. Constitutional amendments were adopted in 2010, 2013 and 2017
gradually reducing the powers of the President in favour of both
the Prime Minister and the parliament. For instance, the President
is not empowered to revoke the government without the agreement
of the parliament; the appointment of governors is now in the hands
of the Prime Minister. Since the 2017 Amendments,
as noted by the Venice Commission,
the constitutional reform process
completed the evolution of Georgia’s political system towards a
parliamentary system by,
inter alia,
abolishing the direct election of the President and also by making
the scope of presidential powers more circumscribed.
13. As a result of the 2017 constitutional reform, the direct
election of the President by popular vote was abolished and replaced
by a system of indirect election through an electoral college. The
new electoral system will come into effect in 2024, after the 2018
presidential election. Furthermore, the powers of the President
in a number of areas are to be limited. For example, the President
will have no power to conduct international negotiations with foreign
countries (Article 52). The President will have reduced powers in
wartime, as a decision on the use of the defence forces is to be
made solely by the Prime Minister and it will be necessary for the
President to obtain the Prime Minister’s consent to declare martial
law or a state of emergency; moreover, the National Defence Council
– a consultative body to the President – is to lose its permanent
status and will only be convened in times of martial law (Article
71).
14. The Election Code was amended in 2016, 2017 and 2018, without
broad political consensus, partly following the recommendations
formulated by the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR in their
Joint Opinion of December 2011.
According to the Venice Commission
and OSCE/ODIHR Joint Opinion of 2016, despite some positive changes,
the Election Code could benefit from certain revisions to ensure
the effectiveness of these new provisions, as well as their full
compliance with Council of Europe standards and the OSCE commitments.
15. In 2016, a number of amendments were introduced to the Election
Code that applied to the presidential election, including the following:
- the presence of police officers
outside a polling station without the Chair of the precinct election commission’s
request or approval can only be permitted under special circumstances,
where it is absolutely necessary to protect public order and eliminate
disturbances;
- special electoral precincts were no longer to be set up
in military units throughout Georgia. Instead, military workers
would cast their votes in the precincts closest to their duty stations.
For such precincts, the maximum number of voters was 2 000;
- military voters were able to vote in presidential elections
irrespective of their place of registration, if they had been stationed
at their place of deployment for at least six months;
- military voters unable to leave their place of deployment
due to their service or health conditions could vote through a mobile
ballot box.
3. Election
administration, registration of candidates and voters
16. The presidential election was
administered by a three-tier system, comprising the CEC at the national level,
73 district election commissions (DECs), and 3 637 precinct election
commission (PECs).
In order to ensure the universal
suffrage of Georgian citizens serving in armed forces located abroad,
two election precincts were established in Afghanistan. In addition,
10 special precinct election commissions were created in penitentiary
institutions.
17. The CEC is the supreme body of the election administration.
It manages and controls all levels of election commissions within
its authority. It is composed of a chairperson and 11 members. Upon
a recommendation by the President, the parliament elects five members
of the CEC, while qualified political parties appoint six members.
The term of office of the chairperson and members of the CEC appointed
by the parliament is five years.
18. A DEC is a permanent territorial body of the election administration
which oversees the process of implementation of the electoral legislation
and ensures its uniform application. It is composed of 13 members. The
CEC elects five permanent DEC members for a five-year term, while
during an election period qualified parties appoint seven members;
and the CEC elects one additional DEC member. On 4 August 2018,
the CEC selected 72 DEC members from among 173 applicants and adopted
a decree confirming their appointment.
19. A PEC is a temporary territorial body of the election administration
which ensures the conduct of elections in an electoral precinct,
the implementation of the electoral legislation, the procedures’
compliance with the electoral legislation during the polling, and
ensures the protection of the rights of voters, representatives
and observers. A PEC is composed of 13 members. An upper election
commission
elects six members
while qualified parties appoint the other seven PEC members.
20. According to some local non-governmental organisations (NGOs),
appointments of temporary members of DECs were problematic, since
among temporary members selected for 73 DECs, 14 were related either
to officials of the electoral administration or other public officials.
Similarly, in seven cases, supporters or activists of the ruling
party were elected to commissions.
21. As for the composition of the DECs and PECs, many IEOM interlocutors
alleged political affiliation of some members. In this regard, the
PACE pre-electoral delegation in its statement at the end of its
visit to Tbilisi on 20 September pointed out that the CEC was acting
professionally and was preparing the election well. However, it
considered that criticisms coming from civil society concerning
the methodology used in a number of cases for the selection of members
to lower election bodies, which led to suspicions of nepotism and/or political
interest, should be taken into account, in order to increase public
trust in election administration at all levels.
22. The work of the CEC was transparent: its sessions were open
to representatives of the media accredited in the respective commissions,
representatives of electoral subjects, observers from domestic observer organisations
registered with the respective commission, and no more than two
observers from an international organisation registered with the
CEC.
23. According to the Constitution of Georgia, any citizen of Georgia
who is eligible to vote may be elected as the President of Georgia
if he/she is aged 35 or over, has lived in Georgia for at least
five years, does not have dual citizenship, and has been living
in Georgia for the last three years before the election.
24. According to the legislation, political unions of citizens
have the right to nominate a presidential candidate. If the nomination
is initiated by a group of voters, according to Article 97 of the
Election Code, the nomination of a candidate for President of Georgia
shall be approved by signatures of not less than 25 000 voters (0.75%
of the total number of voters). For this presidential election,
the CEC established it to be 25 923 voters. As for the verification
of the supporting signatures, the CEC can only reject an entry based
on the authenticity of the signature if the voter in question confirms
in writing that he/she did not sign in support of the candidate.
25. For this presidential election, the CEC registered 25 candidates
in an inclusive manner. Among these candidates, 19 were nominated
by political parties and six by initiative groups. Twenty-one nominees
were rejected for different reasons. The PACE observation delegation,
during its pre-electoral and main observation missions, was informed
by different interlocutors about a considerable number of so-called
“technical candidates” and expressed its concern that these candidates
campaigned in favour of other candidates, using media time and public
funding, which meant that there was not a level playing field, which
did not improve public confidence in the democratic electoral process.
26. Among the registered candidates, the main ones were:
- Davit Bakradze of the European
Georgia Party. Mr Bakradze chaired the Georgian Parliament from 2008
to 2012. This is the second time he has run for the presidency;
in 2013, he ran on ticket of the United National Movement (UNM)
and obtained 21.72% of the votes;
- Grigol Vashadze of the UNM-led coalition. Mr Vashadze
was a Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2008 to 2012. He is a member
of the UNM’s political council, the party’s governing body;
- Salome Zurabishvili was an independent candidate supported
by the ruling party – Georgian Dream–Democratic Georgia (GDDG).
Born to an immigrant family in France, she was invited to become
the country’s Foreign Minister in March 2004 by the then President
Mikheil Saakashvili, but was removed from office in October 2005
after a confrontation with the parliamentary majority. In 2016,
Ms Zurabishvili was elected a member of the Parliament of Georgia:
she ran for the seat as an independent, but was politically backed
by the GDDG party, which decided not to field a candidate against
her. Although Ms Zurabishvili is outside the GDDG’s 116-member parliamentary
majority group and maintains the status of an independent lawmaker,
her voting record and public statements have been closely aligned with
that of ruling party lawmakers.
27. Citizens who are 18 years of age by election day have the
right to vote. According to the CEC’s data, as at 27 October 2018,
the total number of voters amounted to 3 518 877. Georgia has a
passive voter registration system, namely voters with a valid identification
document or passport are included in the voter register based on
their permanent registration. The Election Code determines a number
of procedures of verification and corrections to the voters lists.
Furthermore, relevant deadlines to challenge inaccuracies in the
voters lists before DECs and the courts have been established. Specifically,
it is prohibited to amend voters lists within the last 12 days before
election day.
Any amendments between
the 15th and the 12th day before the election day may be made only
by a court decision. The interlocutors of the PACE observation delegation
expressed confidence in the accuracy of the voters lists.
28. Out-of-country voters have the right to participate in the
presidential election. In order to vote, they have to be on the
Georgian consular registry. Otherwise, the voter should proceed
through election registration at the consular office no later than
on the 21st day before election day, i.e. by 7 October 2018. Out-of-country precincts
are set up by the CEC based on the data provided by the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs no later than on the 30th day prior to election
day, for no less than 20 and no more than 3 000 voters. For the
first round of the presidential election on 28 October 2018 the
number of out-of-country voters was 5 475.
29. The provisions of Article 33 of the Election Code set out
the procedure for granting the right to vote to people with disabilities
or who are unable to vote at an electoral precinct (including voters
in prisons, hospitals, in administrative detention, etc.) via the
mobile ballot box list. However, the Election Code restricts this procedure.
In particular, the number of voters entered on a mobile voting list
shall not exceed 3% of voters on the whole voters list per electoral
precinct. After reaching the maximum number of voters, the DEC shall
decide on adding more voters to the mobile voting list by a majority
of two thirds of members attending a DEC session.
4. Election
campaign, funding and media environment
30. On 29 August 2018, the election
campaign was formally launched and norms governing the conduct of the
campaign were enacted. Nevertheless, some political parties and
presidential candidates started to actively meet with voters before
the pre-election campaign had officially started.
31. The presidential candidates were able to campaign without
restrictions. The Election Code does not foresee a campaign silence
period and campaigning is not prohibited except in the media and
in polling stations. The election campaign was widely covered by
the national media and many issues were debated on social networks.
The main active candidates were Davit Bakradze, Grigol Vashadze
and Salome Zourabishvili. Ms Zourabishvili’s campaign benefited
from higher visibility, her large-size posters were not only on
billboards but also on some privately-owned buses.
32. The election campaign topics focused on controversial issues
polarising public opinion rather than on issues within the presidential
mandate. In particular, the statement of Salome Zourabishvili about
the South Ossetia war in August 2008 – many understood her statement
as indicating that the war was started by the Georgian Government
and not by its northern neighbour, even if she later clarified her
position. Among other controversial issues of the election campaign
can be mentioned the government-proposed bill to legalise marijuana
and the involvement of the Georgian Orthodox Church in the debate,
while the involvement of religious organisations in the campaign
is prohibited by the Election Code. While controversial topics dominated
the campaign at national level, in the regions the campaign mostly
focused on specific programmes concerning local problems.
33. The members of the IEOM were informed about isolated cases
of violent incidents, of disruptions of campaign events, of concerns
regarding the alleged misuse of administrative resources, of use
by high-ranking public officials of institutional webpages for the
purpose of campaigning and the participation of public employees
in campaign events during working hours. The PACE observation delegation
expressed its concern, including during its pre-electoral mission
in Tbilisi, and noted that all these activities blurred the line between
the State and the ruling party and were at odds with Council of
Europe standards in the field of democratic elections.
34. Campaign finance is regulated by the Law on Political Unions
of Citizens, the Election Code and the Law on State Audit. It is
supplemented by regulations of the State Audit Office.The Election
Code provides for both public (Article 56) and private (Article 54)
funding. The State Audit Office is in charge of monitoring political party
finances and election expenditure. According to Article 27.1 of
the Law on Political Unions of Citizens, any citizen or legal entity
may donate up to GEL 60 000 and GEL 120 000, respectively, per year
to one or more political parties, via bank transfer.
35. Article 26.1 of the Law on Political
Unions of Citizens envisages that restrictions determined by this
Law with regard to a political party shall also apply to persons
who have declared their intention to stand for election and who
use relevant financial and other tangible resources to achieve this
intention. Article 26.3 of this Law further provides that a natural
person who has declared his/her intention to run for election, and
who incurs expenses devoted to this purpose, shall create a special
fund. Such a person shall be subject to the same restrictions as
an independent candidate under the Election Code.
36. Article 54 of the Election Code stipulates that a campaign
expense shall mean an amount of funds designated for an election
campaign of an electoral subject, as well as all kind of goods and
services obtained free of charge, except free airtime. A candidate
nominated by an electoral subject shall use the fund of this electoral
subject. In the course of the elections, an electoral subject may
not use financial means other than the respective electoral fund.
37. According to the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions
of the IEOM, the total amount of donations received by presidential
candidates was some 5 233 120 Georgian Lari (GEL) (one euro equals approximately
3 GEL). Some 3 634 380 GEL was donated to Ms Zourabishvili, 617 945
GEL to the UNM, and 599 613 GEL to European Georgia–Movement for
Liberty (EG)
.
Ms Zourabichvili spent GEL 4 084 077, EG/David Bakradze spent GEL
882 313, UNM/Grigol Vashadze GEL 864 525 and Industry Saves Georgia/Otar Meunargia
spent GEL 222 094. All the other candidates collectively spent GEL
1 1326 10. Three candidates reported no expenditure for the given
period. Only those parties which officially nominated candidates
have a legal obligation to report on income and expenditure for
the presidential election.
38. Party and campaign finance legislation lacks uniformity, and
recent legislative amendments did not address long-standing recommendations
of the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).
The law provides
for private funding for all candidates and public funding for those
nominated by parties. The lack of regulation for obtaining loans
for campaign expenses and reporting on the use of these funds potentially
contributed to the imbalance of the playing field. Substantial imbalance
in donations and excessively high spending limits did not contribute
to a level playing field.
39. In this regard, the PACE delegation noted that the system
of campaign expenditure was surprisingly generous, with money coming
from the State budget and private donations – and this in a country
with a high level of poverty.
40. The Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) ensures
monitoring of media and observance of norms stipulated by the Election
Code, and gives an appropriate response to violations.
According to the Election
Code, qualified electoral subjects are entitled to free airtime
for political advertising. Qualified parties are provided with public
finances to cover paid pre-electoral advertising only. The Law on Political
Unions of Citizens states that political parties which became eligible
for State funding in view of their results at the last general elections
have the right to additional funding from the State budget during
the year of a general election.
41. The Election Code envisages that broadcasters respect principles
of impartiality and fairness during an election campaign while broadcasting
social-political programmes on elections. A general broadcaster intending
to cover an election campaign shall broadcast pre-election debates
in a non-discriminatory manner and ensure participation of all qualified
electoral subjects within its coverage area.
42. Some local NGOs criticised the GNCC for issuing an instruction
to television companies that would impose an obligation on broadcasters
to verify the credibility of public opinion polls related to elections. According
to these NGOs, by imposing such an obligation, the GNCC called into
question its own function of ensuring the equality of the media
environment and access of voters to information. The GNCC imposed
a fine on one of the major private television channels (Rustavi
2) for airing a paid political advertisement outside the election
period without notifying the regulatory authority, despite the facts
that broadcasters are subject to such obligation only during the
pre-election period, namely 50 days prior to election day.
43. According to ODIHR media monitoring during the election campaign,
the broadcast media largely complied with their legal obligation
to allocate free airtime. This airtime was actively used by presidential candidates
who had numerous opportunities to present their views through talk
shows, debates and extensive free advertising.
As
for the election campaign coverage, the PACE delegation also noted
that there is a lack of clarity on key aspects of the legal framework
concerning the media. In particular, a considerable number of presidential
candidates, used free airtime and paid advertisements to support
other candidates, which resulted in uneven access to free airtime.
5. Election
day
44. On polling day, the ad hoc
committee divided into 15 teams which observed the election in Tbilisi
and the surrounding areas and in different regions of Georgia. The
members of the ad hoc committee noted that voting was well organised
and electors made their choice without restrictions.
45. However, they found a number of shortcomings in the polling
stations visited:
- a number
of polling stations were overcrowded;
- the presence of a large number of citizens observers and
media representing some candidates’ interests, in particular the
interests of candidates from the EG, UNM and GD while some observers
were not able to state which party or candidate they were representing;
- the presence in some polling stations or in the vicinity
of polling stations of so-called “co-ordinators” directing and “assisting”
voters and noting who voted;
- the presence in the vicinity of some polling stations,
in particular in the region of Marneuli (polling station No. 085)
and in Bolnisi (polling station No. 036) of “co-ordinators” organising
campaign activities in favour of some candidates and trying to influence
voters’ choices;
- in some regions, the organised transfer of voters by minibuses
to the polling stations;
- access for people with reduced mobility was problematic
in quite a large number of polling stations;
- isolated cases of photographing ballots in polling stations
and family voting were reported;
- in some polling stations, cases were noted of unintentional
non-compliance with legally required steps during the voting procedures;
- during the counting process, the observers noted cases
of unintentional non-compliance with the procedures, mainly in rural
areas, often due to a lack of knowledge of procedures.
46. According to the official results announced by the CEC, the
main candidates obtained the following results: Salome Zourabishvili
– 38.64%; Grigol Vashadze – 37.74%; Davit Bakradze – 10.97%; Shalva Natelashvili
– 3.74%; David Uzupashvili – 2.26%; Zurab Japaridze – 2.26%; Kakha
Kukava – 1.33%. Other candidates – less than 1%. The two best-placed
candidates, Salome Zourabishvili and Grigol Vashadze took part in
the second round of the Presidential election on 28 November 2018.
47. The second round of the Presidential election was observed
by Mr Andrej Hunko, Head of the delegation, and Ms Reina de Bruijn-Wezeman,
accompanied by members of the staff of the Assembly and of the Venice
Commission.
48. On 27 November 2018, in Tbilisi, the delegation met the two
presidential candidates, Salome Zourabishvili and Grigol Vashadze,
and the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission and
his staff, the Chairperson of the CEC, the representatives of the
State Audit Office and media.
49. The ad hoc committee operated in the framework of an IIEOM,
which also included delegations from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly,
the European Parliament and the election observation mission of
the OSCE/ODIHR.
50. On polling day, the ad hoc committee split into three teams,
which observed the second round in Tbilisi and in the regions. The
IEOM noted that “[e]lection day proceeded in an orderly manner despite
a tense competitive environment. Opening, voting and counting were
assessed positively in almost all polling stations observed, and
procedures were generally followed. The environment outside of the
polling stations reinforced concerns about the ability of voters
to vote free of fear of retribution, especially as candidates’ supporters
were using lists of voters to note who was coming to vote. Citizen
observers and media were often acting on behalf of political parties
and in some instances interfered in the counting”.
51. On 29 November 2018, the CEC announced the results of the
second round of the presidential election: Salome Zourabishvili
obtained 59.52% and Grigol Vashadze – 40.48%. The turnout was 56.5%.
6. Conclusions
and recommendations
52. The Assembly’s delegation concluded
that the first round of the presidential election was competitive and
professionally administered, candidates were able to campaign freely
and voters made their choice without restrictions. On the voting
day, the members of the PACE delegation noted, in some polling stations
or in the vicinity of polling stations, the presence of so-called
“co-ordinators” directing and “assisting” voters and noting who
voted. Such practices must be excluded from the electoral process.
53. As for the election campaign, the PACE delegation noted that
it focused on controversial issues polarising public opinion rather
than issues within the presidential mandate. While controversial
topics dominated the campaign at national level, in the regions
the campaign mostly focused on specific programmes concerning local
problems. As in the case of previous elections, the delegation was
informed about isolated cases of violent incidents, of disruptions
of campaign events, of concerns regarding the alleged misuse of administrative
resources and the participation of public employees in campaign
events during working hours. The delegation expressed its concern,
including during its pre-electoral mission, and noted that all these activities
blurred the line between the State and the ruling party and were
at odds with Council of Europe standards in the field of democratic
elections.
54. With regard to the legal framework, it provides an adequate
basis for the conduct of democratic elections. The Election Code
was amended during the period from 2016 to 2018, without broad political consensus,
partly following the recommendations formulated by the Venice Commission
and the OSCE/ODIHR in their Joint Opinions. Despite some positive
changes, the Election Code could benefit from certain revisions
to ensure full compliance with Council of Europe standards.
55. The work of the CEC was transparent; its sessions were open
to representatives of accredited media and representatives of electoral
subjects. The Assembly’s delegation noted the professional work
of the CEC, which enjoyed the confidence of most electoral stakeholders,
and the spirit of co-operation of members of the polling stations
visited by the delegation on election day. However, the delegation
heard also criticism from civil society concerning the selection
of members to lower election bodies, which led to suspicions of
nepotism and/or political interest.
56. With regard to the funding of the election campaign, the observation
delegation noted that party and campaign finance legislation lacks
uniformity, and that recent legislative amendments did not address
long-standing recommendations of GRECO. The lack of regulation for
obtaining loans for campaign expenses and reporting on the use of
these funds potentially contributed to the imbalance of the playing
field. Substantial imbalance in donations and excessively high spending
limits did not contribute to a level playing field.
57. In this regard, the PACE election observation delegation noted
that the system of campaign expenditure was surprisingly generous,
with money coming from the State budget and private donations –
and this in a country with a high level of poverty. It also noted
the presence of a considerable number of so-called “technical candidates”
campaigning in favour of other candidates, using media time and
public funding, which meant that there was not a level playing field,
which did not improve public confidence in the democratic electoral
process.
58. As for the media coverage of the election campaign, the observation
delegation noted that the broadcast media largely complied with
their legal obligation to allocate free airtime. This airtime was
actively used by presidential candidates, who had numerous opportunities
to present their views through talk shows, debates and extensive
free advertising. The PACE delegation also noted the lack of clarity
on key aspects of the legal framework concerning the media. In particular,
a considerable number of presidential candidates used free airtime
and paid advertisements to support other candidates, which resulted
in uneven access to free airtime.
59. The IEOM concluded that the second round of the presidential
election in Georgia “was competitive and candidates were able to
campaign freely, however one side enjoyed an undue advantage and
the negative character of the campaign on both sides undermined
the process. Elections were well administered; the lack of regulation
of key aspects of the second round did not provide legal certainty.
The campaign was marred by harsh rhetoric. Increased misuse of administrative
resources further blurred the line between party and State. Private
media continued to demonstrate sharp polarisation and clear bias,
while the public broadcaster did not ensure editorial independence
and impartiality. On election day, voters actively took part and
the process was assessed positively, although the observed tracking
of voters reinforced concerns about potential intimidation”.
60. The PACE delegation also pointed out that ““the second round
of the presidential election confirmed concerns expressed by the
Assembly’s delegation after the first round – in particular, the
surprisingly generous system of campaign and party funding from
the State budget and private donations. In addition, one can question
the timing, just before the second round, of the government’s announcement
of a debt-relief operation for hundreds of thousands of electors,
financed by a private foundation affiliated to the ruling party’s
leader. This increase in the role of money in politics in a country
with a high level of poverty and without efficient control mechanisms
did not contribute to public confidence in democratic elections”
(see Appendix 4).
61. The PACE delegation considers that the Assembly should continue
its close co-operation with Georgia’s institutions, by means of
its monitoring procedure, and with the Venice Commission, in order
to resolve the problems observed during the presidential election
of 2018, to further consolidate the legal framework and to improve
electoral practices.
Appendix 1 – Composition
of the ad hoc committee
(open)
Based on the proposals by the political groups
of the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
Chairperson: Mr Andrej
HUNKO, Germany*
Group of the European
People’s Party (EPP/CD)
- Ms Boriana ÅBERG, Sweden*
- Mr Corneliu Mugurel COZMANCIUC, Romania
- Ms Iryna GERASHCHENKO, Ukraine
- Ms Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Latvia
- Mr Georgii LOGVYNSKYI, Ukraine
- Mr Rónán MULLEN, Ireland
- Ms Bérengère POLETTI, France
- Mr Birgir THÓRARINSSON, Iceland
Socialists, Democrats
and Greens Group (SOC)
- Ms Maryvonne BLONDIN,
France*
- Mr Boriss CILEVIČS, Latvia
- Mr Etienne GRECH, Malta
- Ms Josephine ORTLEB, Germany
- Mr Stefan SCHENNACH, Austria
European Conservatives
Group (EC)
- Lord David BLENCATHRA,
United Kingdom*
- Sir Edward LEIGH, United Kingdom
Alliance of Liberals
and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
- Ms Reina de BRUIJN-WEZEMAN,
Netherlands
- Mr Alfred HEER, Switzerland*
- Ms Nellija KLEINBERGA, Latvia
- Mr Andrii LOPUSHANSKYI, Ukraine
- Ms Olena SOTNYK, Ukraine
Group of the Unified
European Left (UEL)
- Mr Paul GAVAN, Ireland
- Ms Miren Edurne GORROTXATEGUI, Spain
- Mr Andrej HUNKO, Germany*
Rapporteur of the
Monitoring Committee
- Ms Kerstin LUNDGREN,
Sweden
Venice Commission
- Mr Eirik HOLMØYVIK,
Substitute member, Norway
- Mr Gaël MARTIN-MICALLEF, Legal adviser, Venice Commission
Secretariat
- Mr Chemavon CHAHBAZIAN,
Head of the Election Observation and Interparliamentary Co-operation Division
- Mr Bogdan TORCATORIU, Administrator
- Ms Danièle GASTL, Assistant
- Ms Anne GODFREY, Assistant
* Member of the pre-electoral mission.
Appendix 2 – Programme
of the meetings of the electoral observation mission (26-29 October
2018)
(open)
Friday
26 October 2018
13:00-13:20 Mr Kristian Vigenin, Special Co-ordinator, Leader
of the short-term OSCE observer mission
- Mr Andrej Hunko, Head of the PACE Delegation
- Ms Margareta Cederfelt, Head of the Delegation of the
OSCE PA
- Ms Laima Liucija Andrikiene, Head of the Delegation of
the European Parliament
- Ms Rasa Jukneviciene, Head of the Delegation of the NATO
PA
13:20-15:30 Briefing by the ODIHR election observation mission
– Part I:
- Welcome: Ambassador
Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, Head of Mission
- Political background, media landscape and the campaign:
Ms Gabriela Skulova, Political Analyst, and Mr Egor Tilpunov, Media
Analyst
- Legal framework, complaints and appeals: Ms Kseniya Dashutina,
Legal Analyst
- Election administration and voter registration: Ms Iuliia
Shypilova, Election Analyst
15:30-17:00 Election law and administration – panel discussion:
- Ms Tamar Zhvania, Chairperson,
Central Election Commission
- Mr Mikheil Benidze, Executive Director, International
Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED)
- Mr Suikhan Saladze, Chairperson, Georgian Young Lawyers
Association (GYLA)
17:30-19:00 Campaign and media – panel discussion:
- Mr George Gvimradze, News and
Current Affairs Director, Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB)
- Mr Nika Gvaramia, Director General, Rustavi 2
- Ms Eka Gigauri, Executive Director, Transparency International
- Ms Tamar Khorbaladze, Chairperson of the Board, Media
Development Foundation (MDF)
- Mr Ivane Makharadze, Head of the Audio-Visual Media Services
Regulation Department, Georgian National Communications Commission
Saturday 27 October 2018
09:00-11:55 Meetings with presidential candidates:
- Ms Salome Zourabichvili – independent
candidate
- Mr David Bakradze – “European Georgia–Movement for Liberty”
- Mr David Usupashvili – “Free Democrats”
- Mr Gregory Vashadze – United opposition “Strength in
Unity”
- Mr Shalva Natelashvili – Labor Party of Georgia
- Mr Zurab Japaridze – “New Political Center–Girchi”
- Mr Kakha Kukava – “Free Georgia”
12:10-13:10 Briefing by the ODIHR election observation mission
– Part II:
- Election day procedures
and observation forms: Ms Iuliia Shypilova, Election Analyst, and
Ms Meaghan Fitzgerald, Deputy Head of Mission
- Mr Anders Eriksson and Mr Max Bader, Statistical Analysts
- Security: Mr Davor Ćorluka, Security Expert
13:10-13:30 Regional briefing by the ODIHR EOM long-term observers
for teams deployed in Tbilisi
Sunday 28 October 2018
Observation of elections
Monday 29 October 2018
08:00 Debriefing of the delegation
14:30 Press conference
Appendix 3 – Press release
of the International Election Observation Mission (first round)
(open)
Voters had a
genuine choice and candidates campaigned freely, but on an unlevel
playing field, international observers say
Tbilisi, 29 October 2018 – Georgia’s 28 October presidential
election was competitive and professionally administered. Candidates
were able to campaign freely and voters had a genuine choice, although
there were instances of the misuse of State resources, and the involvement
of senior State officials from the ruling party in campaigning was
not always in line with the law, the international observers concluded
in a preliminary statement released today. A substantial imbalance
in donations and excessively high spending limits further contributed
to an unlevel playing field, the statement says.
While the public broadcasters provided all candidates with
a platform to present their views, the sharp polarisation of the
private media and a lack of analytical reporting, along with negative
campaigning and harsh rhetoric by participants, limited voters’
ability to make a fully informed choice, the observers said. Legal changes
that increased the representation of the ruling party at all levels
of the election administration and the insufficient transparency
in the selection of non-partisan members of lower-level commissions
undermined public perception of their impartiality.
“In this election, Georgia showed the maturity of its democracy.
This further raises expectations. Therefore, while praising the
achievements, it is important to be aware of the shortcomings related
to the campaign environment, finances and the legal environment
in general,” said Kristian Vigenin, Special Co-ordinator and leader
of the short-term OSCE observer mission. “We hope that the Georgian
people will actively participate in the second round and that the
outcome will fully reflect their will.”
While fundamental freedoms were generally respected and contestants
were able to campaign freely, several campaign events were disrupted
and some party offices or campaign materials were vandalized. The campaign
was dominated by polarizing topics, negative campaigning and harsh
accusations between the ruling and one of the opposition parties.
“Yesterday voting was well organized, and electors made their
choice without restrictions”, said Andrej Hunko, Head of the delegation
from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. “An astonishing
amount of money has been spent in the electoral campaign – and this
in a country with a high level of poverty. Another point of concern
was the substantial number of candidates apparently campaigning
on behalf of others, thus undermining the equality of opportunity
and weakening the citizens’ confidence in the electoral process.”
Margareta Cederfelt, Head of the delegation from the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly, said: “With yesterday’s vote, Georgia proved
that efforts are being made to improve its electoral process. I
encourage all election stakeholders, and especially the media and
civil society, to exercise the highest level of professional ethics, particularly
during the campaign for the second round. I would like to commend
the Georgian people, and the youth in particular, for once more
showing their great commitment to democracy.”
Concerns were raised about the collection of voters’ personal
data by the ruling party, and pressure associated with this practice
was observed on election day. Voting was assessed positively, despite
some procedural issues during counting and the fact that many citizen
observers and media representatives acted on behalf of political
parties.
Representatives of candidates and from citizen and international
organisations are allowed to observe the entire electoral process,
and accreditation was inclusive and professionally managed. During
the pre-election period there were intense verbal attacks on the
work and representatives of citizen observer groups by high ranking
members of the ruling party and senior public officials. Nonetheless,
the observation efforts of over 70 citizen observer organizations
contributed to the transparency of the process.
“We welcome the competitive nature of the election and the
high level of engagement by independent civil society organizations,
but are concerned that some of these were targeted by verbal attacks
by senior State office holders”, said Laima Andrikienė, Head of
the delegation from the European Parliament. “We also regret that
Russia’s occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the decision
by the de facto local authorities to close the administrative border
line with South Ossetia for the elections deprived many Georgian
citizens from casting their ballots.”
A total of 25 candidates – 16 from political parties and 9
as independents – were registered in a process that was transparent
and inclusive. Voter data were available for purchase, and there
was no effective mechanism for checking the authenticity of support
signatures. It became clear during the campaign that a significant number
of candidates had registered so they could use public funding and
free airtime to support other contestants, giving those an unfair
advantage.
“Georgia is a positive example of reform, and a leader in
Euro-Atlantic integration. Yesterday, I was impressed to see many
citizens determined to exercise their democratic right”, said Rasa
Juknevičienė, Head of the delegation from the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly. “But these elections show that, without strong safeguards, the
concentration of power and resources can be a risk for democracy.”
Positively both public national broadcasters decided to offer
all candidates the same amount of free airtime and hosted numerous
debates in which they could present their views. The media regulator
was not always transparent and impartial when intervening in the
campaign. Media monitoring results showed clear bias in private
media coverage.
“The visible commitment shown by the voters should not be
undermined by campaigning members of the political class. Unfortunately,
we witnessed sharp confrontation, gross exaggerations, negative
campaigning and personal insults,” said Ambassador Geert-Hinrich
Ahrens, Head of the election observation mission from the OSCE Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. “If there is a second
round, the ODIHR election observation mission will remain here to
observe.”
The legal framework provides an adequate basis for democratic
elections. Although amendments to the election code in 2017 and
2018 introduced technical improvements, certain shortcomings remain,
and recent amendments were a missed opportunity to address other
prior ODIHR and Council of Europe recommendations and eliminate
gaps and inconsistencies, the statement says.
Party and campaign finance legislation lacks uniformity, and
recent legislative amendments did not address long-standing recommendations
by ODIHR and the Council of Europe’s GRECO. The lack of regulation
for obtaining loans for campaign expenses and reporting on the use
of these funds potentially contributes to an imbalanced playing
field. While the State Audit Office verified and promptly published
reports before the election, the lack of clear deadlines for addressing
violations and the institution’s insufficient resources raised concerns
about the effectiveness of campaign finance oversight
Appendix 4 – Press release
of the International Election Observation Mission (second round)
(open)
Candidates campaigned
freely in competitive Georgia run-off, though one side enjoyed undue advantage
and negative character of campaign undermined process, international
observers say
Tbilisi, 29 November 2018 – The second round of Georgia’s
presidential election was competitive and candidates were able to
campaign freely, however one side enjoyed an undue advantage and
the negative character of the campaign on both sides undermined
the process, the international observers concluded in a preliminary
statement released today. While the election was well administered,
the absence of regulations for key aspects of election run-offs
led to a lack of legal certainty, the statement says.
The campaign for the 28 November vote was marred by harsh
rhetoric and isolated incidents of violence, as well as by an increase
in the misuse of State resources, further blurring the separation
of party and State, the observers said. Private media continued
to demonstrate sharp polarization and bias in coverage, while the public
broadcaster did not ensure editorial independence and impartiality,
the observers said.
“Georgian citizens made their choice. Now all of the concerns
raised in our preliminary conclusions today and in the upcoming
final report on the election have to be dealt with by the authorities
without delay,” said Kristian Vigenin, Special Co-ordinator and
leader of the short-term OSCE observer mission. “I believe that
we have a common goal – to improve the electoral process, thus strengthening
democracy in the country. I hope that now, after months of tense
campaigning and polarization in society, the newly elected president
will spare no efforts to ensure the unity of the nation.”
The second round of voting took place after no candidate received
more than 50 per cent of valid votes in the first round, on 28 October.
The decision by the Central Election Commission (CEC) on the run-off
date of 28 November – a Wednesday – became a contentious issue and
led to objections from opposition parties and calls from civil society
to reconsider. While the CEC acted within its authority in choosing
the date, the circumstances surrounding the decision reduced confidence
in the body. At the same time, the election was well managed and
the CEC provided training to address procedural shortcomings noted
in the first round.
Campaign activities intensified in the run-up to the second
round, and a number of anti-opposition and anti-government demonstrations
before the run-off increased tensions between the two sides. The
use of negative, harsh and at times violent rhetoric went unaddressed
by authorities. Along with the misuse of State resources, a number
of social and financial initiatives were announced, in particular
debt relief for 600,000 people funded by a private financial institution
linked to the chairperson of the ruling party. These incidents and
the involvement in the campaign of senior State officials from the
ruling party continued to blur the line between State and party,
the statement says.
“We note that the choice of the date for the second round
was not made in an inclusive manner and was not in the interest
of all voters, leading to suspicions that it was politically motivated,”
said Laima Andrikienė, Head of the delegation from the European
Parliament. “The announcement just a few days before a fiercely contested
second round of debt relief benefiting 600 000 citizens and made
possible by an entity owned by the head of the ruling party could
be considered an attempt at vote-buying. Cases of intimidation and
pressure on voters have to be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted.
Further, the practice of mass sending pre-recorded phone calls and
text messages is highly questionable.”
Margareta Cederfelt, Head of the delegation from the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly, said: “In this run-off election the Georgian
people once again expressed their commitment to democracy by actively
participating in the electoral process. Regrettably, the increased
use of harsh rhetoric in the campaign between the two rounds contributed
to a rise in tension in the electoral environment.”
The gathering of voter data and political preferences raised
concerns about the potential for intimidation and about voters’
ability to cast their ballots free of fear of retribution. These
concerns were reinforced by the environment outside of polling stations
on election day, as candidates’ supporters used lists of voters
to track who was coming to vote, the observers said. Opening, voting
and counting on election day were assessed positively in almost
all polling stations observed, and procedures were generally followed,
although citizen observers and media representatives often acted
on behalf of political parties and, in some instances, interfered
in the counting.
Campaign finance reporting requirements for the second round
were determined less than two weeks before the vote. The substantial
imbalance noted during the first round in campaign donations in
favour of the candidate backed by the ruling party remained for
the run-off. There is no requirement to report on campaign activities
by third-parties, including public protest movements, which mainly
benefited the candidate supported by the ruling party. Both contestants
received support from political parties without candidates in the
second round, and these contributions went unreported. The fact
that most campaign finance-related complaints from both rounds were
still pending at the time of the second vote continued to raise
concerns about the enforcement of campaign finance rules, the statement
says.
“The second round of the presidential election confirmed concerns
expressed by the PACE delegation after the first round – in particular,
the surprisingly generous system of campaign and party funding from
the State budget and private donations. In addition, one can question
the timing, just before the second round, of the government’s announcement
of a debt-relief operation for hundreds of thousands of electors,
financed by a private foundation affiliated to the ruling party’s
leader,” said Andrej Hunko, Head of the delegation from the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe. “This increase in the role of
money in politics in a country with a high level of poverty and
without efficient control mechanisms did not contribute to public
confidence in democratic elections.”
Unclear regulation of the campaign led to a lack of legal
certainty and to inconsistent and contradictory interpretations.
Further, recent amendments did not rectify problems identified in
previous two-round elections or address previous ODIHR recommendations
to provide explicit run-off regulations.
The lack of clear regulation also effectively limited the
period for official campaigning in the media. While not required
by law, most national broadcasters did provide free airtime to both
candidates. The national public broadcaster displayed a clear bias
against the opposition. Private media continued to demonstrate sharp polarization
and clear bias in reporting, some becoming more vocal about their
political positions ahead of the second vote, media monitoring revealed.
“Georgia has a good international standing as a democracy,
and the corresponding commitment shown by citizens and voters was
visible and impressive. The quality of the election was undermined,
however, by unnecessarily sharp confrontation, negative campaigning
and personal insults by some members of the political class, who
did this rather than dealing with issues really important for Georgia,
such as the rule of law and economic inequality,” said Ambassador
Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, Head of the election observation mission from
the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. “These
negative practices were even worse than in the lead up to the first
round.”
Nearly 700 complaints were filed following the first-round
election day, mainly concerning procedural violations during voting
and counting. A large number of cases were dismissed on procedural
grounds, demonstrating a limited understanding of the procedures
by complainants. There was lack of proper consideration of the substance
of complaints, and commissions adopted narrow or inconsistent interpretations
of the law, all of which undermined the right to effective remedy.
