Doc. 10004

27 November 2003

Ad hoc Committee to observe the parliamentary elections in Georgia (2 November 2003)

Report

Bureau

Rapporteur: Mrs Helena Bargholtz, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group

I. Introduction

1.       In response to an invitation of the Georgian Parliament, the Bureau decided on 27 May to set up an ad hoc Committee to observe the parliamentary elections held on 2 November 2003. This Committee acted as a part of the international election observation mission (IEOM) which also included the election observation mission of the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), the election observation mission of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE and a delegation of the European Parliament.

2.       Following proposals by the political groups in the Assembly, the ad hoc committee consisted of :

socialist group (soc)

M.       Jean-Pierre MASSERET       France

Mr       Tom COX        United Kingdom / Royaume Uni

Mrs       Christine MUTTONEN        Austria / Autriche

Mrs       Edit HERCZOG        Hungary / Hongrie

Mr       Sead AVDIĆ        Boznia-Herzegovian / Bosnie Herzégovine

group of the european people’s party (epp/cd)

M.        Emerenzio BARBIERI       Italy / Italie

Mr        Andres HERKEL       Estonia / Estonie

Mr        Zekeriya AKÇAM       Turkey / Turquie

Mr        Márton BRAUN       Hungary / Hongrie

liberal, democratic and reformers’ group (ldr)

Ms       Helena Bargholtz       Sweden / Suède

Mr       Rafael Huseynov       Azerbaijan / Azerbaidjan

M.       Viorel Coifan       Romania / Roumanie

european democratic group (edg)

MR        ANDRÉ KVAKKESTAD       NORWAY / NORVÈGE

Mr        Milan CABRNOCH       Czech Republic / République tchèque

Mr        Orest KLYMPUSH       Ukraine

group of the unified european left (uel)

Mr Jiŕi MAŠTÁLKA       Czech Republic / République tchèque

Secretariat

Ms Agnès NOLLINGER, Deputy Head

Mr Bas KLEIN, Administrator

M. Francesc FERRER, Principal Administrative Assistant

Ms Anita DYSERINCK, Assistant

3.       The Ad hoc Committee met in Tbilisi from 29 October to 3^rd November and during its first meeting elected Mr Tom Cox, President of the Ad hoc Committee and Mrs Bargholtz, rapporteur.

4.       The members of the Ad hoc Committee held many meeting with representatives of political parties, the Head of the observation mission of OSCE/ODIHR, the working group of Ambassadors, the Chairperson of the Central electoral Commission, representatives of NGO’s and media. The programme of the ad hoc committee appears in Appendix 1.

5.       The day of the election, the ad hoc Committee was divided into 10 teams in order to observe the voting and the counting in Tbilisi and around Tbilisi. The joint press release issued by the observation mission appears in Appendix 2.

6.       The ad hoc Committee enjoyed the support of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission in Georgia and thanks Mr Plamen Nikolov, Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in Georgia for his assistance.

Political context

7.       Following the anomalies and irregularities found during the last parliamentary elections held in 1999, the current elections will constitute a crucial test concerning the progress made by Georgia in the way of democracy and its credibility as a Council of Europe member state. These elections are also very important in view of the presidential election which will be held beginning 2005.

8.       The members of the ad hoc committee were concerned about the obvious general lack of public confidence in the electoral process, particularly owing to the possible malpractices and irregularities as well as the climate of tension and violence. In this context, during their exchange of views with the representatives of the political parties and the mass media, the members of the ad hoc committee emphasised the importance not to fuel distrust among the public.

9.       This state of affairs is mainly due to the problems caused by the establishment of the central electoral register (General List) which still has serious deficiencies.

10.       450 observers were deployed and among them 21 of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and 3 of the European Parliament. These observers were present in 1200 polling stations and have visited more that 30 districts.

II. The legal framework

1.       The electoral lists

11.       In May 2003 the Georgian Parliament instructed the executive to draw up a list of voters. This was forwarded to the Central Electoral Commission (CEC). The relevant departments of the Ministry of the Interior have counted about 3 200 000 people entitled to vote in Georgia. Some non-governmental organisations consider that these data do not correspond to the real number of electors. They regard the figure as too high.

12.       The Unified Electoral Code as amended in August 2003 defines the unified General List of Voters as a list of the citizens of Georgia who are entitled to vote (from 18 years of age). The list is broken down by electoral precincts. It bears the voter’s name, date of birth, place of registration, identity card number, personal number if any, and “factual situation of citizen’s place of residence”. All these particulars are to be listed according to the place of registration. For displaced persons, entry is according to place of residence.

13.       This new legislative initiative introduces the concept of special lists on which the following persons appear:

-       staff of the electoral administration who, on polling day, work in electoral commissions located in precincts other than those where they are registered as voters ;

-        voters who are in hospital on polling day;

-       voters who are remanded in custody on polling day;

-        voters who are not in Georgia on polling day and are registered by Georgian consular services;

-        voters who are in the armed forces.

14.       These elections will thus be the first to be organised on the basis of a central electoral register, without using the supplementary lists that proved problematic at the last elections.

15.       However, this electoral register prompts anxieties in so far as many constituents have not yet been registered, are entered more than once and some of them are not been assigned to PEC.

16.       Furthermore, the authorities in Adjara decided to compile their own voter lists so that no data was provided to the CEC.

2.       The Central Electoral Commission and the local electoral commissions

17.       The Electoral Code of Georgia assigns more functions to the precinct electoral commissions which may henceforth count votes and transmit the results of the ballot to the Central Electoral Commission which draws up the returns. The district electoral commissions are empowered to declare invalid the results of the ballot held in an electoral precinct.

18.       These amendments reduce the Central Electoral Commission’s investigative authority in respect of contestations linked with the voting results. The Central Electoral Commission’s right to set or to defer a new election date has also been restricted. Its members’ personal responsibility has been increased.

19.       The CEC also adopted a resolution creating 75 electoral districts over the territory of Georgia, excluding Abkhazia and Ossetia.

20.       During their exchange of views with the President of the Central Electoral Commission, Mrs Nana Devdariani, the latter deplored the shortage of time for effective implementation of the voter’s register. She also regretted the late release of the funds intended for the CEC and the subordinate electoral commissions, forcing the latter to be somewhat dependent on local government.

3.       Voting procedure

21.       The elections of 2 November will be conducted according to a mixed system: 150 seats will be filled using the proportional system from a national list, and 85 seats using the majority system. A 2^nd round is planned for candidates who do not attain the majority required under the majority system. The Parliament will thus be composed of 235 members elected for 4 years.

22.       The candidates elected under the proportional system will need to poll 7% of the votes cast. Those to whom the majority system applies must collect 1 000 signatures. The elections will not take place in Abkhazia or South Ossetia/Tskhinvali, because these regions are not under the authority of the central government. The electoral law provides for the re-election of the parliamentarians representing the region of Abkhazia who were elected in 1992.

23.       The 7 % threshold for the proportional vote represents a high percentage compared to the one applied in states generally. Finally, in order to be valid the elections for the majority system will have to record a minimum turnout of one-third of the electorate.

24.       As to the voting procedure, according to the proposed amendments, voters who turn out in the electoral districts on polling day will be inked. This procedure will be used in towns and regions but not in villages with only one polling station.

25.       The new electoral code introduces the system of parallel counting. The observers have the right to make a count of the electors who turn out in the electoral districts. The observers also have the right to be present in the electoral districts when the members of the electoral commission make the computation of the voting results.

4.       The political parties

26.       A wide range and candidates contested the election. This indicates a real pluralism and offers a genuine choice for voters.

27.       The CEC registered 39 political parties, which formed 9 coalitions. Thus, candidates from 21 party and coalition lists competed for the 150 mandates in the proportional contest. Concerning the majoritarian system, the CEC registered 460 candidates for the 75 seats and rejected 100.

28.       Some problems appeared in Bolnisi, Tkibuli and Gardabani where political pro-governmental forces tried to prevent serious candidates from standing.

29.       However, overall, we can say that the candidate registration process represents an important improvement compared to the 1999 parliamentary elections.

5.       The referendum

30.       On 3 September President Shevardnadze issued a decree on the holding of a referendum on 2 November 2003, the parliamentary election date. The referendum will be held in accordance with Article 74 of the Constitution and sections 10, 13 and 14 of the Organic Law on referendum. The referendum concerns reduction of the number of members of parliament. The question put is this: Are you in favour of reducing to 150 members minimum the number of members in the Parliament of Georgia?

31.       To be effective, the referendum requires a participation rate of 50 % of registered electors and a “yes” majority. The holding of the referendum will have technical and political repercussions on the parliamentary elections.

32.       During the talks with the relevant authorities, it was confirmed that in the event of the referendum having a positive outcome, it will not take effect the next legislature, i.e. in 2007.

6.       The media

33.       The situation of the media has improved since the parliamentarian elections hold in 1999. During the electoral campaign, the media offered a diverse range of political opinion and provided a forum for the opposition to present their views and criticise the Government.

34.       Television remains the main source of information for the public. Georgia has yet to reform its State media and introduce public service broadcasting principles. While State TV complied with legal provisions on allocating free airtime to all party-lists, the transmission of slots well outside prime time did not provide election contestants for certain party. Thus, one TV allowed to the President, the Government and the FNG bloc an airtime of 71 % and the same parties received some 91 % space devoted to politics in a State-funded newspaper.

35.       During the last weeks of campaign, State TV regularly broadcasted an item promoting the success of the government, which was perceived as a hidden campaign in favour of the pro-presidential bloc. It must be underlined that the private TV channels, as Imedi and Rustavi 2, were more balanced, even if the latter favoured opposition parties and presented a critical assessment of the President, the Government, the Revival party and in particular the FNG bloc.

III.       Election day

36.       The ad hoc committee, divided in 10 teams, was deployed in Tibilisi and in the area near to Tbilisi and visited about 70 polling stations. In the most polling stations, members noted a disorganisation, resulting partly from the late delivery of ballot papers. This disorganisation therefore entailed a late opening of most of the polling stations. Furthermore, due to the lack of training, the electoral process was very slow and was hold, in most cases, in very narrow places and not easily accessible, namely for the old people.

37.       A general dissatisfaction prevailed in the polling stations due to the fact that many voters were not registered. This tension was enhanced by a significant numbers of police to lists during the last minutes.

38.       The decision taken during the last minute by the CED to allow unregistered citizens to vote served to increase the confusion. However, some observers noted that in some polling stations, the decision to register them was already taken.

39.       In general, the members of the ad hoc committee thought that the procedures were not correctly followed, due namely to the lack of training of the members of the electoral commissions.

IV.       Draft conclusions and recommendations.

40.       The Parliamentary Elections in Georgia on a significant number of issues did not adhere to internationally accepted democratic standards. The irregularities and disorganisation encountered during these elections reflect the lack of collective political will to organise elections inline with the obligations that Georgia took upon itself with its adhesion to the Council of Europe and have seriously undermined Georgia’s credibility as a member state of this organisation.

41.       Public confidence in the election process was very low and the events on and after Election Day certainly did nothing to improve this situation. The ad hoc committee wants to stress that that public confidence in the election process is essential in a democratic society and therefore calls upon the relevant authorities in Georgia to seriously consider implementing the recommendations the ad hoc committee is making in this report. The office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in Georgia can play a key role in helping the authorities in this respect. Moreover, the ad hoc committee regrets that most, if not all, parties used public distrust in the election process as part of their electoral campaign strategies.

42.       The inaccuracy of the voters list overshadowed the preparation of these elections and like in previous elections served to disenfranchise a large number of otherwise eligible voters, challenging the principles of universal suffrage and equality of the vote. The ad hoc committee welcomes the fact that the Unified Election Code (UEC) stipulates the use of a central voters’ registry. However the compilation and correction of this central voters’ register was started too late and marred by co-ordination problems between the authorities concerned and often unrealistic timeframes and deadlines. The decision of the CEC on the afternoon of election day to allow voters to be added to the voters’ lists in the polling stations not only added to the confusion but also, in contravention of the law, constituted a de facto return to the supplementary voters list which had been abolished upon recommendation of the OSCE and Council of Europe due to their problematic nature during previous elections. The ad hoc committee stresses that the degree of inaccuracy of the voters’ lists was unacceptable and therefore calls upon the relevant authorities to immediately continue the process of compilation and correction of the central voters’ registry in order to allow the voters list to be published for public scrutiny and, if necessary correction, well before the 2005 Presidential Elections.

43.       The amended Unified Election Code, if implemented impartially and consistently, formed an adequate basis for the organisation of elections. However, some issues of concern remain. The ad hoc committee therefore recommends that the incoming parliament, in co-ordination with the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, addresses the following issues before the Presidential Elections in 2005:

- to stipulate the publication of precinct results in the official protocols that are published on the district level, in order to ensure the transparency of the tabulation process at all times and to require the publication of a detailed breakdown of the results by the CEC and DECs

- to apply everywhere the inedible ink even in the village where it is only one polling station, thus significantly lessening its use as anti-fraud measure to prevent multiple voting.

- To be more precise for the manner in which the 7% representation threshold is alculated in order to avoid any misunderstanding.

44.       The ad hoc Committee welcomes the faire and efficient candidate registration process as well as the independent functioning of the courts. It noted with satisfaction the improvement of the situation of the media, comparing with the previous parliamentarian elections.

45.       The ad hoc Committee condemns the reported acts of violence, intimidation and irregularities and calls upon the Georgian authorities to ensure that those responsible for the irregularities observed are held accountable by law. This will be essential for ensuring public confidence in the electoral processes.

46.       In view of the forthcoming presidential elections, the ad hoc committee calls upon an adequate training of election officials on the local and district levels, this should be done through the Council of Europe’s assistance programme.

47.       In conclusion, the ad hoc Committee invites the Assembly to consider challenging the ratification of credentials (Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure) of the new Georgian delegation given the scope and gravity of irregularities, in particular, during the counting.

APPENDIX 1

23 October 2003

Ad Hoc Committee for the Observation of the parliamentary elections in Georgia

30 October – 3 November 2003

AGENDA

for the meeting opening on Thursday 30 October 2003 at 19h00

1. Opening of the meeting by the most senior member present

2. Election of Head of Delegation and Rapporteur

3. Oral report on the pre-election mission ( 8 to 11 October 2003) by Mr Mátyás Eörsi, spokesperson for the pre-election mission.

4. Exchange of views with Mr Plamen Nikolov, Special representative of the Secretary General in Georgia

5. Programme and practical arrangements

6. Observation of Voting and vote count. (Sunday 2 November 2003)

7. Exchange of views and assessment of the election (Monday morning at 9h30)

APPENDIX 2

23 October 2003

AD HOC COMMMITTEE FOR THE OBSERVATION OF THE

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN GEORGIA

30 October – 3 November 2003

PROGRAMME

Thursday, 30 October

Arrival of the members of the Ad Hoc Committee. All members will be met at the airport by the protocol service of the Georgian Parliamenta and provided with transport to:

      Hotel Marriott

      Rustaveli Avenue 13

      Tbilisi 38008

      Tel: + 995 32 779 200

      Fax: + 995 32 779 210

19h00       Ad Hoc Committee Meeting (Hotel Marriott)

Friday, 31 October

08h00       Working Breakfast for the heads of delegation from the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe and the OSCE as well as the European Parliament and the Head of Mission of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission in Georgia (OSCE/ODIHR EOM).

Start of the joint briefings for the Parliamentary Assemblies of the OSCE and Council of Europe and the European Parliament

09h00       Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM

10h45       Coffee Break

11h15       Briefing by a representative of the OSCE Mission to Georgia and a representative of the Ambassadorial Working Group on the Elections in Georgia (AWG).

11h45       Meeting with Mrs Nana Devdariani, Chairwoman of the Central Election Commission.

12h45       Lunch.

14h30       Meetings with representatives of the main political parties and coalitions. (till 18h30)

19h15       Departure from the hotel.

19h30       Reception hosted by the Dutch Ambassador in Georgia for the Ad Hoc Committee and the Ambassadorial Working Group on the Elections in Georgia.

Saturday, 1 November

Continuation of joint briefings

09h00       Meeting with representatives of local NGOs (ISFED,…)

10h00       Meeting with representatives of international NGOs (IFES, NDI, IRI)

11h00       Coffee Break

11h30       Meeting with representatives of the Media

12h30       Lunch

14h30       Briefings by the OSCE/ODIHR Long Term Observers deployed in the region of Tbilisi.

15h30       End of joint briefing programme.

Sunday, 2 November

Observation of the vote and vote count.

Monday, 3 November

09h30       Ad Hoc Committee Meeting

10h30       Joint Debriefing (till 12h30)

17h00       Joint Press Conference

Tuesday, 4 November

Departure of the members of the Ad Hoc Committee. Transport from the hotel to the airport will be provided by the protocol service of the Georgian Parliament.

Ad hoc CoE emergency phone numbers in Tbilisi:

Mr. Shako Chikviladze (Driver) - 899 19 65 56

Mr. Irakly Peikrishvili – (Office reception) – 877 46 57 67 or 98 89 77

Mr. Plamen Nikolov – (SRSG) – 899 291 291

Ms. Natia Japaridze – (Director) 899 55 91 25

Mr. George Jashi – (Dep. Dir.) 899 91 57 47

Mr. Shalva Balanchivadze (Assistant to Dir.) 899 11 14 14

Ms. Irina Achba – (Assistant to Dir.) 893 34 04 50

Ms. Tamriko Katsitadze (SRSG Assistant) 899 57 77 33

APPENDIX 3

PRESS RELEASE

Georgian parliamentary elections marred by confusion over voter lists

TBILISI, 3 November 2003 - The 2 November parliamentary elections in Georgia fell short of a number of international standards. Delays and confusion over voter lists contributed to a lack of public confidence in the governmental and parliamentary authorities' capacity to manage an effective and transparent election process, concluded the International Election Observation Mission in a statement issued today.

Although the election provided voters with a wide choice of candidates, unrealistic timelines and improvised, last minute decisions threatened to undermine the otherwise improved work of the Central Election Commission.

Some 450 international observers from 43 countries monitored the polls in one of the larger and longer election observation missions deployed.

"These elections have, regrettably, been insufficient to enhance the credibility of either the electoral or the democratic process," said Bruce George, Special Co-ordinator of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, leading the Short-Term Observation Mission.

"We believe that the people of this country are entitled to a better-run election system and protection of the right to vote, as sadly was not apparent yesterday. Urgent attention must be paid to training presiding election officials and addressing shortcomings in the system," added Tom Cox, Head of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly's Delegation.

Demetrio Volcic, Head of the Delegation of the European Parliament, said: "Some last minute decisions by the Central Election Commission were inappropriate and evident of a haphazard approach. The use of different voter lists reduced confidence in the integrity of the data and lacked transparency."

"The irregularities and delays in the voting process on polling day reflect a lack of collective political will and administrative capacity for the conduct of the elections. The counting, tabulation and appeals process will now be crucial to building public confidence," concluded Julian Peel Yates, who is heading the Long-Term Observation Mission of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).

Deployment of security forces in four districts and numbers of unauthorized persons in polling stations added to a notion of interference in the election process. More positively, transparency was maintained in most areas and many Precinct Election Commissions worked hard to overcome difficulties and attempted to follow correct voting and counting procedures.

The International Election Observation Mission recognised improvements, including the new Unified Electoral Code which provides an adequate framework for holding democratic elections if implemented impartially, and the increased transparency of the work of the Central Election Commission.

For further information, please contact :

Francesc Ferrer, Press Officer, Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

Tel.+33 (0)6 30 49 68 22 (mobile)

Urdur Gunnarsdottir, ODIHR Spokesperson, Press and Public Information Adviser

Tel.+48-22 520 06 00 ext. 4162 ; mobile +48-603 683 122 ; Fax+48-22 520 06 05

E-mail:[email protected]

Jan Jooren, Counsellor, International Secretariat of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly

Tel.+45 40 41 16 41 (mobile) or +45 33 37 80 40 ; Fax +45 33 37 80 30

E-mail: [email protected]

Tim Boden, Co-ordinator, European Parliament Secretariat

Tel.+32 475 35 19 48 (mobile)

Ref. 544a(03)