In its final report on the observation of the 26 October parliamentary elections in Georgia, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) said the elections were generally “well-administered”, but took place amidst “serious concerns” about the impact of recently adopted legislation on fundamental freedoms and civil society, steps to diminish the independence of institutions involved in the election process, and pressure on voters, “which combined with election day practices compromised the ability of some voters to cast their vote without fear of retribution.” The report also stresses the lack of post-election legal remedies.
Preparations for the elections were “well managed”, according to the report. However, a plethora of deficiencies are mentioned throughout the document, both before, on the day of and after the elections. The report notes the uneven level playing field stating: “The ruling party held a significant financial advantage over its competitors in terms of state funding, private donations, and campaign spending.”
“Contestants were generally able to campaign freely”, the report says. However, it says that on election day frequent compromises to the secrecy of the vote, several procedural inconsistencies, and reports of pressure and intimidation, including through the recording of the process, negatively impacted public trust in the process, ODIHR notes.
In addition to fear of retribution, especially among public sector employees and the economically vulnerable citizens, the repot says that “in numerous cases, 24 per cent of observations, vote secrecy was potentially compromised due to the manner of ballot insertion into ballot boxes, inadequate polling station layouts, and marks visible on the back of ballots.”
The document notes that the “ruling party representatives frequently video-recorded the voting process, which may have had an intimidating effect on voters.”
ODIHR states that “the counting process revealed procedural omissions, including improper handling of unused ballots, failure to announce votes aloud, and inconsistencies in determining ballot validity. Handling of results protocols at District Election Commissions (DECs) was inconsistent.”
Following the release of preliminary results, the opposition rejected the outcome, citing irregularities such as voter intimidation, vote buying, and alleged foreign interference. ODIHR notes that in the days following the elections, citizen observer organizations and the opposition claimed that these irregularities pointed to coordinated manipulation, while the government, the ruling party, and the CEC denied these claims.
The report notes that “over 1,200 complaints were filed by parties and observer organizations, but most were dismissed by DECs after limited investigation, with courts upholding the majority of these decisions following minimal scrutiny of the cases.” Furthermore, the report says, appeals against electoral results submitted to the CEC, courts, and the Constitutional Court were also dismissed.
The document states: “Overall, the handling of post-election day complaints by election commissions and courts undermined the right to due process, failed to provide an effective remedy, and did not comprehensively address widespread concerns about the integrity of election results.”
In its assessment of post-election developments and complaints, ODIHR found also that “the forcible suppression of protests and numerous arrests caused grave concerns about compliance with international commitments to freedom of peaceful assembly.”
The official press release of the organization quotes Eoghan Murphy, who headed ODIHR’s 2024 election observation mission to Georgia who said: “Numerous issues noted in our final report negatively impacted the integrity of these elections and eroded public trust in the process. To safeguard the democratic principles currently at stake in Georgia, it is imperative that the authorities urgently address all concerns.”
Priority Recommendations
According to the document the priority recommendations by the organization include preventing voter intimidation, pressure on public employees, vote buying, and electoral violence; undertaking a comprehensive legislative review to align the legal framework with international standards; revising the appointment process for election commission members to prevent dominance by any single political party and fully ensure efficiency; developing clear regulations for political finance oversight; introducing measures to ensure the independence of the media regulatory body; ensuring efficiency and transparency in election dispute resolution; allowing for citizen observers to operate without pressure or intimidation; and guaranteeing vote secrecy through procedural safeguards.
ODIHR notes that “in line with its mandate, ODIHR does not recognize or endorse elections. Instead, ODIHR provides a comprehensive and impartial assessment of the electoral process based on universal principles, international obligations, and the commitments to hold democratic elections made by all OSCE states.
ODIHR says it “stands ready to assist in addressing immediate post-election concerns and working to improve future elections by addressing the recommendations contained in this and previous reports, including through a comprehensive review of the electoral legislation.”
More to follow…