Observation of the parliamentary elections in Georgia (1 October 2012)
Election observation report
| Doc. 13068
| 29 November 2012
- Author(s):
- Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau
- Rapporteur :
- Mr Luca VOLONTÈ,
Italy, EPP/CD
- Thesaurus
1 Introduction
1. Following an invitation by Mr Grigol Vashadze, Minister
of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, the Bureau of the Assembly decided,
at its meeting on 25 June 2012, to set up an ad hoc committee to
observe the parliamentary elections in Georgia, that were scheduled
for autumn 2012. I was appointed chairperson and rapporteur of this ad
hoc committee.
2. In order to underscore the interlinkage between the Assembly’s
monitoring procedure and the observation of elections, the Bureau
decided to appoint the two co-rapporteurs for Georgia as ex officio members of the ad hoc
committee.
3. On 4 October 2004, a co-operation agreement was signed between
the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (“Venice Commission”). In conformity with Article 15
of the agreement: “When the Bureau of the Assembly decides to observe
an election in a country in which electoral legislation was previously
examined by the Venice Commission, one of the rapporteurs of theVenice Commission on this issue
may be invited to join the Assembly's election observation mission
as legal adviser”, the Bureau of the Assembly invited an expert
from the Venice Commission to join the ad hoc Committee as advisor.
4. At its meetings on 29 June and 3 September 2012, the Bureau
of the Assembly took note of the composition of the ad hoc committee
(see Appendix 1). In accordance with Article 15 of the co-operation agreement,
Mr Manuel González Oropeza and Mr Gaël Martin-Micallef were invited
to join the ad hoc committee as legal advisers.
5. The ad hoc committee observed the elections as part of the
International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), which also included
delegations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the European Parliament,
the Parliamentary Assembly of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(NATO) and the Election Observation Mission of the Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE (OSCE/ODIHR).
6. The ad hoc committee met in Tbilisi from 29 September to 2
October 2012 and held meetings with, interalia, representatives of all parties
competing in these elections, the Chairperson of the Central Election Commission
(CEC), the Chairperson of the Voters' List Verification Commission,
the Head of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Free and Fair Elections,
the Head of the Election Observation Mission of the OSCE/ODIHR and his
staff, as well as representatives of civil society and the mass
media. The programme of the meetings of the ad hoc committee is
reproduced in Appendix 4.
7. On election day, the ad hoc committee split into 13 teams
which observed the elections in and around Tbilisi, Gori, Mtskheta,
Kaspi, Rustavi, Gardabani, Sagarejo and Dusheti.
8. In order to draw up an assessment of the electoral campaign
and political climate in the run-up to the elections, the Bureau
sent a pre-electoral mission to Georgia from 11 to 12 September
2012. The cross-party pre-electoral delegation consisted of Mr Luca
Volontè (Italy, EPP/CD), Chairperson of the ad hoc committee and
Head of Delegation, Ms Merixtell Mateu Pi (Andorra, ALDE), Mr Christopher
Chope (United Kingdom, EDG), as well as Mr Boriss Cilevičs (Latvia,
SOC) and Mr Michael Aastrup Jensen (Denmark, ALDE), who are the
co-rapporteurs of the Assembly in respect of Georgia. In Tbilisi,
the pre-electoral delegation met with, inter alia,
the President of Georgia, the Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia,
the Chairperson of the Central Election Commission, the Chairperson
of the Voters' List Verification Commission, the Head of the Inter-Agency
Task Force on Free and Fair Elections, the Chairperson and members
of the Georgian Delegation to the Assembly, the leaders of all parties
competing in the elections, representatives of the international community
in Georgia, as well as representatives of the mass media and civil
society. The programme of the mission and the statement issued by
the pre-electoral delegation at the end of the visit are reproduced
in Appendices 2 and 3.
9. In its statement of preliminary findings and conclusions,
issued on the day after the election, the IEOM concluded that the
parliamentary elections on 1 October “marked an important step in
consolidating the conduct of democratic elections, although certain
key issues remain to be addressed”. The press release of the IEOM
is reproduced in Appendix 5.
10. The ad hoc committee wishes to thank the Parliament of Georgia,
the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission and the Head of the
Council of Europe Office in Tbilisi and her staff for their co-operation and
the support provided to it.
2 Political
context
11. The parliamentary elections on 1 October 2012 took
place at a crucial moment in Georgia’s political development. Therefore,
these elections were seen by many interlocutors, including the Assembly,
as a litmus test for the country to confirm its commitment to democratic
values and principles.
12. On 15 October 2010, the Georgian Parliament adopted a new
constitution. This constitution considerably changed the division
of powers in the country. It moved Georgia from a presidential system
to a mixed presidential-parliamentary system, where the executive
power is mainly in the hands of the government, which is appointed
by and solely accountable to the parliament. The President of the
country, while remaining a powerful office, is transformed into
guarantor of unity and national independence, as well as a neutral
arbiter between State institutions.
13. The constitutional provisions that redefine the balance of
power will come into effect only after the next presidential election,
which is foreseen for autumn 2013. The enlarged role and increased
powers of the parliament in the new constitutional set-up made these
parliamentary elections crucially important for the future political
direction of the country.
14. The incumbent President Saakashvili, who has led the country
since the Rose Revolution, is barred from standing in the next presidential
election due to a constitutional consecutive two-term limit. President Saakashvili
and his party, the United National Movement (UNM), have dominated
the political environment since the Rose Revolution. These parliamentary
elections were seen as a dry run for the presidential election and
an occasion to clarify the future role of the President in his country
and party after he retires from the presidency.
15. The political environment in Georgia changed drastically on
5 October 2011, when Mr Bidzina Ivanishvili entered the political
arena by announcing that he would stand in the parliamentary and
presidential elections in opposition to President Saakashvili and
the United National Movement.
16. Mr Ivanishvili is a Georgian billionaire who made his fortune
in Russia in the nineties. Before announcing his intention to enter
politics, Mr Ivanishvili had stayed out of the political limelight
and was mostly known for his philanthropic work in Georgia. He returned
from Russia to Georgia in 2004, following the Rose Revolution. He
was initially considered an ally of President Saakashvili. Mr Ivanishvili
broke with Mr Saakashvili reportedly over the declaration of the
state of emergency following the popular protest in November 2007,
as well as over Mr Saakashvili’s handling of the consequences of
the 2008 war with Russia.
17. Until Mr Ivanishvili’s entry into politics, the political
playing field was characterised by the de
facto dominance of the United National Movement over
the media and economic resources. This situation changed due to
Mr Ivanishvili’s considerable private wealth. As a result, the United
National Movement for the first time faced a serious challenge to
its power in these elections.
18. The reaction of the authorities to the entry of Mr Ivanishvili
into politics gave rise to controversy. On 11 October 2011, the
authorities revoked Mr Ivanishvili’s Georgian citizenship
Note on
the grounds that he had obtained French citizenship after obtaining
Georgian citizenship.
Note As, at that time, only
Georgian citizens could run for parliament and found political parties,
the revocation of Mr Ivanishvili’s citizenship was widely seen as an
attempt by the authorities to prevent him from standing in the elections.
19. On 18 October, criminal charges of money laundering were filed
against Mr Ivanishvili’s Cartu Bank. These charges were controversial
and led to allegations of abuse of the judiciary for political purposes.
20. At the same time, Mr Ivanishvili made repeated statements
that indicated that he would use his private wealth without limitation
to defeat the governing party. This raised questions and concerns
about how far private economic means should be allowed to affect
or determine the outcome of an election without undermining its
democratic character.
21. In response to the increased tension, and under pressure from
its international partners to resolve the issue of Mr Ivanishvili’s
citizenship, the Parliament of Georgia, on 22 May 2012, adopted
a constitutional amendment that allows Georgian-born European Union
citizens to stand in parliamentary and presidential elections. Mr Ivanishvili
denounced these amendments as being written for the sake of one
person and refused to make use of this amendment in the elections.
3 Legal context
22. These elections were governed by the Election Code,
the Law on Political Unions of Citizens, the Law on the State Audit
Office, as well as provisions in the constitution and Criminal Code.
23. On 27 December 2011, the Parliament of Georgia adopted a new
unified election code. This election code resulted from an elaborate
negotiation process that started immediately after the local elections
in 2010. Following a proposal for electoral reform by eight opposition
parties, an Electoral Working Group was established on the initiative
of the authorities. While the parties in the working group agreed
on most issues, consensus could not be reached on some key issues,
most notably the election system itself, as well as the threshold
for the majoritarian races.
Note
24. The Georgian authorities requested the Venice Commission’s
opinion on the draft election code. In their joint opinion
Note on
this draft, the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR noted that
the proposed election code addressed many recommendations made with
regard to previous electoral legislation. The Venice Commission
therefore concluded that the new code could be conducive to the
conduct of democratic elections. At the same time, the joint opinion
also underscored that a number of key recommendations and shortcomings were
left unaddressed.
25. In a positive development, the new election code, for the
first time, allows independent candidates to be registered for the
majoritarian elections. In addition, prisoners, with the exception
of those convicted for a grave crime and sentenced to more than
five years in prison, have been given the right to vote in the elections.
26. The joint opinion of the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR
was based on the draft election code as transmitted by the authorities
on 8 December 2011. However, during the first and second reading
of this draft law, on 20 and 23 December 2011 respectively, a number
of amendments were introduced and adopted. These amendments were
taken into consideration in the assessment of the election code.
27. The amendments adopted on 20 and 23 December 2011, inter alia, reduce the residency
and age requirements for candidates as well as the number of signatures
needed to support individual candidacies. In addition, they reintroduced
the inking of voters’ fingers – which had been abolished in the
first draft of the law – and extended the deadline for the checking
of the voters’ lists. Moreover, parties and blocs that cleared the threshold
would automatically get at least six seats in parliament, which
is the number of seats necessary to establish a political faction
in the parliament. A number of amendments were also adopted that
had as their sole aim to allow Mr Ivanishvili to run in these elections
despite the loss of his Georgian citizenship.
28. The fact that the authorities, following recommendations of inter alia the Assembly, decided
to draft a completely new election code and not to amend further
the already heavily amended existing election code is to be welcomed.
This totally new code greatly improved the internal coherence of
the electoral legislation for these elections.
29. Regrettably, a key issue that was left unaddressed is the
variation in the size of the majoritarian election districts. The
Venice Commission, as well as the Assembly, strongly criticised
the difference in size of the majoritarian constituencies in Georgia.
The difference exceeds by far the maximum allowable variance of
10% to 15%
Note and
is in contradiction with the principle of the equal weight of each
vote. The new election code does not address this shortcoming and
is therefore at odds with European standards. The argument that
the current district boundaries are needed to ensure that regional
minorities are represented in parliament does not hold sway. Far
better mechanisms exist to ensure minority representation in a parliament
and which are in line with European democratic standards.
30. A number of other concerns also remain, including the possibility
for parties to be disqualified from taking their seats for serious
campaign violations or for elected candidates not to be sworn in
for failing to pass the mandatory drug test for members of parliament.
31. Previous observation reports expressed concern about the lack
of a comprehensive regulatory framework for party and campaign financing.
In response, the Georgian authorities prepared a set of amendments
to the Law on the Political Union of Citizens. The authorities sent
these draft amendments to the Venice Commission for opinion.
Note However,
during the debate on these amendments in the Georgian Parliament,
on 28 December 2011, the proposed amendments were considerably changed
and additional amendments were introduced. These changes were not
assessed by the Venice Commission.
32. These amendments, for the first time, provided a detailed
framework for party and campaign financing, which is to be welcomed.
However, a number of provisions are ambiguous, overly broad and
inconsistent. Many of the last-minute amendments of 28 December
2011 seem to have been introduced with the aim of preventing Mr
Ivanishvili from using his private wealth to finance his party and
its campaign.
33. The law gives the State Audit Organisation
Note broad discretionary powers to control
and enforce the legal provisions with regard to campaign financing.
34. The Law on the Political Union of Citizens, as amended, extends
the regulatory framework for political party financing to organisations
and individuals with “electoral goals”; these provisions were highly controversial
and caused an outcry among civil society and media organisations,
which feared that the ambiguity of the law would lead to inconsistent
and selective application. These non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) started a campaign to change these provisions under the slogan
“It affects you too”.
35. Mr Maina Kiai, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the
rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, criticised
these amendments and expressed his concern that they would create
an uneven playing field and would restrict the civil-political activities
of civil society organisations.
36. On 8 May 2012, the Parliament of Georgia passed a number of
amendments to the Law on the Political Union of Citizens that, inter alia, narrow the range of
entities and individuals that are covered by the party and campaign
financing provisions and allows the State Audit Office to propose
lower fines for violations. However, concerns about the law’s ambiguity
and possibility for selective and inconsistent application remain.
4 Election system
37. The Georgian Parliament is elected via a mixed proportional-majoritarian
election system. The Georgian parliament has in total 150 members.
Of these, 77 are elected in proportional elections and 73 in single- mandate
majoritarian constituencies.
38. The proportional part of the elections takes place on the
basis of closed party lists in a single national constituency with
a 5% threshold to enter the parliament. Parties that pass the 5%
threshold receive a minimum of six seats
Note in
parliament, irrespective of the number of votes obtained.
39. In the majoritarian elections, the winning candidate must
obtain at least 30% of the votes to be elected. If none of the candidates
obtains more than 30% of the votes, a second round is organised
between the two candidates who received the most votes in the first
round. In a welcome development – following recommendations of inter alia the Assembly – independent
candidates were allowed to participate in the majoritarian races.
5 Candidate and voter
registration
40. All Georgian citizens of 18 years and over enjoy
full active and passive voting rights. Following a constitutional
amendment, adopted on 22 may 2012, Georgian-born European Union
citizens are also given, until 1 January 2014, full active and passive
voting rights. Persons sentenced to more than five years’ imprisonment
for a serious crime, as well as persons declared incompetent by
a court, have their voting rights – active and passive – revoked.
41. According to the new election code, the compilation and verification
of the voters’ list is the responsibility of the newly created “Commission
for Ensuring the Voters’ List Accuracy”. This commission is composed
of representatives of both the ruling majority and the opposition,
as well as representatives of civil society organisations. By law,
this commission is chaired by a member of the opposition.
42. The Commission for Ensuring the Voters’ List Accuracy organised
a door-to-door verification programme. While structural problems,
such as the absence of a uniform address system, hamper the overall quality
of the voters’ list, all political stakeholders agreed that the
work of the commission had greatly improved the quality of the voters’
list and public trust in it. This bipartisan effort was strongly
welcomed by the pre-electoral delegation of the Assembly’s ad hoc
committee to observe these elections.
43. In total 3 613 851 people were registered to vote in these
elections.
44. Georgian citizens living abroad could vote in the proportional
part of these elections. In order to vote, they needed to register
specifically for these elections in a Georgian consular office.
There was some confusion about this registration process as the
requirement to give a legal address was interpreted as the need
to be a legal resident in the country where the person wanted to
vote. Following criticism from civil society organisations and opposition
parties, the registration deadline was extended by three days. The
largest Georgian community abroad resides in Russia. There have
been no diplomatic relations between Russia and Georgia since the
2008 war between the two countries. Regrettably, Georgian citizens
residing in Russia were therefore disfranchised for these elections.
45. In order to participate in the proportional part of the election,
all political parties must register with the Central Election Commission
(CEC). Parliamentary parties as well as qualifying parties
Note must
obtain 1 000 supporting signatures, while non-qualifying parties
need to provide 25 000 signatures to be registered for the proportional
component of the elections.
46. A candidate in a single mandate constituency should be nominated
by an initiative group of at least five persons. In order to register,
the candidate must provide an electoral deposit of GEL 5 000
Note and provide supporting signatures of at
least 1% of the registered voters in that constituency. Incumbent
members of parliament do not have to provide supporting signatures.
A person may be both included on the party list for the proportional
elections and nominated as a candidate in a single-mandate constituency.
47. Eight political parties and two election blocs
Note were
registered for these elections. In total, they registered 2 313
candidates for the proportional elections and 425 majoritarian candidates.
In addition, four independent candidates were registered in four
single-mandate constituencies.
48. Following a public outcry after the publishing of videos documenting
the abuse and torture of prisoners in a Georgian prison, a number
of opposition candidates in single-mandate constituencies withdrew
in favour of Georgian Dream candidates.
49. Georgian Dream had expected that it could use the number that
had been assigned previously to one of its constituent parties for
its list. However, the CEC attributed a new number to the Georgian
Dream list in line with the election code and consistent with its
decisions on similar cases during previous elections. Georgian Dream
had already prepared campaign material with the number it had expected
to get and protested against the decision. However, they did not
appeal against the CEC decision before the courts.
50. According to the election code, parties that include two female
candidates in every ten positions on their party list, are entitled
to a 10% higher subsidy from the State budget. Neither of the two
main contenders in these elections, the United National Movement
and Georgian Dream, fulfilled this voluntary quota.
6 Election administration
51. These elections were administered by a three-tiered
election administration consisting of the Central Election Commission
(CEC), 73 District Election Commissions (DECs) and 3 648 Precinct
Election Commissions (PECs). In addition, the CEC established 71
special polling stations in hospitals, military bases, prisons and
detention centres, as well as 41 polling stations in consular representations
abroad. Two polling stations were established for Georgian troops
serving in the NATO mission in Afghanistan.
52. As prescribed by the election code, all election commissions
are composed of 13 members. Seven of these members are nominated
by qualifying
Note political
parties. For the CEC, the chairperson and the five remaining members
are appointed by the parliament. For the DECs and PECs, the remaining
six members are appointed by the higher level election commissions.
As a result of this appointment formula, the UNM had a
de facto majority on all election
commissions.
53. Contrary to previous elections, the CEC had no responsibility
for ensuring the accuracy of the voters’ list and for the monitoring
of the media or of stakeholders’ compliance with the relevant campaign
financing regulations.
54. By all accounts, the CEC administered these elections in a
transparent, inclusive and efficient manner. As a result, it enjoyed
a very high level of trust among most stakeholders in these elections.
55. There was some controversy around the establishment of 27
polling stations in the barracks of the security forces. Opposition
parties alleged that polling stations would be used to distort the
outcome in majoritarian races in constituencies where the ruling
majority was not performing well. In order to dispel these fears,
the Inter Agency Taskforce for Free and Fair Elections (IATF) recommended
that conscripts enlisted after 1 June 2012 should vote in their
regular polling station.
56. In order to ensure an efficient conduct of the vote in the
polling stations, as well as to respect voter privacy, the CEC adopted,
on 24 September 2012, a decree regulating, and limiting the use
of video and photographic cameras in polling stations. This decree
led to criticism by civil society as well as opposition parties,
who claimed that this would reduce the transparency of the vote.
During election day, we observed a great number of persons videotaping
all the proceedings during the vote and vote count. It was clear
to us that no undue limitations on the use of video and photographic
cameras were in place on election day.
7 Election campaign
and the media
57. As previously mentioned, the entry of Mr Ivanishvili’s
Georgian Dream Coalition into the election contest meant that for
the first time the ruling coalition was facing a serious challenge
to its power. This resulted in a very competitive, but regrettably
also a very tense and polarised campaign environment, which was characterised
by antagonistic and harsh campaign rhetoric, as well as instances
of violence between the supporters of both parties.
58. In this respect, a very constructive role was played by the
Inter Agency Taskforce for Free and Fair Elections. This task force,
which was led by the Secretary of the National Security Council,
Mr Giga Bokeria, was composed of, inter
alia, representatives of the Ministries of Internal Affairs,
Justice, Regional Development and Infrastructure, Finance and Foreign
Affairs, as well as of the National Security Council. Representatives
of election stakeholders and civil society participated in its work.
The task force, which was tasked with fostering co-operation between
the State agencies and electoral stakeholders, facilitated communication
between the authorities, the ruling majority and the opposition,
despite the polarised environment, and acted proactively to address
campaign violations or perceptions thereof. As such, it played an
important role in defusing some of the tenser moments during the
election campaign.
59. The campaign centred mostly on issues of abuse of administrative
resources and the advantages of incumbency by the ruling party and
on the abuse of private financial resources by opposition leaders.
These allegations and mutual incriminations overshadowed the debate
on political platforms and preferences.
60. All parties campaigned actively during the campaign period,
during which the principles of freedom of assembly, association
and expression were respected, despite some isolated individual
incidents. Active civil participation added to the vibrancy of the
campaign environment.
61. The abuse of administrative resources continued to be an issue
during these elections, including allegations of pressure on civil
servants and opposition activists. International observers noted
that the distinction between State and the ruling party was often
blurred. Local civil society organisations played an important watchdog
function in this respect. In a number of cases, the IATF made recommendations
to address both proven cases and allegations of misuse of administrative
resources.
62. The issue of campaign and political party financing also overshadowed
the electoral campaign. As mentioned above, the Law on the Political
Union of Citizens gives the State Audit Service very wide discretionary
powers to investigate possible violations of campaign financing
provisions. The State Audit Service initiated a large number of
investigations into donations made to the Georgian Dream coalition,
often for as little as 100 GEL.
Note In
contrast, only 10 investigations were initiated into donations received
by the United National Movement, most of them only after international
organisations had raised the issue of the impartiality of the State
Audit Service. In a prominent case, the free distribution of satellite
dishes by a company belonging to Mr Ivanishvili was considered to
be illegal campaign financing and vote buying and Mr Ivanishvili
was fined 148 million GEL (approximately 75 million euros). This
fine was later reduced by half by decision of the court. The fact
that both the Head and Deputy Head of the State Audit Service stepped
down at the end of August 2012 in order to run as UNM candidates
in these elections, compounded the problem of the impartiality of
the State Audit Service during the election campaign.
63. The excessive and disproportionate fines, the questionable
impartiality of the State Audit Service, as well as questions with
regard to due process and the independence of the judiciary, led
to strong criticism by domestic and international observers. The
rapporteurs for Georgia of our Assembly’s Monitoring Committee issued
a statement expressing concern that the actions of the State Audit
Service were undermining the level playing field in the election
campaign. The statement of the rapporteurs is reproduced in Appendix
6. In response, the authorities decided not to levy during the campaign
period the fines handed down to the parties that make up the Georgian
Dream coalition. This decision was welcomed by the pre-electoral
delegation of the ad hoc committee, which also called on all contestants
to fully abide by the electoral and campaign financing legislation.
64. The campaign environment changed drastically on 18 September
2012, when videos were aired on television that showed abuse and
torture of prisoners in a Georgian prison. This led to a public
outcry and demonstrations all over the country. Two government ministers
resigned immediately and the authorities promised to punish those
responsible to the fullest extent of the law. This scandal nevertheless
galvanised criticism of the authorities and appeared to negatively
affect the position of the ruling party in the final weeks of the
election campaign.
65. Throughout the campaign, there were reports of arrests and
detention of political activists, mainly from the side of the opposition.
This led to allegations of abuse by law enforcement agencies for
political purposes. In order to calm the tensions, the IATF called
upon law enforcement agencies to use, whenever possible, sanctions
less severe than arrest and administrative detention.
66. Television is by far the most important source of news in
Georgia. While there is a diverse media environment, only two private
channels – both seen as supporting the authorities – have nationwide
coverage.
67. The coverage of other private broadcasters that are seen as
more sympathetic to the opposition is limited to Tbilisi and the
cable and satellite networks. Initiatives by these channels to increase
their coverage by means of the distribution of free satellite dishes
was seen as illegal campaign financing and vote buying. As a result,
the satellite dishes were impounded by the Georgian courts. Negotiations
between the authorities and one of these broadcasters,
Note with
the aim of finding a way to distribute these dishes in a mutually acceptable
manner before polling day regrettably did not lead to any results.
68. Confirming the positive trend noticed during the previous
local elections, the public broadcaster, which also has nationwide
coverage, offered balanced and impartial coverage of the election
campaign, in line with its function as a public service.
69. The NGO community and several media lobbying groups launched
the “Must Carry, Must Offer” initiative. This initiative called
on the authorities to adopt provisions that would oblige cable networks
and satellite providers to include in their network packages all
media outlets that have a satellite broadcasting licence and a market
share of 20% or more. In June 2012, the authorities dropped their
opposition to this initiative and made the necessary changes to
the election code. Regrettably, the “Must Carry, Must Offer” provisions
were only mandatory until election day. However, in a welcome move,
most broadcasters continued to abide by these provisions on election
day and in its aftermath.
70. In a welcome development, a number of debates were organised
between all the parties and their candidates. Regrettably, Mr Ivanishvili
declined to participate in a debate between the leaders of the parties participating
in these elections.
71. Print and internet media together provided a diverse and wide
ranging set of views. However, their outreach outside of the main
cities was limited.
8 Election day, vote
count and results
72. The vote took place in a well organised and calm
manner. A large number of observers and party proxies were present
in all polling stations. This increased the transparency of the
process, but led to overcrowding in a number of PECs. Reportedly,
this overcrowding, as well as the large number of supporters of
all parties present around many polling stations, occasionally led
to some tensions.
73. The voter turnout was 61%. It should be noted that this is
the turnout based on all registered voters on the voters’ list,
which included persons temporarily residing outside Georgia. The
real turnout of voters living in Georgia was therefore considerably
higher.
74. Overall, the vote count took place in line with legal procedures
in most places, but was less positively assessed by international
observers than the conduct of the vote, especially in the regions.
In the regions, a number of isolated incidents took place during
the vote count and pressure was exerted on party proxies and observers.
These incidents led one reputable domestic observer organisation,
ISFED, to withdraw its observers from several polling stations out
of concern for their safety. As a result of these incidents, the
CEC cancelled the result in 12 polling stations where the vote count
had been compromised and ballot stuffing seemed to have occurred.
75. On 2 October 2012, the CEC published the preliminary results
of these elections. According to these preliminary results, the
Georgian Dream coalition won the proportional elections with 54.9%
(44 seats) of the votes, while the United National Movement obtained
40.3% (33 seats) of the vote. None of the other political parties
participating in these elections passed the 5% threshold necessary
to enter parliament. In the majoritarian races, Georgian Dream initially
won 38 of the majoritarian seats, while the United National Movement
won 32 seats. Following the re-run of the majoritarian races, on
14 October 2012, in the polling stations where the results had been
cancelled by the CEC, three additional seats were gained by the
Georgian Dream coalition. In total, Georgian Dream won 85 of the
150 seats in parliament and the United National Movement won 65.
76. Immediately after the preliminary results were published,
President Saakashvili conceded defeat and announced that his party
would go into opposition in the new parliament. He furthermore pledged
to facilitate a peaceful handover of power between the outgoing
UNM and incoming Georgian Dream governments. He appointed a special
team of high-level UNM representatives to work with counterparts
from the Georgian Dream Coalition in order to ensure an efficient
handover of power.
77. 77. On 10 October 2012, President Saakashvili accepted the
resignation of the UNM government. In line with constitutional requirements
and deadlines, on 17 October 2012, he appointed Mr Ivanishvili as
the new Prime Minister. The latter had 10 days to select his ministerial
candidates in agreement with the President. The President then had
three days to submit this government to the parliament for confirmation.
The cabinet needs to be confirmed by a majority of the total number
of members of parliament (76 votes).
78. Mr Ivanishvili already announced his selection of government
ministers on 16 October 2012. The new parliament was convened on
21 October in the new parliament building in Kutaisi.
79. The Georgian Dream coalition had announced that once in parliament
they would disband the coalition and that the member parties would
form individual factions. While this will increase the pluralism
of the newly elected parliament, it is to be hoped that it will
not undermine the ability of the new government to act efficiently and
in unison.
80. On 16 October 2012, President Saakashvili restored Mr Ivanishvili’s
Georgian citizenship on the ground of “national interest”.
81. During the inaugural session of the new parliament, six parliamentarian
factions were formed. As announced before the elections, the Georgian
Dream coalition divided itself into three factions.
Note The
UNM members also divided themselves into three factions
Note while
five members elected in single-mandate constituencies on the UNM
ticket declined to join any faction, On 29 October 2012, one more
member left the UNM faction and declared himself independent. On
6 November 2012, these self-declared independent members formed
a new parliamentary faction. Parliamentary factions enjoy a number
of privileges, including reserved seats on committees, parliamentary
delegations and ad hoc investigation commissions as well as additional
speaking time during parliamentary debates.
82. On 21 October 2012, the new parliament elected Mr Davit Usupashvili
(Republican Party) as its new President.
83. On 25 October 2012, the parliament confirmed Mr Ivanishvili
as the new Prime Minister and confirmed the members of his cabinet
as well as the new government’s programme.
9 Conclusions
84. The parliamentary elections of 1 October 2012, despite
a polarised and tense election campaign in which serious shortcomings
were observed, were generally conducted in a democratic manner in
line with European standards and Council of Europe commitments.
Many of Georgia’s partners, including the Assembly, considered the
parliamentary elections a litmus test for its commitment to democratic
values and principles. These elections therefore marked an important
step in consolidating the conduct of democratic elections in line with
international standards.
85. As a result of these elections, a new government has been
formed and the former ruling majority will enter into opposition
in the new parliament. This is the first time that the political
power in Georgia has changed hands peacefully via the ballot box.
This is an enormous achievement and an example for the region. The prompt
concession of defeat by President Saakashvili and his constructive
approach in order to facilitate the handover of power shows great
statesmanship and should be lauded.
86. The new government will find a parliament with a strong and
well-organised opposition. This should ensure a proper system of
strong checks and balances in the governance of the country. At
the same time, the ruling coalition has a comfortable majority in
the parliament, but lacks a constitutional majority. It will therefore need
to build a constructive relationship with the opposition, if it
is to be successful in implementing some of the reforms that were
part of its election programme. These factors will strengthen the
role of the parliament and political debate in the country. This
is to be warmly welcomed.
87. The election campaign was harsh and antagonistic. For the
democratic development of the country, it is now important for all
political actors to overcome such polarisation and stigmatisation
of the other as the enemy and to work together in a constructive
fashion.
88. These elections, and especially the pre-electoral period,
highlighted a number of shortcomings that still exist in the electoral
legislation. The newly elected parliament should amend the election
code to address the shortcomings observed. Given that the presidential
election will take place in autumn 2013, this should be done without
further delay.
89. A key democratic deficit of the election code is the continuing
excessive difference in the size of the majoritarian constituencies
which exceeds by far the maximum allowable variance of 10% to 15%.
This runs counter to European standards and is unacceptable. This
should be addressed as a priority. The genuine possibility that
different parties could have won the majoritarian and proportional
races with a considerable majority as a result of these unequal
district sizes underscores the seriousness of this problem.
90. In addition to the election code, a number of provisions in
the Law on the Political Union of Citizens and their implementation,
especially in relation to campaign and party financing, proved to
be problematic during the pre-electoral period. The incoming parliament
and authorities should address the shortcomings noted. The authorities
should seek close co-operation with the Venice Commission on this
subject so as to ensure that all provisions of that law are fully
in line with European standards and principles.
91. The ad hoc committee invites the Monitoring Committee to follow
closely the implementation by the Georgian authorities and Parliament
of the recommendations in this report in the framework of its monitoring procedure
in respect of the country.
Appendix 1 – Composition
of the ad hoc committee
Based on proposals by the political groups
in the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Luca VOLONTÈ, Head of the Delegation
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Jean-Marie
BOCKEL, France
- Lolita CIGANE, Latvia
- Renato FARINA, Italy
- Bogdan KLICH, Poland
- Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Latvia
- Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN, Sweden
- Yves POZZO di BORGO, France
- Giuseppe SARO, Italy
- Luigi VITALI, Italy
- Luca VOLONTÈ, Italy
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Lennart AXELSSON, Sweden
- Stefan SCHENNACH, Austria
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- André
BUGNON, Switzerland
- Paolo GIARETTA, Italy
- Merixtell MATEU PI, Andorra
- Andrea RIGONI, Italy
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Christopher CHOPE, United Kingdom
- Sir Roger GALE, United Kingdom
- Ganira PASHAYEVA, Azerbaijan
- Co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- Boriss
CILEVIČS, SOC, Latvia
- Michael Aastrup JENSEN, ALDE, Denmark
- Venice Commission
- Manuel GONZALEZ OROPEZA, Mexico
- Secretariat
- Bas KLEIN, Monitoring Committee
- Bogdan TORCATORIU, Interparliamentary co-operation and
Election Observation Unit
- Franck DAESCHLER, Interparliamentary co-operation and
Election Observation Unit
- Gael MARTIN-MICALLEF, Venice Commission
- Nathalie BARGELLINI, Press Officer
The pre-electoral mission was composed of five members, one
from each political group in the Assembly:
- Luca VOLONTÈ, Head of the Delegation
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Merixtell
MATEU PI, Andorra
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Christopher CHOPE, United Kingdom
- Co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- Boriss
CILEVIČS, SOC, Latvia
- Michael Aastrup JENSEN, ALDE, Denmark
- Secretariat
- Bas KLEIN, Monitoring Committee
- Bogdan TORCATORIU, Interparliamentary co-operation and
Election Observation Division
- Franck DAESCHLER, Interparliamentary co-operation and
Election Observation Division
- Gaël MARTIN-MICALLEF, Venice Commission
- Nathalie BARGELLINI, Press Officer
Appendix 2 – Programme of
the pre-electoral mission (Tbilisi, 11-12 September 2012)
Tuesday
11 September 2012
9:30-10:00 Delegation meeting
10:30-11:00 Briefing by Ms Caterina Bolognese, Head of the
Council of Europe Office in Georgia
11:00-12:00 Meeting with Mr Nikolai Vulchanov, Head of the
OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission and his staff
12:00-13:00 Meeting with representatives of the ambassadorial
working group
15:00-16:00 Meeting with representatives of civil society:
- Ms Eka Gigauri, Head of Transparency
International Georgia
- Ms Nino Lomjaria, Head of the International Society for
Fair Elections and Democracy
- Ms Tamar Chugoshvili, Head of the Georgian Young Lawyers’
Association
- Ms Keti Chachava, Head of New Generation New Initiative
- Mr Irakli Melashvili, Head of Freedom of Choice
16:00-17:00 Meeting with media representatives:
- Mr Zviad Koridze, Media expert
- Mr David Paichadze, Journalist at GPB
- Mr Kakha Bekauri, Head of TV 9
- Ms Maia Tabagari, Maestro TV
- Mr Levan Gakheladze, Head of the Board of the Georgian
Public Broadcaster
- Ms Ia Antadze, Media expert
- Ms Tamara Chergoleishvili, Editor-in-Chief, Tabula magazine
17:15-18:00 Meeting with Mr Zurab Kharatishvili, Chairperson
of the Central Electoral Commission and Ms Ekaterine Azarashvili,
Head of the International Relations Division of the CEC
18:00-18:45 Meeting with Mr Mamuka Katsikadze, Chairperson
of the Voters' List Verification Commission
20:00 Working dinner hosted by the Georgian Delegation to
the Parliamentary Assembly
Wednesday 12 September 2012
9:00-10:00 Meeting with representatives of the Georgian Dream
Coalition
10:15-10:45 Meeting with Mr George Tugushi, Public Defender
of Georgia
10:50 -12:20 Meeting with representatives of parties running
in the elections:
- Christian
Democratic Movement
- New Rights
- Labor Party
12:30-13:30 Meeting with
Mr David Bakradze, Speaker of the Parliament, and with representatives of
the United National Movement party
Afternoon Meeting with Mr Mikhail Saakashvili, President of
Georgia
Meeting with Mr Giga
Bokeria, Head of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Free and Fair Elections
19:30 Press conference
Appendix 3 – Statement of
the pre-electoral mission
Upcoming parliamentary
elections crucial for Georgia’s democratic development
Strasbourg, 12.09.2012 – The forthcoming parliamentary elections
in Georgia, on 1 October 2012, are crucial for Georgia’s democratic
development and will be a litmus test to confirm the country’s commitment
to democratic values and principles, said the pre-electoral delegation
(1) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)
that visited Tbilisi on 11 and 12 September 2012.
The pre-electoral delegation welcomed the competitive and
pluralist election environment, which will give the voter a real
choice between distinct alternatives on election day. However, the
delegation expressed its serious concern about the increasing polarisation
and antagonism in the pre-electoral environment, which is overshadowing
the election campaign. Parties should refrain from such negative
campaigning and focus on informing voters about their views and
party platforms, according to their proper duties and responsibilities.
Genuinely democratic elections need an open and inclusive
pre-electoral environment in which all parties have equal opportunities
to inform voters about their programmes and political priorities.
The authorities and all electoral stakeholders should therefore
take all necessary steps to ensure a constructive and inclusive campaign
environment and refrain from any action that would increase tensions
or undermine the full and equal participation of all parties in
the electoral process.
The delegation stresses the importance of an equal playing
field for all electoral contestants. It calls upon the authorities
to continue to step up their efforts to eradicate the abuse of administrative
resources. In addition, the delegation fully reaffirms the statement
made by PACE’s co-rapporteurs for Georgia regarding the fines levied
by the State Audit Service. In that respect the delegation welcomes
the decision by the authorities not to levy the fines against the
opposition parties that make up the Georgian Dream coalition. At
the same time the delegation calls upon all electoral contestants
to fully abide by the electoral legislation and stresses that perceived
injustices in the law are not, and cannot be, a justification for
breaking the law.
The mass media play a crucial role in the electoral process,
as they are often the primary source of information for voters to
acquaint themselves with the views of the parties contesting the
elections. Full and equal access of all parties to the media, as
well as impartial coverage by media outlets are therefore an essential
condition for democratic elections. In that regard, the delegation
welcomed the improvement in pluralism of the media environment as
a result of the “must offer, must carry” legislation. The delegation
notes that these provisions do not cover election day and the immediate
post-electoral period. It invites the authorities to consider extending
the period in which the “must offer, must carry” provisions are
mandatory and for media providers to consider voluntarily abiding
by these principles until the election process has been finalised.
At the same time, it notes that cable television is not widely spread
in a number of regions in Georgia. The delegation therefore calls
upon the authorities to explore all possibilities to improve media
access in those regions not covered by cable television.
The delegation noted the efficient technical preparations
for these elections as a result of the new Electoral Code. In this
respect it especially welcomed the work of the cross-party Voters'
List Verification Commission to improve the quality of the voters
list, which should contribute to increased public trust in the electoral
process and its outcome. This bi-partisan effort underlines the
possibilities for co-operation between opposition parties and ruling
party to improve the democratic process in the country.
The delegation welcomed the work of the Inter Agency Task
Force to increase public trust in the election process. Public trust
in the impartiality and fairness of the electoral process is essential
for democratic elections. All parties and state actors should therefore
take all possible steps to strengthen the public trust in the election
process and refrain from any action that could undermine it. For
the same reason, the delegation urges all election contestants not
to question the legitimacy of the election and its outcome before
the elections have even taken place.
The Assembly will return with a delegation to observe the
elections in Georgia on 1 October 2012.
Appendix 4 – Programme of
the observation of the parliamentary elections in Georgia (Tbilisi, 29 September-2
October 2012)
Saturday
29 September 2012
09:00 – 09:20 Opening by the Heads of Parliamentary Delegations
- Mr Tonino Picula, Special Co-ordinator
of the OSCE CiO, leader of the OSCE short-term observers, Head
of Delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
- Mr Luca Volontè, Head of Delegation of PACE
- Mr Milan Cabrnoch, Head of Delegation of the European
Parliament
- Mr Assen Agov, Head of Delegation of the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly
09:20 – 09:45 Political Background
- Ambassador Philip Dimitrov,
Head of the EU Delegation to Georgia
- Ms Caterina Bolognese, Head of the Council of Europe Office
in Georgia
- Mr William Lahue, NATO Liaison Officer in Georgia
09:45
– 10:30
Electoral Administration
- Mr Zurab Kharatishvili, Chairman
of the Central Election Commission
10:30 – 11:15 Meeting with Mr Giga Bokeria, Head of the Inter-Agency
Task Force on Free and Fair Elections
11:15 – 12:00 Meeting with Mr Mamuka Katsitadze, Chairman
of the Voters' List Verification Commission
12:00 – 12:45 Meeting with Mr Lasha Tordia, Chairman of the
State Audit Service
14:00 – 15:30 OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Core
Team:
- Ms Nikolai Vulchanov,
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission
- Ms Gaelle Deriaz, Legal Analyst
- Ms Ingrid Angela Grossinger, Political Analyst
- Mr Egor Tilpunov, Media Analyst
- Ms Elissavet Karagiannidou, Campaign Finance Analyst
- Ms Linda Edgeworth, Election Analyst
- Ms Robin Seaword, Security Expert
15:30
– 16:30 Round table with observer organisations:
- Ms Tamar Chugoshvili, Georgian
Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA)
- Ms Eka Gigauri, Transparency International, Georgia
- Ms Keti Chachava, New Generation New Initiative (NGNI)
- Mr Irakli Melashvili, Head of Freedom of Choice
16:30 – 17:30 Round table with NGO representatives (international
and Georgian):
- Mr Luis Navarro,
National Democratic Institute
- Ms Andrea Keerbs, International Republican Institute
- Mr Nermin Nisic, International Foundation for Electoral
Systems
- Ms Keti Khutsishvili, Open Society Georgia Foundation
17:30
– 18:30 Round table with media representatives:
- Mr David Paichadze, journalist
at GPB
- Mr Giorgi Chanturia, Director General of the Georgian
Public Broadcaster
- Mr Kakha Bekauri, Head of TV 9
- Ms Tamta Muradashvili, Legal Advisor, Rustavi 2
- Mr Ilia Kikibadze, Head of Maestro TV
- Mr David Kakabadze, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
- Mr Zviad Koridze, Media expert
- Ms Ia Antadze, Media expert
Sunday 30 September 2012
09:00 – 10:00 United National Movement: David Bakradze
10:00 – 11:00 Georgian Dream Coalition: Bidzina Ivanishvili
11:15 – 12:15 Meeting with representatives of opposition political
parties in parliament:
- Christian
Democrats: Giorgi Rukhadze/Levan Vepkhvadze
- Political Union “New Rights”: David Gamkrelidze
- Labour Party: Kakha Dzagania
12:15 –
13:15 Meeting with representatives of opposition parties not in
parliament:
- Free Georgia: Dimitri
Lortkipanidze
- National Democratic Party: Bachuki Kardava
- Freedom The way of Zviad Gamsakhurdia: Malkhaz Gorgaslidze
- Political Union Jondi Baghaturia–Georgian Group: Jondi
Baghaturia
- Peoples Party: Mamuka Giorgadze
- Merab Kostava Society: Vaja Adamia
13:15 – 13:45 OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Core
Team:
- Ms Linda Edgeworth, Election
Analyst
- Mr Anders Eriksson, Statistics Expert Election data observation
forms
13:45 – 13:50 Concluding remarks
13:50 Deployment
- Area
specific briefing conducted by OSCE/ODIHR long-term observer teams
- Meeting with interpreters and drivers
Monday 1 October 2012
Observation of opening, voting and vote count
Tuesday 2 October 2012
8:30 – 10:00 Debriefing on preliminary findings of the ad
hoc committee
14.30 Press conference
Appendix 5 – Georgia takes
important step in consolidating conduct of democratic elections,
but some key issues remain, election observers say
Strasbourg, 02.10.2012 – Georgia’s parliamentary
elections marked an important step in consolidating the conduct
of democratic elections, although certain key issues remain to be
addressed, concluded the international election observers in a statement
released today.
The elections were competitive, with active citizen participation
through the campaign, but the campaign environment was polarized
and tense, with some instances of violence. The campaign often centred
on the advantages of incumbency, on the one hand, and private financial
assets on the other, rather than on concrete political platforms
and programmes.
While freedoms of association, assembly and expression were
respected overall, instances of harassment and intimidation of party
activists and supporters negatively affected the campaign environment,
and often ended with detentions and fines of mostly opposition-affiliated
campaigners. This contributed to an atmosphere of distrust among
contestants, the statement said.
The election administration enjoyed a high level of confidence
and the Central Election Commission operated transparently, holding
frequent open meetings open to observers, party representatives
and media.
Election day was calm and peaceful throughout the country,
and international observers assessed all stages of the election
day process overall positively, although some procedural shortcomings
were noted. The Central Election Commission began releasing preliminary
results early in the morning hours, contributing to the transparency
of the process.
“Despite a very polarizing campaign that included harsh rhetoric
and shortcomings, the Georgian people have freely expressed their
will at the ballot box,” said Tonino Picula, the Special Co-ordinator
who led the short-term OSCE observer mission, and the Head of the
OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation. “The process has shown a
healthy respect for fundamental freedoms at the heart of democratic
elections, and we expect the final count will reflect the choice
of the voters.”
“Despite shortcomings, these elections were very competitive,”
said Luca Volontè, the Head of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe (PACE) delegation. “The political forces elected
to the new Parliament, both in the majority and opposition, should
now take up their responsibilities and work together to address
these shortcomings for the further democratic development of the
country. PACE will continue to co-operate actively with all forces
in the new Parliament in these important reforms.”
“Yesterday we witnessed Georgians’ profound engagement in
the democratic process,” said Assen Agov, Head of the Delegation
from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly “We were impressed that the
mass rallies were peaceful, and the heartfelt involvement we saw
can only bode well for Georgia’s future.”
“Georgia is an important partner for the EU, and we continue
to be a steadfast supporter of promoting democracy and reform in
Georgia,” said Milan Cabrnoch, the Head of the European Parliament
delegation. “This will be possible if those who have been elected,
in power or in opposition, exercise their democratic privileges
responsibly in continuing reform for the benefit of the Georgian
people.”
“Yesterday’s elections highlight the role that key democratic
institutions play when they act professionally and impartially,”
said Nikolai Vulchanov, the Head of the OSCE Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) long-term election observation
mission. “Elements of the legal framework, however should still be
improved and ODIHR and the Council of Europe stand ready to continue
their productive co-operation with the Georgian authorities on this
front.”
Appendix 6 – Statement by
the rapporteurs
PACE rapporteurs
for Georgia express concern about financial actions against the
Georgian Dream coalition
Strasbourg, 21.08.2012 - The co-rapporteurs for Georgia of
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Michael
Aastrup Jensen (Denmark, ALDE) and Boriss Cilevičs (Latvia, SOC)
today expressed their concern about the reports that the Georgian
authorities have seized the bank accounts of the Georgian Dream
opposition coalition, thereby undermining its participation in the
election campaign for the parliamentary elections that will take
place on 1 October 2012.
“The excessive and disproportionate fines levied by the State
Audit Service effectively undermine normal political activity by
an opposition party. This is of concern, especially in the context
of recurrent allegations of bias of the State Audit Service and
reports by credible organisations, such as the Georgian Young Lawyers Association,
that question the fairness of the court decisions in this respect”
said the co-rapporteurs.
“The rationale for campaign funding legislation is to ensure
a level playing field between all electoral contestants, and not
to drive one party or the other out of the electoral race. The upcoming
elections, and their democratic conduct, are crucial for Georgia’s
democratic development. We therefore call upon the Georgian authorities
to demonstrate maximum restraint and to ensure that all parties,
including the Georgian Dream Coalition, can participate fully in
the electoral campaign”, they added.
The two co-rapporteurs will visit Georgia on 11 and 12 September
2012 as part of the pre-electoral mission of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe.
