On December 20, TV channel Imedi spread an information card stating that the OSCE/ODIHR’s final report confirms the preliminary findings, which indicated that the elections were competitive. On the same day, during a briefing held at the Government Administration, Irakli Kobakhidze, a representative of the Georgian Dream, stated that the OSCE/ODIHR recognized Georgia’s parliamentary election. Kobakhidze also said that according to the OSCE/ODIHR’s final report, the parliamentary elections of October 26 were “free and competitive.”
In the OSCE/ODIHR report, the elections were assessed as “competitive” only in the sense that the participation of multiple parties was ensured. However, the report emphasized serious flaws such as the misuse of administrative resources, intimidation, and the polarization of the media space, which significantly weakened real competition. Additionally, the report identified other significant violations, including breaches of secrecy of vote and errors in the electoral lists, which, according to the OSCE/ODIHR assessment, undermined the transparency of the electoral process and cast doubt on the fairness of the elections.
As for the recognition of the elections, the OSCE/ODIHR mandate is to assess the electoral process in terms of its compliance with international standards, not to determine its legitimacy.
The OSCE/ODIHR report on Georgia’s parliamentary elections, released on December 20, indeed says that the elections were competitive, which means that the main electoral subjects were able to participate in the elections and could conduct electoral campaigns. The document also notes that fundamental rights (freedom of expression, assembly, and association) were protected, which created the foundation for a competitive environment. However, the OSCE/ODIHR emphasizes significant irregularities that actually weaken the competitive environment:
Misuse of administrative resources: The document notes that high-ranking officials, including representatives of local government, were actively involved in the ruling party’s campaign. This gave them an advantage over the opposition, as they were using state and local resources, which manifested in various types of activities. Additionally, the ruling party used social assistance and financial incentives during the election period, raising doubts about the appropriateness of these actions. The report also mentions that the amnesty program became a means for the government to gain an unfair advantage, creating suspicion that the authorities were using state resources to influence voters, thus violating their obligation of neutrality.
Cases of intimidation and pressure: The report records instances where voters, local activists, or representatives of opposition parties were subjected to physical or moral pressure. There are also reports of coercion, intimidation, and pressure on public sector employees and economically vulnerable groups. As a result, voters were not able to cast their votes freely and without fear. A tense environment was also created on election day itself, which was characterized by efforts to intimidate and obstruct observers.
Media polarization and unequal coverage: The OSCE/ODIHR points out that the media environment was sharply polarized, which hindered voters from receiving diverse and comprehensive information. On December 20, an information card posted by the Public Broadcaster indicated that the broadcaster presented all political parties in a predominantly positive or neutral light. Furthermore, the report noted that this media outlet dedicated the most time to covering the ruling party’s campaign, far exceeding the coverage of other parties. Overall, the Public Broadcaster’s activities did not adequately reflect diverse political and public perspectives, hindering the creation of a free and fair informational environment.
Financial inequality: The report identifies financial inequality as one of the main issues, severely damaging the fairness and competition of the 2024 parliamentary elections. The ruling party benefited from both state funding and private donations, which gave it a clear advantage and created an unfair electoral environment.
Legislative changes: Although the legal framework allowed for democratic elections, frequent changes to it, particularly close to the elections, violated the stability of the legislation. Shortly before the elections, Parliament made amendments to the electoral law without broad party support. This move was seen as a breach of legal stability and raised concerns that these changes could be used for political purposes.
Bias of the CEC Chairperson: The changes implemented before the 2024 parliamentary elections significantly undermined the Central Election Commission’s (CEC) impartiality. The changes gave the ruling party control over its members and the position of deputy chairperson, which called into question the commission’s independence and trustworthiness. The changes also reduced political consensus and created the perception that the CEC reflected the interests of the ruling party more than others. This undermined the legitimacy of its work and the trust in the electoral process. The OSCE/ODIHR emphasizes that the independence of the CEC is essential for conducting democratic elections.
Errors in the voter lists: The document notes several errors, including violations of voter registration accuracy, the registration of multiple voters at the same address, the presence of outdated and incorrect data, limited access to the lists, and difficulties in updating them in a timely manner. These errors severely harmed the transparency and reliability of the electoral process, raising doubts about the fairness and integrity of the elections.
Difficulties in voting and breaches of secrecy: The report states that on the election day, many voters faced difficulties when using electronic devices, leading to frequent instances of compromised vote secrecy. There were also challenges in using the devices, and voters did not receive proper instruction, which led to incorrect use and procedural errors. It was also noted that the use of electronic devices was not adequately developed or trained for the majority of users.
The report mentions that violations of voting secrecy were also observed on election day. For example, improper procedures, such as methods for placing ballots in the ballot box, did not meet standards, resulting in breaches of voting secrecy. Additionally, the layout of some polling stations was inadequate, creating risks of violating the secrecy of personal choices during voting. In some polling stations, the presence of observers and election commission members led to violations of voting secrecy. In 24% of the polling stations monitored by the OSCE/ODIHR, breaches of voting secrecy were recorded. Furthermore, representatives of the ruling party at some polling stations filmed the voting process, which caused discomfort for voters and restricted their free choice.
Failure to address electoral disputes: A large number of disputes were not resolved, citing lack of substantiation, often without adequate investigation of the merits. Overall, the handling of post-election disputes by election commissions and courts did not ensure the effectiveness of the appeals process, weakening mechanisms for protecting rights and failing to address widespread concerns about the credibility of the election results. Additionally, there was low trust in law enforcement agencies, the election administration, and the judiciary, particularly in terms of unbiased and effective handling of politically significant issues.
As a result, the claim that the elections were competitive formally corresponds to the term mentioned in the OSCE/ODIHR text; however, many violations, including the misuse of administrative resources, instances of intimidation, biased media coverage, incomplete voter lists, and legislative changes, diminish the degree of competitiveness.
OSCE/ODIHR recommendations
According to the OSCE/ODIHR report, there are serious questions regarding democratic processes in Georgia, and several critical issues require urgent attention. The most important recommendations outlined in the report include:
- Ending voter intimidation and pressure, the use of political influence by public officials, vote buying, and electoral violence;
- Reviewing the electoral legislation to ensure it aligns with international standards;
- Revising the procedures for appointing members of the electoral administration to prevent one party from gaining a decisive advantage;
- Creating mechanisms to monitor electoral funding, ensuring the independence of media monitoring;
- Ensuring transparent and effective handling of electoral disputes to guarantee legal protection;
- Improving the conditions for observers to ensure they are not subjected to pressure or intimidation;
- Safeguarding voting secrecy.
The report also highlights the impact of recent legislation, which negatively affected fundamental freedoms and the freedoms of civil society. The independence of institutions involved in the electoral process has decreased, further hindering the country’s overall democratic progress. After the elections, there were also reports of improper handling of complaints, violent suppression of protest actions, and numerous arrests, which violate international obligations.
According to the OSCE/ODIHR report, the pressure and intimidation that occurred during and after the election process have a serious impact on public trust and the overall transparency of the electoral system.
- Did the OSCE recognize the elections?
The OSCE/ODIHR mandate is not to recognize or approve elections. Its function is to observe and assess whether the process meets international standards, for example, whether fundamental freedoms are ensured, whether there is a legislative framework that provides equal conditions for parties, how transparent the voting, counting, and results summarization processes are, the media environment, and the use of administrative resources.
OSCE/ODIHR reports often include terms like “equal conditions were not always upheld,” “there were legislative flaws,” and “we see positive progress.” However, “recognition,” as a political act, is not within the direct competence of the observation organization.
Similarly, observation missions of the Council of Europe or the European Parliament conclude that “the elections mostly met the standards,” “several recommendations were considered,” etc., but the statement “we recognize the elections as legitimate” is typically not made.