Georgian Parliamentary Elections of October 8, 2016 Assessment of the Pre-election Environment
During the pre-election period, which lasted for 4 months prior to the Election Day, political parties and candidates were able to conduct their election campaigns in a competitive environment. The pre-election process was characterized by a pluralistic media environment and low levels of political harassment and use of administrative resources. Even though the pre-election process was not entirely free of cases of violence, vote-buying, alleged political intimidation and campaigning by unauthorized persons, there is no basis for claiming that these violations substantially influenced the independent formation of the will of the voters.
The pre-election process was seriously damaged by cases of violence in the final days before the elections, including the car bombing of an opposition MP, assault with a firearm on an opposition majoritarian candidate, and physical assault on activists of the ruling party. Investigations were launched on all of these cases. In two cases, perpetrators have already been charged.
As elections drew near, cases of dissemination of illegally recorded personal phone conversations of political party representatives became more frequent. This provides enough ground to suspect that the purpose of dissemination of these recordings was to shape public opinion during the pre-election period through unacceptable methods. Even though investigations have been launched on these cases, public trust towards the efficiency of law enforcement authorities remains low, due to the frequency of such crimes and the dragged out nature of their investigation.
The pre-election process was seriously damaged by cases of violence in the final days before the elections, including the car bombing of an opposition MP, assault with a firearm on an opposition majoritarian candidate, and physical assault on activists of the ruling party. Investigations were launched on all of these cases. In two cases, perpetrators have already been charged.
As elections drew near, cases of dissemination of illegally recorded personal phone conversations of political party representatives became more frequent. This provides enough ground to suspect that the purpose of dissemination of these recordings was to shape public opinion during the pre-election period through unacceptable methods. Even though investigations have been launched on these cases, public trust towards the efficiency of law enforcement authorities remains low, due to the frequency of such crimes and the dragged out nature of their investigation.