Introduction

The next parliamentary election in Georgia will be held on October 26, 2024. For the first time in the country's history, Georgian citizens will elect the highest representative body through a proportional electoral system, which will play a decisive role in the composition of the government, along with the election of the President of Georgia. The change in the electoral system, which has the potential to fundamentally affect the development of the party and the political system in general, has already led to significant changes in party politics and is likely to influence voter behavior as well. At the same time, the main political unions consider the upcoming election to be crucial for the country’s future.

According to Georgian legislation, the official pre-election period began 60 days before the election day, on August 27. The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (hereinafter ISFED) began monitoring pre-election processes across the country in 73 electoral districts earlier on June 1, 2024. On June 25, the organization published a pre-election environment assessment document^[1], and on September 4, it provided a summary of its monitoring findings covering the period from June 1 to August 27. ^[2]

This report includes the monitoring results of the pre-election period from August 27 to September 30, in addition to separate events that started developing before August 27 and continued during the monitoring period and/or further developed after the fact(s) identified in the monitoring period. The report reviews several elements of the election administration’s work, the electoral registration process of political parties, the representation of women in registered party lists, the progress of the pre-election campaign, the media environment, electoral disputes, and other key tendencies identified during the reporting period.

 

Key findings

Within the framework of ISFED’s observation mission, during the pre-election campaign, from August 27 to September 30, 2024, the following key findings were revealed:

• After the start of the official pre-election campaign, the anti-Western campaign, including Euroscepticism and efforts to discredit Georgia’s strategic partners, remained active. Additionally, there was a campaign to exploit the tragedy of the Ukrainian people affected by the war for electoral purposes;
• In parallel with the enforcement of the law "On Transparency of Foreign Influence”, aimed at undermining civil society, discrediting messages against civil society have increased in the ruling party’s election campaign. In particular, the ruling party’s campaign materials featured images of non-governmental organizations’ representatives in an offensive and humiliating context;
• The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), by its decision made on September 24, 2024, designated Transparency International Georgia and its Executive Director, Eka Gigauri, as well as the organization Choose Europe, its Director, Khatuna Lagazidze, and the co-founders of the same organization, as persons with declared electoral goals. According to ISFED’s assessment, this decision involved an unlawful and unjustifiably broad interpretation of the legal standards, with the ACB relying on an unfounded ruling from the Tbilisi Court of Appeals just days earlier. The ruling in question had determined that Choose Europe’s activities fell within the scope of a declared electoral goal. However, the ACB later revoked its decision following the address of the Prime Minister of Georgia, raising further concerns about the agency’s independence.
• After the date was set for elections, the recruitment process for District and Precinct Election Commissions began. The selection of temporary members for the District Election Commission (DECs) took place in an environment with little competition. At the same time, out of 219 vacant positions, only 10 members were elected with a high quorum (⅔ of the full composition of the Central Election Commission (CEC)), while 209 members were elected by a simple majority of the full CEC composition, thus excluding the election of DEC members on the basis of a consensus decision. According to ISFED's observation, a significant portion of the members of the DECs elected by the CEC are primarily individuals employed by budgetary organizations;
• The election process for professional members of Precinct Election Commissions (PECs) also took place in a low-competition environment. According to ISFED's observation, in some cases, DEC members appointed by opposition political parties were not fully provided with the documentation of candidates participating in the election process for PEC professional members. DEC Members were also not given sufficient time to properly review the competition applications submitted by the candidates for PECs. To select professional members, DECs did not conduct interviews with any candidates despite some commission members expressing a desire to do so. The deadlines set by the law allowed for this possibility;
• In most cases, heads and members of PECs were elected by a simple majority of the full DEC composition, as they did not secure the support of ⅔ of the full composition of the commissions in the first vote. Some candidates elected as members and heads of PECs had been subject to disciplinary responsibilities during the general elections held in 2020 and/or 2021. According to ISFED’s observation, a significant portion of PEC members elected by DECs are individuals employed by budgetary organizations. Some PEC members are also affiliated with the ruling party;
• Representatives of ISFED observed 98 training sessions held for heads of PECS across 41 electoral districts. The trainings were generally well organized. Participants received information related to the voting process. Two instances were recorded where members of the Lagodekhi and Isani DECs were prevented from attending the training sessions for the heads of their respective PECs;
• ISFED’s observation of mock elections conducted using electronic technologies revealed the following trend: a notable part of civil servants and individuals employed by budgetary organizations participated in the process, often organized and grouped based on their place of employment. In 10 electoral districts, the involvement of coordinators of the Georgian Dream - Democratic Georgia party was noted, who facilitated transportation and mobilization of groups participating in the mock elections. The cases of citizens' tracking were also observed.
• According to the CEC decree of August 27, different remuneration was determined for PEC professional members and those appointed by political parties. The election administration is a collegial body where each commission member enjoys equal rights. According to ISFED's assessment, this discriminatory approach harms the effective functioning of PECs. It is also inconsistent with the principle of equality guaranteed by fundamental human rights and freedoms. In addition, over the years, the differentiation introduced and revealed in the activities of party-appointed and professional members of PECs—through election legislation or by-laws, particularly in terms of the division of duties or functional redistribution—undermines the core principle of forming the election administration and the equality of commission members;
• The issue of exercising active suffrage rights for citizens living outside the borders of Georgia remains a significant challenge. Despite numerous requests from voters and several lawsuits filed by involved stakeholders (including two lawsuits from ISFED) calling for the creation of additional polling stations abroad, the court did not uphold these requests. According to ISFED’s assessment, the CEC and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not demonstrate the necessary will and did not take all measures to establish more polling stations abroad, including in cities where Georgia does not have diplomatic representation, even though over 50 Georgian citizens reside in those areas;
• Compared to the previous reporting period, there was a significant increase in donations to some opposition parties after the start of the official pre-election period, bringing the financial capabilities of the election campaigns of the three electoral subjects closer to each other. According to the ACB’s data, during the first month of the official pre-election period, from August 27 to September 26, the political union Coalition for Change Gvaramia Melia Girchi Droa received 3 792 338 GEL in donations, Georgian Dream - Democratic Georgia received 3 327 960 GEL, and a party Strong Georgia - Lelo, For the People, For Freedom! received 2 115 360 GEL. The sum of donations received by other political parties during the period amounted to only 344 072 GEL. This tendency is significantly different from the distribution of election campaign donations in the earlier period, which was marked by a sharp dominant advantage of the ruling party;
• Along with donations, state funding is an additional source of income for some political parties. Based on the results of the last parliamentary elections, during the month, Georgian Dream - Democratic Georgia received 428 335 GEL, Unity-National Movement received 183 302.91 GEL, European Georgia received 93 700.75 GEL, the Alliance of Patriots of Georgia received 86 926.66 GEL, Yes to Europe - Strategy Agmashenebeli received 78 327.11 GEL and other political parties were financed with a total of 191 319.34 GEL;
• According to the tendency observed by ISFED, in contrast to previous years, individuals are now noticeably more reluctant to disclose their personal histories or identifying information while sharing facts related to violations.
• During the reporting period, political parties nationwide conducted election campaigns, including direct engagement with voters. According to ISFED’s observers, various incidents and violations were recorded that hindered election candidates’ ability to conduct these campaigns freely. Specifically, separate cases of physical violence, disruptions to campaign events, threats and intimidation, attempts to break in and damage party offices, arrests of individuals affiliated with political parties, and alleged vote-buying were documented;
• The use of administrative resources for electoral purposes continues to pose a significant challenge. In this regard, it is important to highlight that there were instances where employees of public institutions were mobilized and required to attend Georgian Dream - Democratic Georgia election events, including during working hours. Additionally, ruling party candidates used events funded by local self-government for campaign purposes, and campaign materials were distributed on social media under the name of municipal institutions.
• The politicization of the education system remains a significant issue for the 2024 parliamentary elections. Several cases of politically motivated recruitment and discrimination against individuals employed in educational resource centers and public schools were observed in the pre-election period.
• 19 political unions submitted their party lists to the CEC. In the context of abolishing the mandatory gender quota, the representation of women on some registered party lists has declined. Additionally, in some instances, a significant proportion of women are placed in non-advanced positions on the list. However, it is essential to note that despite the removal of the gender quota, some political unions have upheld a minimum 25% representation of women on their full party lists;
• According to the CEC, 60 complaints were submitted to the election administration during the reporting period, along with 8 lawsuits filed in court. Of these, 53 complaints and 4 lawsuits were submitted by electoral subjects, while observer organizations submitted 7 complaints and 4 lawsuits. Among the considered cases, 1 lawsuit was left without consideration, 2 complaints are still under consideration, and the rest were not upheld. ISFED submitted complaints to the CEC and relevant DECs concerning six violations of campaigning rules and misuse of administrative resources during the pre-election period. Of these, five complaints were not upheld, and one is still under consideration.

 

Full Document

 

 

 

 

 

^[1] International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy. “2024 Parliamentary Elections: Assessment of the Pre-Election Environment.” August 24, 2024. https://www.isfed.ge/eng/2024-saparlamento/2024-tslis-saparlamento-archevnebis-tsina-periodis-garemos-shefaseba.

^[2] International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy. “Unofficial Pre-Election Campaign Monitoring Report for the 2024 Parliamentary Elections.” Accessed September 4, 2024. https://isfed.ge/eng/2024-saparlamento/2024-tslis-saparlamento-archevnebis-araofitsialuri-tsinasaarchevno-periodis-monitoringis-angarishi.