Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 61

MONITORING OF 2014 LOCAL

SELF-GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS
FINAL REPORT
International Society for Fair
Elections and Democracy (ISFED)

2014
Tbilisi

REPORT PREPARED BY:


Nino Lomjaria
Tamar Bartaia
Elene Nizharadze
Nino Khitarishvili
Tatia Kinkladze
Nino Janashia
Design: Temo Machavariani

International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy has carried out election related projects in 2014 by the support of American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Embassy of the
Kingdom of Netherlands in Georgia and Open Society Georgian Foundation. The contents are the responsibility of
ISFED and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government, Embassy of the Kingdom
of Netherlands and OSGF.

CONTENTS
I ABOUT THE
MONITORING MISSION
4

II KEY
FINDINGS

V. VOTER
LISTS

VI. ELECTION
ADMINISTRATION 16

15

Central Election
Commission (CEC)

III. POLITICAL
CONTEXT

IV. LEGISLATIVE
REFORM

12

VII. THE INTER-AGENCY


TASK FORCE FOR
FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS
22

VIII. THE STATE


AUDIT OFFICE

23

XI. ELECTION DAY

36

First Round of
the Elections

36

XII. ELECTION DAY AND


POST-ELECTION
COMPLAINTS
50

11

16
District and Precinct
Election Commissions
20

IX. PRE-ELECTION
PERIOD

24

Methodology

25

Use of Public
Resources

26

Vote Buying

27

Harassment

28

Physical
Assault

28

Disruption of
Election Campaign

29

Dismissal from Work


on Political Grounds 29
Arrests

30

Participation of
Unauthorized Persons in
Pre-Election
Campaigning
31
Discriminatory
Statements
Made during
Pre-Election
Campaigning

32

Media Environment

33

X. MONITORING OF
PUBLIC MEETINGS
HELD BY PARTIES/
ELECTION SUBJECTS
DURING THE
PRE-ELECTION
PERIOD
34

Second Round of
the Elections
45

First Round of
the elections

Repeat
Elections

Repeat Elections 55

49

50

Second Round of 55
the Elections
XIII. GENDER BALANCE
AMONG
CANDIDATES
NOMINATED FOR
THE ELECTIONS
58

XIV. RECOMMENDATIONS
60

ABOUT THE MONITORING MISSION

I.ABOUT THE MONITORING


MISSION
The present report is an account of monitoring the 2014
local self-government elections of Georgia by the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED).

For the 2014 local self-government elections ISFED, as a


monitoring organization with one of the largest networks,
was actively engaged in the process of pre-election as

1 ISFED implemented the Election Day reporting by observers with the use of text messages. Mobile groups had tablet computers that allowed them
to promptly provide evidence of violations from election precincts with the use of photo and video recording.
4

FINAL REPORT

ABOUT THE MONITORING MISSION

well as Election Day and the post-election monitoring.


ISFED monitored June 15, 2014 elections, June 29 repeat
elections and July 12 second round of the elections. Similar
to previous elections, ISFED conducted monitoring of the
local self-government elections with the use of new methods
and innovative technologies1
ISFED conducted pre-election monitoring of June 15,
2014 elections for the period of nearly three months2 leading
up to the Election Day by means of 73 long-term observers
in all election districts of Georgia. The pre-election monitoring primarily focused on use of public resources, activities
of election administrations and political parties, formation of
voter lists, acts of political pressure, threats and vote-buying.
Pre-election monitoring of July 12 second round of elections3 was performed by means of 28 long-term observers
of ISFED in all election districts where candidates4 could not
overcome (50%+1) election threshold.
Monitoring of the Election Day entailed the following four
key components opening and set-up of polling stations,
polling process, counting of votes and the process of tabulation of results. Monitoring of June 15 local self-government elections was performed at 1030 polling precincts
throughout Georgia by means of the Parallel Vote Tabulation
(PVT) methodology. 300 static observers were stationed
on randomly selected election precincts throughout Georgia, while 349 static observers were deployed in randomly
selected election precincts in Tbilisi and 9 static observers were deployed in Tbilisi election precincts adapted to
the needs of persons with disabilities, which had not been
included in representative sample. In 11 self-governing cities ISFED deployed 372 static observers in all election
precincts. In addition to static observers, ISFEDs Election
Day monitoring mission was also composed of 80 mobile
groups, 73 district observers, 20 lawyers and 20 operators.

For the 12th of July second round elections ISFEDs


Election Monitoring Mission consisted of 740 static observers, 32 mobile groups and 21 district observers.
Further, similar to the first round of the elections, ISFED
also used the Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT) methodology. 350 static observers were deployed to a representative sample of Tbilisi, 390 static observers monitored the
Election Day in all election precincts of 4 self-governing
cities and 7 self-governing communities5. In 76 election
districts the Election Day was monitored by means of
mobile groups. In addition to static observers, during the
second round of the elections ISFED had 15 operators
and 15 lawyers working in the central office, incidents
and SMS centers.
ISFED monitored post-election period of the first round
of June 15 elections by means of 73 district observers
and lawyers. ISFED monitored activities of the election
administration, the complaints process in district election
commissions and the process of tabulation of results. For
the second round of the elections, post-election process
at election commissions were monitored by 28 district
observers of ISFED.

ISFED monitored June 29 repeated elections by means


of 14 static observer, 9 district observers and 4 mobile
groups in 9 election districts of Georgia.
2 Pre-election monitoring of the first round of the elections started on April 1 and was finished on June 14
3 Monitoring of the second round of the elections covered the period from June 23 through July 11 for offices of Mayor and Gamgebeli.
4 Self governing cities of Rustavi, Mtskheta, Gori, Ozurgeti; self-governing communities of Khoni, Bagdati, Tkibuli, Terjola, Lanchkhuti, Khulo, Akhmeta.
5 Self-governing communities of Batumi, Poti, Kobuleti, Telavi, Kvareli, Martvili, Tianeti.
6 Self-governing communities of Batumi, Poti, Kobuleti, Telavi, Kvareli, Martvili, Tianeti
FINAL REPORT 5

KEY FINDINGS

II. KEY FINDINGS


ELECTION REFORM
2014 local self-government elections were preceded by
another wave of reforms in election legislation. For the
purpose of implementing reforms, we welcome setting up
of the Inter-Factional Task Force on Elections in the Parliament, where all stakeholders were able to submit recommendations and participate in discussions. However,
despite the recommendation of non-governmental organizations, the inter-factional task-force was set up belatedly
and therefore, it was unable to make any fundamental and
systemic changes in the election system, which in ISFEDs
view was a priority issue for the local self-government elections.
We clearly welcome the new regulation introducing direct
elections for Mayors and Gamgebelis, mandating absolute
majority of votes i.e. 50%+1 threshold, which is an important gain of the ongoing local self-government reform,
implemented with the recommendation of non-governmental organizations in frames of the election reform. We also
welcome regulations that establish 4% threshold for election of Sakrebulo members in proportional elections. This
is a positive novelty; however, it is insufficient to guarantee
fair election system.

2013. Instead of biometric registration, the Agency for the


Development of State Services was tasked with comparing
photos available in the database for verifying voters and
eliminating any duplication in voter lists7. ISFED believes
that verification of voter identity by photos is not equal to
biometric registration of voters and therefore, it is insufficient to ensure that voter lists are trustworthy and completely eliminate any inaccuracies in voter lists. We believe that the only way to resolve the voter list problem is to
practice biometric important issue of amending regulations
for staffing election administration was never addressed in
frames of the Inter-Factional Task Force.
In this light, we believe it is important to continue working on
the election reform, in order to attain fair election environment and eliminate any legal gaps.

ELECTION ADMINISTRATION
The work of the Central Election Commission and the election administration in general was satisfactory. ISFED criticized individual decisions of the CEC, including those concerning registration of election subjects, recount of invalid
ballots and campaigning by a representative of a religious
organization.

ISFED disapproves of the new regulation in the Election


Code prohibiting initiative groups from nominated candidacies for offices of Mayor and Gamgebeli, which will
have a direct adverse impact on a competitive election
environment. We also disapprove of the mechanism of
no-confidence vote against elected Mayors/Gamgebelis
by Sakrebulo, which diminishes the importance of these directly elected officials.

As noted above, we criticized decision of the CEC about


registration of election subjects, considering that it did not
promote uniform application of election laws of Georgia and
formation of correct practice. In particular, the CEC applied
Article 167 of the Election Code, setting the requirement of
two years of permanent residency for candidates for offices
of Mayor and Gamgebeli, against candidates of opposition
parties and in favor of the ruling political unions.

As a result of the reform, stipulation of the Election Code


about biometric registration of voters for the 2014 local
self-government elections was also abolished, which was
the most important gain of the Election Code reform in

On June 3, 2014, the CEC also adopted a resolution determining grounds for abolishing party election registration,
mediating the risk of abolishment of proportionate party lists
of some of the opposition parties, which promoted compet-

7 See Article 1841 of the organic law of Georgia the Election Code of Georgia

FINAL REPORT

KEY FINDINGS

itive election environment. However, notably the resolution


conflicts with para.6, Article 145 of the Election Code that
directly stipulates grounds for abolishing election registration of a party list, without allowing any exceptions.
We would like to also highlight the decision of the CEC
about illegal political calls during Sunday sermon containing signs of pre-election campaign made by Chorbishop of
Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia Jacob. The CEC ruled that
the Chorbishops campaigning did not constitute an illegal
action, considering that he was not delivering the sermon
in the name of the Church but rather, as an individual clergyman. ISFED believes that such interpretation of the election norm by the CEC lacks any legal foundation. Which
subjects in particular can be viewed as representatives
of a religious organization for purposes of the prohibition
stipulated by the Election Code remains to be a matter of

interpretation; however, in the present case Chorbishop


can be viewed as a representative of Orthodox Church, as
also confirmed by the constitutional agreement concluded
between the state of Georgia and the Georgian Apostolic
Autocephalous Orthodox Church saying that the following represent the church without any special authority: the
church assembly, the Chatholicos Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Patriarchy of Georgia (represented by Chorbishop and secretary). This means that public statement made
by Chorbishop in frames of his status and authority should
be viewed as a position of a religious organization.
We also disapprove of the position of the CEC about invalid
ballots on the Election Day. One of the problematic issues
detected during the self-government elections was considerably high rate of invalid ballots. ISFED provided the Central Election Commission (CEC) with the list of polling sta-

8 See the resolution at: https://matsne.gov.ge/index.php?option=com_ldmssearch&view=docView&id=2362713&lang=ge

FINAL REPORT 7

KEY FINDINGS

INCIDENTS DURING THE


PRE-ELECTION PERIOD
We did not find any frequent or large-scale abuse of public
resources during the pre-election period. ISFED has detected total of 11 cases that involved use of public resources,
mostly in favor of the ruling party by making changes in the
state and local budgets and participation of unauthorized individuals in the pre-election campaign.
ISFED also detected acts of transferring various types of gifts
or monetary funds to voters by persons engaged in election
campaign or affiliated with persons engaged in election campaign, containing signs of vote buying. These facts were reflected in reports of pre-election monitoring. We also alerted
the Inter-Agency Task Force for Free and Fair Elections and
the State Audit Office (SAO) about such incidents; however,
the SAO did not find any signs of violation of law in these
incidents. We believe that it is important for the authorities
to undertake meaningful measures, examine alleged acts of
vote buying, in order to ensure compliance with requirements
of law, as well as prevent such incidents from having any adverse impact on the election environment.
tions where suspiciously high percentage of invalid ballots
was found. Regrettably, we find it hard to understand how
the election administration identified these causes - whether it was by recounting invalid ballots or based on verbal
statement of district election commissions. Despite our recommendation, ISFED and other monitoring organizations
were not invited to attend and monitor the process of examining and analyzing the facts. Furthermore, the CEC
approach towards the monitoring organizations was rather
unconstructive as it stated that our suggestion to recount
results from the problematic precincts was an attempt to
purposefully mislead the population and accused us of incompetence. We believe that instead of criticizing monitoring organizations, the CEC should have recounted results
from problematic polling stations under its own initiative,
which would have dispelled valid suspicious that various
election stakeholders and monitoring organizations have,
based on high share of invalid ballots and improperly drawn
summary protocols.

FINAL REPORT

MEDIA ENVIRONMENT
During the pre-election period leading up to the 2014 local self-government elections, media outlets were able to
freely impart all types of information. Media outlets covered
pre-election meetings and political debates in a fairly balanced manner. Public had equal access to all media outlets,
including those criticizing the authorities. The state authorities
did not pressure journalists or hinder journalistic reporting in
any way, not including several incidents in rural areas, where
the right of journalists to attend events of election candidates
was curtailed.

ELECTION DAY
The ISFEDs assessment of June 15, 2014 local self-government elections has been quite positive considering
that there was a decrease in procedure-type violations
during the polling process compared to both the 2010 lo-

KEY FINDINGS

cal self-government elections and the 2013 presidential


elections. Notably, unlike the previous elections some important violations have been found at several polling stations including physical violence, ballot box stuffing and
taking illegal hold of/damaging materials. Considering that
the scale of such incidents was limited and the election
administration took further actions in response, these violations have not had any impact on final Election Day results. Further, unlike previous elections we did not detect
any disturbing gaps in the first round of the elections, with
respect to voter lists. However, we did find a new trend
of election subjects being present at polling stations with
a status of a proxy or an observer. We also detected acts
of illegal campaigning at election precincts. Notably, we
found one important trend in the process of drawing up of
summary protocols high rate of invalid ballots and high
number of errors in summary protocols9
ISFED believes that the second round of local self-government elections set an important precedent in the electoral
history of Georgia. The necessity of the second round in
these elections proved that a competitive electoral environment is forming in Georgia, which means that no party,
including the ruling one, is guaranteed a victory in the first
round. We think that the aforementioned set a higher standard for conducting democratic elections in the country.

have affected the final outcome of elections. Notably, compared to the first round of the elections, gaps in summary
protocols significantly decreased during the second round
of the elections. In certain election districts cases of verbal
and physical confrontation between the political party activists were observed in the vicinity of the polling stations.
These instances fell outside the scope of ISFEDs PVT
observation, since they took place outside the polling stations. Noteworthy was a trend of 140 voters at 73 polling
stations of 19 districts10 going to their respective polling
stations only to find that they had not been registered in
voter lists. Out of these 140 voters, 53 stated that they had
cast their vote in the first round of elections on June 15.

POST-ELECTION PERIOD
ISFEDs observers filed total of 238 complaints with precinct
and district election commissions over violations of vote

Based on the information provided by ISFEDs observers


during the repeat elections on 29 June 2014, ISFED concluded the following: opening of polling stations, voting,
counting and summarizing of results was conducted in a
calm and organized manner. There were no major violations observed. ISFEDs observers reported three cases
of unauthorized persons present at polling stations, as
well as minor technical flaws. The election administration
took adequate measures in response.
Based on the analysis of the information received through
PVT methodology ISFED concludes that the voting and
vote count processes were conducted in a calm environment. Most of the violations reported by the ISFED observers were minor and of a procedural nature and could not

9 See the resolution at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/726/geo/


10 Rustavi (17 precincts), Gldani (7 precincts), Isani (6 precincts), Samgori (6 precincts), Gori (6 precincts), Akhmeta (5 precincts), Saburtalo (4 precincts),
Nadzaladevi (4 precincts), Khulo (4 precincts), Ozurgeti (3 precincts), Vake (2 precincts), Krtsanisi (2 precincts) election districts and Mtatsminda, Chughureti,
Terjola, Baghdati, Khoni, Tkibuli and Lanchkhuti election district, one precinct in each.
FINAL REPORT 9

KEY FINDINGS

counting procedures and drawing up of summary protocols


in the first round of the elections, repeat elections and the
second round of the elections. Complaints were filed over
violations including improperly prepared/maintained documents, improperly drawn up summary protocols, corrections made in summary protocols, imbalance between the
number of ballots and voter signatures, voting with improper documents, restriction of rights of observers, violation of
regulations for sealing materials, violation of inking procedures and more. ISFEDs observers took adequate legal
actions in response to the total of 403 violations; majority of
these violations had been caused by the lack of professionalism and qualification of election commission members, especially with regards to reconciling numbers and drawing up
of summary protocols.
The complaints process was transparent, in which ISFEDs
representatives were able to attend the process of reviewing
complaints and express ISFEDs opinion about complaints
filed; however, in most of the cases election commissions
avoided proper examination of election documents, verification of polling results and made decisions solely
founded on statements of election commission members. Further, in a number of cases their decisions lacked
adequate substantiation.

10

FINAL REPORT

ELECTIONS AND GENDER BALANCE


Based on statistics, gender imbalance and inadequately low
number of women in representative and executive authorities of local self-governance are rather alarming. Based on
the results of 2014 local self-government elections, women
account for 15% of Sakrebulo members elected based on
proportional electoral system and 8% of Sakrebulo members elected based on majoritarian electoral system. As to
women candidates nominated for Mayoral elections, none
of them could win, while out of the women candidates nominated for the office of Gamgebeli only one was elected.
Clearly, lack of women representation in political life remains to be a problem.

POLITICAL CONTEXT

III. POLITICAL
CONTEXT
It was expected that elaboration of the Local Self-Government Code and reforming of the Election Code in 2013-2014
would bring about fundamental changes in legislation; however, final outcomes of the reform fall short of the initial ambitious plans announced by the authorities. Notably, a number
of recommendations set forth by the civil sector for introducing important new regulations were not taken into consideration in the process of the reform.
In the run-up to the local self-government elections (February, March, early April), investigating authorities intensified
the practice of summoning individuals actively engaged
in party activities for questioning or bringing charges
against them. On April 14, 2014, the Inter Agency Task
Force (IATF) urged prosecution service to refrain from questioning of individuals directly involved in the pre-election
campaign for the 2014 local self-government elections, in
frames of investigating activities, up until the Election Day,
except when there is an urgent need or a threat of violating
procedural timeframe. Notably, for the local self-government
elections the Prime Minister of Georgia imposed a moratorium on legal proceedings against individuals engaged in
pre-election campaigning, in order to allow each and every
party to carry out their election campaigns11. Despite the moratorium, head of the UNMs campaign office Gigi Ugulava
was arrested during the pre-election period, even though
two days earlier the court had found no reason to restrict
his freedom of movement. The UNM perceived it as political
pressure against competitors.
Applicable law does not envisage the possibility of imposing
moratorium on legal proceedings. Therefore, calling for moratorium was an expression of political will of the authorities in
an attempt to allow all persons engaged in election process-

es to carry out their campaigns and avoid questions about


acts of restricting freedom of these individuals.
During the pre-election period a number of acts of alleged
pressure against candidates and subsequent withdrawals
were detected, which was poorly probed by the law enforcement authorities. According to reports, candidates of various
opposition parties/election blocs refused to participate in elections and withdrew as a result of alleged pressure. Victims
generally refrained from revealing the identity of those who
pressured them. We believe that the state authorities failed
to take adequate and effective further actions against acts
of alleged pressure against candidates. The Interior Ministry
refuted the allegations of pressure and possible involvement
of police officers without launching a comprehensive probe.
Instead of unequivocally condemning violence, pressure and
calling for effective investigation, the Prime Minister of Georgia made a statement that the Georgian Dream will not allow
victory of any other political force in any town or city, which
was rather inappropriate12. According to the prosecutors office, out of 80 acts of alleged pressure allegations were not
uphold in 76; investigation was launched into 4.
We believe that healthy competition is a necessary precondition of fair elections, while attempts of getting rid of competitors at the local level had an extremely adverse impact on the
formation of fair pre-election environment.

11 See the information at http://civil.ge/geo/article.php?id=28070


12 iSee the information at: http://ick.ge/articles/18289-i.html
FINAL REPORT 11

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

IV. LEGISLATIVE REFORM


Legislation was amended for the 2014 local self-government
elections.
ISFED was actively engaged in the process of reforming the
legislation and together with its partner organizations Georgian Young Lawyers Association and Transparency International Georgia it submitted a number of recommendations to
relevant working groups.
New regulations introduced in the Election Code
The following key new regulations were introduced in the Election Code and other legislative acts:

13 Article 169 of the Organic Law of Georgia, the Election Code of Georgia
12

FINAL REPORT

POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE NEW REGULATIONS


Election System

We welcome the decision of the authorities to establish


50%+1 threshold for the election of Mayors/Gamgebelis,
which will ensure that the local executive authorities are
elected with majority of votes; 13

We also welcome establishment of 4% threshold for election of all Sakrebulo members in proportionate system (up
until now, the 4% threshold applied to Tbilisi Sakrebulo
only, while the minimum share of votes required in other
municipalities was 5%);

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

urged the authorities to first and foremost focus on the


election system. Regrettably, the advice was never taken and it was not until January 2014 that the inter-factional group met for its first open discussion of the issue. Consequently, changes were never implemented
in the system due to the lack of time, like we expected.

Number of MPs elected through proportionate electoral


system in self-governing communities was increased up
to 15 (it used to be 10).

Other

Placement of a campaign office of a party/election bloc/


initiative group in a building that houses a District Election
Commission was prohibited.

It was determined that a building designated for housing


a polling station should be accessible to all voters, while
if there is no such building available, designated building must be adapted by designating authorities to voter
needs, where possible, in order to ensure that all voters
have access to it on the Election Day; 14

Even though the civil sector recommended that the authorities choose multi-mandate majoritarian districts,
the districts remained single-mandate. Therefore, we
believe that the existing election system fails to ensure that votes are proportionately reflected in mandates and is tailored to the interests of the ruling party.
The purpose of ISFEDs recommendations was to put the
kind of election system in place that would solve problems

We also welcome increasing funding for political parties


as an incentive to increase the number of women in politics. To this end, Article 30 of the Law of Georgia on Political Unions of Citizens was also amended. According to
the amendments, a party/bloc that receive funding from
the state budget, will receive additional funding in the
amount of 30% of the basis funding, if every group of ten
candidates on the party least (or in all party lists in local
self-government elections) that served as grounds for receiving state funding has at least 30% 70% percent balance among female/male candidates. Previous regulation
mandated 20:80 balance for 10% supplemental funding.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE NEW REGULATIONS


Election System

Election system is a priority issue for us, considering that


it is the election system that ensures that elections are
fair and mandates are proportionate to the will of voters.
Despite the importance of the issue, the inter-factional
task force did not take into account recommendations
about the election system, stating the time left before
the elections is insufficient for making modifications to
the system. However, considering the complexity and
the importance of the issue, as early as in 2013 we

that exist in todays system, better reflect will expressed


by Georgian voters at ballot boxes, decrease number of
lost votes to a minimum, improve voter confidence and
ensure representation of small parties and independent
candidates in self-government authorities.15

New regulations prohibit initiative groups from nominating candidates for offices of Mayor/Gamgebeli, meaning
that independent candidates may not run in elections.
Local self-government elections are one of the important
issues to be considered in building a strong and stable

14 Article 58 (11), the new regulation will be enacted after scheduling of the following parliamentary elections in 2016
15 Recommendations about he election system are available for viewing at http://www.electionsportal.ge/uploads/reforms/11/saarchevnosistema_recom_
GEO.pdf
FINAL REPORT 13

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

local self-government. Voters should have a broad variety of choice of candidates, in order to be able to vote for
their favorite candidates, one that is the most acceptable
to them. There may be a number of successful and influential persons at the local level who enjoy popular support but are not affiliated with any of the political parties.
Consequently, these individuals will be deprived from an
opportunity to run for office in elections as independent
candidates. Such prohibition has a clear adverse impact
on the election environment and serves an ambiguous
purpose.
Voter Lists

The requirement of biometric registration of voters was


abolished, which had long been requested both by
NGOs and non-parliamentary political parties. Out of
the new regulations introduced in the Election Code
in 2013 for local self-government elections, biometric registration of voters was one of the most important
as it would have enabled determining accurate number of voters and correcting inaccuracies in voter lists.
We believe the only way to solve the problem of voter lists
was biometric registration, which was planned but never
implemented.

Other

16 Article 51 of the organic law of Georgia, the Local Self-Government Code


14

FINAL REPORT

Even though Mayors will be elected in direct elections, with


majority of votes, the importance of the new regulation is
diminished by the norm in the Code of Local Self-Government delegating Sakrebulo with the power to pass a
non-confidence motion and dismiss an official elected
by absolute majority. The no-confidence motion can be
raised by at least half of enlisted members of Sakrebulo or by at least 20% of registered voters in the municipality. The motion is passed if it is supported by at least
two-thirds of enlisted members of Sakrebulo. As a result,
authority of Gamgebeli/Mayor will be terminated.16 In the
process of revision of the Local Self-Government Code,
ISFED urged multiple times that the authorities abolish the
norm but the recommendation was disregarded.

Notably, the IATF disregarded one important issue composition of the election administration. The issue was on
the agenda of the inter-factional task force set up in March
2013 but it was never discussed, not then and not now. Lack
of time and complexity of the issue was cited as the reason.
Even though a number of new regulations are certainly
astep in the right direction, essential changes in legislation
that would have significantly improved the election environment as civic sector and the public in general had
hoped for - have not been made.

VOTER LISTS

not equal to biometric registration of voters and therefore,


it is insufficient to ensure that voter lists are trustworthy
and completely eliminate any inaccuracies in voter lists.
We believe that the only way to resolve the voter list problem is to practice biometric registration, as it was planned
but was never implemented.

V. VOTER LISTS
The Election Code was amended with the organic law N864,
dated July 25, 2013, introducing new rules of formation for
the unified voter list for the upcoming 2014 local self-government elections. One of the important issues addressed by the
amendment was biometric registration of voters. The Agency
for State Services was tasked with forming/creating the voter
list until March 15, 2014.
In the process of biometric registration of voters, the agency
would first take biometric photos of citizens eligible to vote, after they presented authorized individual with a copy of their ID
cards. The following stage of the process entailed comparison
of the information available in electronic database with information provided by individual citizens during verbal interview.
Verified information would then be copied in the new form.
The aim of the procedures was to verify the information in
the unified list of voters to ensure accuracy of voter lists.
Regulations for forming voter lists were amended once more
under the organic law N2093, dated March 7, 2014. Instead
of biometric registration of voters the Agency for the Development of State Services was tasked with comparing photos
available in the database for verifying voters and eliminating
any duplication in voter lists.17 Voters photos would be incorporated in lists used by registrars. These photos, in addition to
other information, would be used to verify identity of voters arriving at polling stations on the Election Day. Upon detection of
any possible duplication, the agency would examine each individual case and make subsequent decisions, as prescribed
by law. Furthermore, voter registration lists would be printed
with photos, in order for registrars to be able to verify identity
of voters with the use of photos.
We believe that verification of voter identity by photos is

For the purpose of compiling voter lists accompanied with


photos, the Agency for the Development of State Services
implemented the project for elimination of any duplication of
photos or data. In frames of the project the agency examined
4348919 pieces of data, among which 9595 possible duplication was detected and referred to relevant authorities. In 5537
cases possible duplications were not confirmed, while in 3271
cases duplications were eliminated.18
The issue of voters who have been registered without indicating their address remains a problem for the local self-government elections, as well as voters removed from registration
according to places of their residence and those individuals whose registration was abolished under the decision
of the State Agency for the Development of Public Services. Under the new regulations, for participation in the
2014 local self-government elections, these individuals
should have applied to the State Agency for the Development of Public Services until May 28, 2014, to be registered according to the place of their residence. Under the
decree of the Minister of Justice, these individuals had
been exempt from paying fee for receiving ID card and/
or taking a photo. According to the Ministry of Justice,
there were total of 42 259 people registered without an address, while the number of voters removed from registration was 101 165. Out of these persons 12 048 registered
anew, including 3 353 persons who had been previously
registered without address and 7 757 persons who had
been removed from registration19.
We believe that the decision to register voters removed
from registration anew was a positive step forward for
improving the voter list; however, the number of constituents who registered anew suggests that the authorities
did not conduct campaign adequate enough to raise
awareness of these constituents for them to exercise the
constitutional right to vote.

17 See Article 1841 of the organic law of Georgia, the Election Code of Georgia
18 See: http://www.justice.gov.ge/News/Detail?newsId=4567
19 See: http://www.justice.gov.ge/News/Detail?newsId=4567

FINAL REPORT 15

ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

VI. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION


After official launch of pre-election campaign for the local
self-government elections, ISFED started monitoring of activities of the Central Election Commission (CEC), district and
precinct election commissions by means of long-term observers throughout all election districts of Georgia.

We believe that having such regulations in place for election


officers promotes high professional standards, increases their
role and responsibility before public and the state.
Despite the foregoing positive initiatives, ISFED criticized several decisions of the CEC, including:

CENTRAL ELECTION COMMISSION (CEC)

Improper Registration of Election Subjects

The CEC promoted environment for cooperation between


various election stakeholders, political parties, local and international organizations. In frames of various working meetings
and round tables the CEC reported about its activities and in
turn, received information about the course of election processes.
The CEC was actively engaged in events that encouraged
participation of ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities
in elections campaigns with the aim of raising awareness
of voters about important issues including polling procedures,
tabulation of election results, etc.20
We welcome the fact that part of the polling stations will be
adapted to needs of persons with disabilities and such polling
stations will be pinpointed on a map posted on the website
of the CEC21. Nevertheless, to ensure equal election environment, number of polling stations adapted to the needs of persons with disabilities needs to be increased, in order to enable
each voter to express their will at the ballot box on the polling
day.
On May 31, members of election commissions from all levels
of the election administration signed the Code of Ethics, total
of 48 064 election officers22. The Code of Ethics provides for
the principles of abidance by law, impartiality and independence, transparency and professionalism.

Decisions of the CEC about registration of election subjects


were problematic. ISFED criticized these decisions considering that they discouraged uniform application of election
laws of Georgia and formation of correct practice. In particular, the CEC applied Article 167 of the Election Code, setting the requirement of two years of permanent residency
for candidates for offices of Mayor and Gamgebeli, against
candidates of opposition parties and in favor of the ruling
political unions.
By its Resolution N20 dated May 17, 2014, Chairperson of
Rustavi N20 DEC registered a candidate of self-governing
city of Rustavi Davit Jikia for the elections. Notably, Davit
Jikia was abroad for the last two years. He was studying
in Great Britain from May 30, 2010 to November 26, 2012,
and had been included in the consular registry since September 10, 2012, and for the 2012 parliamentary elections
consular registration was marked along his name on the
unified voter list.
On May 17, 2014, by the resolution of the chairperson of
Poti DEC N70, Poti mayoral candidate from the coalition
Georgian Dream, Irakli Kakulia was registered for the elections. In 2009-2012 Irakli Kakulia served as a director of
one of the Kazakh companies and had a Kazakh permit
of residence with the right to work. He had been included on the consular registry since August 29, 2012 and for
the 2013 presidential elections consular registration was
marked along his name on the unified voter list.

20.See:http://cesko02-01.itdc.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/treningi-arasamtavrobo-organizaciebisa-da-saxalxo-damcvelis-ofisis-warmomadgenlebistvis.pag.
21. See information about the web-site at http://map.cec.gov.ge/
22.See:http://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/ceskos-saolqo-da-saubno-saarchevno-komisiebis-wevrebma-etikis-kodeqss-moaweres-xeli-3463.page
16

FINAL REPORT

ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

Pursuant to Article 167 of the organic law of Georgia, any


citizen of Georgia who has lived in Georgia for at least five
years and has been permanently living in Georgia for the
last 2 years prior to the day of scheduling the election can
be elected as a mayor. Notably, for the election purposes
Election Code does not define meaning of the place of residence. Under para.1, Article 20 of the Civil Code, an individuals place of residence is a place of his/her choice of habitual residence. Under Article 12 of the Law of Georgia on
Registration of Citizens of Georgia and Foreigners Residing
in Georgia, Issuance of Personal Identification Card and
Passport of Georgia, a personal identification card confirms
identity of a citizen of Georgia, Georgian citizenship and
place of residence. An individual may have several places
of residence but s/he must be registered according to one
of the places of residence. Permanent place of residence
means a place where the person lives permanently.
We believe that the law mandates permanent residence
for two years as opposed to submitting a registration documents. The noted condition certainly does not mean permanent physical presence of an individual on the territory
of Georgia but rather, permanent residence in Georgia, including going abroad for a reasonable period of time, and
involvement in public and political life in Georgia. Therefore,
when over a period of two years a citizen has been living
outside the country of the time, s/he may not be considered to be permanently living in Georgia.
One of the candidates, Davit Jikia has cited Article 34 of the
Tax Code23 in his statement, which provides for a definition
of a resident for tax purposes. We believe that the cited
provision is irrelevant for election purposes.
Furthermore, on April 19, 2014, by the resolution of the
chairperson of Gori N32 DEC, Irakli Okruashvili was refused to be registered as a mayoral candidate for the city of
Gori pursuant to the law. It was confirmed both by the CEC
as well as the city and the appellate courts. The appellate
court explained that a candidate must have been physical-

ly present for the period of last two years prior to the day
of scheduling the elections, personally participating in daily habitual life of the country. The court explained that the
law does not allow any exceptions in this regard. Therefore,
long-term tenure abroad to study or for a vacation (exceeding a reasonable period of time during which temporary tenure abroad does not violate the requirement of permanent
residence) is not an exception.
Decision of Poti and Rustavi DECs were appealed with the
CEC but the latter not only failed to adequately interpret the
two-year requirement of residence but it also did not take advantage of the situation to provide a precise interpretation of
applicable Article. Pursuant to para.2, Article 30 of the Election Code, the CEC can adopt a resolution in exceptional cases, from the beginning until the end of elections, if necessity
emerges to resolve issues not defined by law and required for
conducting elections.
Resolution of the CEC on abolishment of election registration of party lists
There have been frequent withdrawals of proportionate
candidates of opposition parties, posing the risk of abolishment of registered party lists in a number of cases during
the pre-election period.24 On June 3, 2014 Vice Prime-Min-

23 Article 34 of the Tax Code of Georgia: 2. During the entire current tax year, a physical person shall be recognized as a tax resident of Georgia if it was
actually located on the territory of Georgia for more than 182 days in any continuous 12-month period ending in this tax year, or was in the Georgian state
service abroad during the tax year. 3. A time shall be considered as the time of actual location on the territory of Georgia during which a physical person has
been located on the territory of Georgia, as well as the time-period which he spent outside the Georgian territory for medical treatment, vacation, business
trip or study.
24 See Chapter III of the report, Alleged Acts of Pressure on candidates
25 http://www.isfed.ge/main/677/geo/
FINAL REPORT 17

ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

ister Kakhi Kaladze urged the CEC to amend the norm that
regulates abolishment of election registration of party lists
when number of candidates on the list falls below legal minimum.25
In response, On June 3, 2014, the CEC adopted a resolution determining the list of cases when a party list can
be abolished if number of candidates on the list falls below
minimum. Pursuant to the resolution, voluntary withdrawal
may not serve as grounds for abolishment of the registration, which has mediated the risk of abolishment of proportionate party lists of some of the opposition parties, which
promoted competitive election environment.
Even though the resolution26 will have a positive impact on
ongoing political and election processes, it conflicts with
para.6, Article 145 of the Election Code that directly stipulates grounds for abolishing election registration of a party
list, without allowing any exceptions. Therefore, such exceptions must be established by the Election Code as opposed to a resolution of the CEC, which is a sub-legal act
and must comply with the Election Code as to a superior
normative act.

Decision of the CEC on engagement of Chorbishop Jacob in pre-election campaigning


According to media reports, Chorbishop of Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia Jacob (Konstantine Iakobashvili) made
illegal political calls during Sunday sermon containing signs
of pre-election campaign.
During the Sunday sermon the Chorbishop urged parish to
actively participate in the self-government elections and not
to allow the victory of a particular political subject: we must
go to the elections and make our choice, in order to reject
those who are not repenting for what they have done to the
country, [who] have dishonored the nation, [and] are now
trying to come back. Further, the Chorbishop criticized policy of the former government Now that they want to come
back into power, what are they promising us?! He made
certain suggestions as to which political party to support:
I am not saying that those who are in power are doing
everything right. People have shown their disappointment
through these elections but we can all see the difference,

27 For the full statement visit http://www.isfed.ge/main/739/geo/


26 See the resolution at: https://matsne.gov.ge/index.php?option=com_ldmssearch&view=docView&id=2362713&lang=ge
18

FINAL REPORT

ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

stated the Chorbishop during the sermon.


ISFED in partnership with other NGOs filed a subsequent
claim with the CEC , seeking an investigation into the incident and adequate legal response.27
The CEC explained: the Election Code prohibits religious
organization from engaging in pre-election campaigning; in
the present case, [the Election Code] prohibits the Georgian
Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church [from engaging
in pre-election campaigning] as opposed to clergymen.
Pursuant to para.7 of the constitutional agreement between
the state of Georgia and the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Chorbishop is deputy Chatholicos
Patriarch. His sermon, as a sermon of an individual clergyman for his parish, does not constitute a statement made
on behalf of the Church and according to the contents of
the statement, the foregoing action can not be viewed as
administrative offence on grounds that individual clergymen are not prohibited from engaging in campaigning, the
Church is - as a religious organization.
ISFED believes that such interpretation of the election norm
by the CEC lacks any legal foundation. Which subjects in
particular can be viewed as representatives of a religious
organization for purposes of the prohibition stipulated by
the Election Code remains to be a matter of interpretation;
however, in the present case Chorbishop can be viewed
as a representative of Orthodox Church, as also confirmed
by the constitutional agreement concluded between the
state of Georgia and the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous
Orthodox Church saying that the following represent the
church without any special authority: the church assembly,
the Chatholicos Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Patriarchy of Georgia (represented by Chorbishop and secretary). This means that public statement made by Chorbishop in frames of his status and authority should be viewed as
a position of a religious organization.
Public statements made by leaders of religious organizations in any form, including Sunday sermon, contains a
component of communicating with voters and constitutes
a public activity, especially when it is broadly covered by
media outlets. Therefore, public actions of a Chorbishop

representing the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church should be viewed as political campaigning by
a religious organization, which is prohibited by the Election
Code.
Position of the CEC about recounting invalid ballots
One of the problematic issues detected during the first

round of the elections was high rate of invalid ballots28. The


ISFED urged the CEC to recount results at problematic polling stations. To ensure increased trust and transparency,
ISFED also demanded that various stakeholders, including
representatives of civil sector, international organizations
and election subjects be invited to attend the process of
recount. Notably, several days prior to publishing the statement ISFED provided the Central Election Commission
(CEC) with the list of polling stations where considerably
high percentage of invalid ballots was found. In particular, ISFED recommended that the CEC recount results
in 109 summary protocols of 66 polling stations where

28 See: http://www.isfed.ge/main/726/geo/
FINAL REPORT 19

ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

that instead of criticizing monitoring organizations, the CEC


should have recounted results from problematic polling stations under its own initiative, which would have dispelled
valid suspicious that various election stakeholders and
monitoring organizations have, based on high share of invalid ballots and improperly drawn summary protocols.
We would like to also note that the ISFED does not share
the view expressed by some members of the CEC saying that monitoring organizations are stationed in ambush
during the complaints process, waiting to file in higher election administration and/or court over any insignificant fact
or decision.

DISTRICT AND PRECINCT ELECTION COMMISSIONS


While monitoring of district and precinct election commissions
ISFEDs long-term observers (LTOs) focused on setting up of
election commissions, their staffing, course of their meetings
percentage share of invalid ballots was 15% or more and the process of decision-making.
(see the attached document for the list of the polling staThe monitoring found that DECs published information about
tions).
polling stations, including their numbers, location (addresses),
The CEC stated that it examined 109 summary protocols etc in a timely manner, prior to April 6, 2014, in abidance with
from 66 polling stations and found several causes of the the applicable stipulation of the Election Code. The CEC rehigh number of invalid ballots, including voters checking ported that newly established PECs started holding meetings
more than one candidate or crossing out all candidates in on April 24. According to the schedule of election events, first
majority of the cases at 63 polling stations. Furthermore, in meeting of PEC should have been held prior to April 26; howa number of cases votes were cast only through one ballot, ever, in three polling stations of Dusheti N28 Election District
and in all polling stations of Kazbegi N29 Election District initial
leaving the remaining two ballots empty.
meetings were held in violation of stipulations of law.29
Regrettably, we find it hard to understand how the election administration identified these causes - whether it
was by recounting invalid ballots or based on verbal
statement of district election commissions. Despite our
recommendation, ISFED and other monitoring organizations were not invited to attend to monitor the process of
examining and analyzing the facts.
On July 2, during joint discussions of the issue, the CEC
alleged that our recommendation to have the results recounted was an attempt to purposefully mislead the population and accused us of being incompetent. We believe

29 See: http://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/saubno-saarchevno-komisiebshi-pirveli-sxdoma-gaimarta-1461.page
20

FINAL REPORT

THE INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE FOR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS

VII THE INTER-AGENCY TASK


FORCE FOR FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS
The format of the Inter-Agency Task Force for Free and
Fair Elections (IATF) is important in the pre-election period,
considering that it allows parties and non-governmental organizations to draw attention to various types of violations
in a timely manner, elaborate preventive mechanisms and
recommendations.

crease trust in the commission and the degree of legitimacy


of its recommendations. Even though we did not find any
active engagement of IATF members in the pre-election
campaigning for the 2014 local self-government elections,
in order to ensure objective work of the IATF, the issue must
be legally regulated.

Regrettably, the IATF commenced its work for the 2014 local self-government elections late, in violation of the timeframe prescribed by the law. Pursuant to March 7, 2014
amendments to the Election Code, the IATF should have
been set up and should have commenced its works within
ten calendar days after the enactment of new regulations.
The new regulations were enacted on March 14, 2014, i.e.
after promulgation of the law. Therefore, the IATF should
have been set up prior to March 24, 2014 but the first meeting of the commission was not held until April 11.

The Inter Agency Task Force for Free and Fair Election,
established for the purpose of preventing and responding
to violations of the election legislation of Georgia by public servants30 should have an important role during the
pre-election period. Even though the IATF has no means
for enforcement of its own recommendations, we are under
the impression that the IATF is not interested in the implementation of its recommendations. The IATF has not
presented any report about how its work has contributed to
the improvement of the pre-election environment.

Another problem detected in the work of IATF is related to


participation of its members in pre-election campaign. ISFED believes that even though Ministers and Deputy Ministers are legally prohibited from agitating in favor of any
individual candidate, for the purpose of improving objectivity and neutrality the IATF should express political will and
urge individuals participating in the work of the commission
with the right to vote not to engage in pre-election campaign. The IATFs recommendations are non-binding and
there are no enforcement mechanisms. Therefore, the IATF
members not participating in pre-election agitation will in-

30 Para.3, Article 48 of the Election Code of Georgia


22

FINAL REPORT

THE STATE AUDIT OFFICE

VIII. THE STATE AUDIT OFFICE


ISFEDs assessment of the work of the department for monitoring financial activities of political parties within the State
Audit Office (SAO) in 2014 is positive. Unlike 2012, the department did not discriminate against any of the parties.
Notably, to ensure transparency the SAO set up ad-hoc
commission working on the monitoring of lawfulness
and transparency of political funding composed of representatives of local and international organizations. The
commission received information on a regular basis about
the work of the department for monitoring financial activities
of political parties.

up 131 protocols of violation. The Office imposed a fine


against 3 parties, 2 legal entities and 2 physical persons;
All of 120 protocols of violation drawn up against independent candidates were upheld and fine was imposed on 2,
24 cases were terminated and reproof was issued against
66 individuals. 28 cases are still under consideration and
according to data of September, the investigation continues
on 50 cases.

For the 2014 local self-government elections and according


to the information received in September, the SAO drew
FINAL REPORT 23

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

IX.PRE-ELECTION PERIOD
METHODOLOGY
Under the April 10, 2014 Executive Order of the President of
Georgia, elections for representative and executive bodies of
local self-government were scheduled for June 15, 2014.
ISFED launched monitoring of the local self-government elections on April 1; however, the monitoring report also covers
all the developments or incident that occurred before the official announcement of the date of elections, which may have
had a negative or a positive influence on the election environment. ISFED has been carrying out pre-election monitoring for

the first round of elections in all election districts of Georgia


through 73 long-term observers (LTOs). The LTOs have undergone training in preparations for the monitoring. In the process of monitoring ISFEDs LTOs. and for the second round of
elections it has carried out monitoring in 28 districts where the
second round was held. The LTOs have undergone training
in preparations for the monitoring. In the process of monitoring ISFEDs LTOs are guided by international standards for
monitoring organizations31, implying comprehensive, objective
and transparent monitoring of elections. ISFEDs pre-election
monitoring covers the following areas:

Monitoring of election administration, which mostly entails

31 In the process of monitoring ISFED follows Declaration of Global Principles for Nonpartisan Election Observation and Monitoring by Citizen Organizations,
available at http://www.gndem.org/declaration-of-global-principles; while in evaluation it is guided by and shares spirit of OSCE Copenhagen Document.
24

FINAL REPORT

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

monitoring composition of election administration and its


activities;

Monitoring public meetings of political parties/election


subjects and their other political activities, as well as their
election promises;

Detecting and studying abuse of state resources;

Detecting and acting on political pressure/threats, obstruction of political activities and alleged vote-buying.

LTOs monitored pre-election processes by means of specifically designed e-questionnaires. Prior to the launch of the
monitoring, ISFEDs 73 LTOs attended a two-day training on
pre-election monitoring and reporting methodology. The training was held in two stages.

USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES


During the pre-election campaign ISFED monitored abuse of
public resources by political parties, election subject candidates/election subjects, including whether buildings, material
and/or human resources of state authorities and local self-government as well as agencies funded from the state budget,
were used for election purposes.
During pre-election monitoring no frequent and large-scale
abuse of public resources was detected. ISFED found total
of 11 cases involving abuse of public resources mostly in
favor of the ruling party.
ISFED has found that during the pre-election period, the ruling
party initiated a number of social and infrastructural projects as well as budget amendments. Budget was not amended in violation of the election legislation per se32 ; however,
launch of various projects during the pre-election campaign
can be perceived as part of the pre-election campaign and

may contain a threat of abusing the state budge for political


purposes. We believe that had political will existed, these projects could have been implemented prior to the launch of the
pre-election campaign in a systematic and consistent manner,
without engendering any suspicions about of abuse of state
funds for pre-election purposes.
While monitoring abuse of public funds, ISFED detected cases that involved holding of pre-election campaigns in prohibited premises. It was particularly alarming that discussions about candidates for the self-government elections (both
Mayoral and majoritarian candidates) as well as formation of
party list were held during the meeting organized by the Prime
Minister in the office of the Government Chancellery33 With the
decision of the CEC, a protocol of administrative violation was
drawn up against Head of the Government Chancellery Maia
Tskitishvili.34
We welcome imposition of a sanction by the CEC for use of
public resources in favor of the ruling party as a positive precedent illustrating independence of the election administration.
However, we believe that the CECs choice of the target of
the fine was wrong, considering that members of the political
council were invited to a meeting with the Prime Minister personally. It is more likely that the premises of the Government
Chancellery were used for the pre-election purposes with the
consent of the Prime Minister. Notably, the Government Chancellery, as a structural unit of the government is headed by the
Prime Minister personally35, while the Head of the Chancellery
is subordinated to the Prime Minister. In this light, we believe
that stipulations of the law were violated by the Prime Minister;
therefore, the CEC should have drawn up the protocol of administrative offence against the Prime Minister.
During the pre-election period we also detected involvement of
election officers in campaigning, in Gurjaani N12 DEC and N5
PEC as well as in Krtsanisi N30 DEC; however, chairpersons
of respective DECs took adequate further actions by imposing
liability on election commission members as prescribed by law.

32 Pursuant to the Election Code of Georgia, implementation of projects from the 60th day prior to the elections through the Election Daym implementation of
projects that were not envisaged in the state/local budget before is prohibited, as well as increaseing and/or establishing the amount of social benefits that were
not envisaged by the Georgian legislation at least 60 days prior to the elections.
33 Conduct of pre-election campaign on the premises of institutions, where such pre-election campaigns are prohibited by the law is punishable with a fine in the
amount of 1000 GEL. Under para.5, Article 45 of the Election Code, conduct of pre-election campaigning is prohibited on premises of institutions of executive
authorities of Georgia.
34 see the information http://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/ceskos-gancxadeba-administraciuli-samartaldargvevis-faqttan-dakavshirebit.page
35 See Article 13 of the Law of Georgia on the Structure of the Government, Powers and the Rules of Operation
FINAL REPORT 25

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

VOTE BUYING
During monitoring ISFED detected cases that involved
transfer of gifts or money to voters, containing signs of
vote buying.
Kareli Gifts for IDP families
On April 17, 2014, Acting Kareli Municipality Gamgebeli Zaza
Guliashvili met with internally displaced persons (IDP). He
is a supporter of the Georgian Dream and was nominated
by the same party as their candidate. Guliashvili provided
gifts to IDP families living in Akhalsopeli, Mokha and Agara
for Easter. He also visited IDP families living in settlements
of Akhalsopeli, Mokhisi and Agara and provided them with
gifts. He also visited the eldest dweller of Akhalsopeli, Olia
Polikashvili and gave her 100 GEL. The information was
reported by Kareli Municipality in social networks36.

Akhmeta Municipaliti Beka Baidauri, who stated that the


food and medicine was purchased by the state and funds
were specifically allocated from the budget for transporting
the products on helicopter to Tusheti.
On May 3, 2014, the United National Movement applied
to the Inter-Agency Task Force for Free and Fair Elections
set up at the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, seeking further
actions by appropriate agencies in response to possible
abuse of public resources by Mamuka Kholegashvili.
The Government Chancellerys department for relations
with regions and local self-government agencies examined
the issue and after violation of the election law was found,
it took further actions; in particular, head of Akhmeta Municipality Administrative Service Mamuka Kholegashvili was
dismissed from his office.39

Kareli Gifts for Veterans of War

Aspindza

On May 9, Acting Gamgebeli of Kareli Municipality Zaza


Guliashvili and head of the social service Zaza Gachechiladze visited all participants of WWII in Kareli District to
mark the Victory Day. ISFEDs coordinator reported that 22
veterans living in Kareli District were provided with 100 GEL
each personally by Zaza Guliashvili.37

ISFEDs coordinator reported that on May 9 during an


event held to commemorate 69th anniversary of defeating
the fascism, Acting Gamgebeli who is also a candidate of
the Georgian Dream for the office of Gamgebeli Levan
Latsabidze provided gifts and greeting cards to veterans of
war. He also informed them that they would receive money
on their pension cards.

Akhmeta
On April 30, Acting Gamgebeli of Akhmeta Municipality
Beka Baidauri, chief of administrative office of Gamgeoba
and head of the local office of the Georgian Dream Democratic Georgia Mamuka Kholegashvili visited Tusheti to provide Easter baskets and medicine to the population.
Acting Gamgebeli and his accompanying individuals were
flown in Tusheti by a helicopter owned by Tusheti Air Company. As winner of the tender announced by the municipality Gamgeoba, Tusheti Air Company has an obligation38 to
provide service to Gamgeoba.
ISFEDs coordinators interviewed Acting Gamgebeli of

Adigeni
During an event held on May 9 Acting Gamgebeli of Adigeni
Municipality Zakaria Endeladze, who is also a candidate of
the coalition Georgian Dream for the office of Gamgebeli
provided each veteran of war with 50 GEL as a gift. He also
invited them to a dinner. He stated that provision of the financial gift had been envisaged in the budget before.40
Batumi
On April 30, 2014, librarians were awarded in frames of the
Library Week in Batumi Library. Acting Mayor and candidate
for the office of Mayor of Batumi Giorgi Armakovi provided

36 The information is available at https://www.facebook.com/qarelismunicipalitetis.gamgeoba?fref=t


37Photos are available at:https://www.facebook.com/qarelismunicipalitetis.gamgeoba/media_set?set=a.230423190486475.1073742026.100005563870073&typ e=1
38 See the information at http://ick.ge/articles/18045-i.html
39 See the information at:http://www.justice.gov.ge/Multimedia/Files/document/Rekomendaciebi/IATF%20%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A5%E1%83%9B%E1%83 %98%2005.05.2014.pdf
40 See the information at: http://sknews.ge/index.php?newsid=3642#.U227O4F_sl9

26

FINAL REPORT

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

awards.
Notably, Giorgi Ermakovi has an active election campaign in
social network (on Facebook). Photos of the event funded
from the budget of Batumi City Hall were posted on the web
page of Giorgi Ermakovi, the candidate. The web page initially entitled as Giorgi Ermakovi Candidate for the office
of Batumi Mayor was changed to Giorgi Ermakovi Official.
Khelvachauri
On May 14, 2014, member of the Non-Parliamentary Opposition Kakha Kukava, Pikria Chikhradze, Merab Ghoghoberidze who is also a number 1 candidate of the election
bloc in Khevachauri list of the party provided foreign assistance to population. Merab Ghoghoberidze is the head of
the Information Center for Combating Corruption in Georgia. In an interview with ISFEDs coordinator he noted that
he participated in the event in his capacity of the head of the
information center. According to Ghoghoberidze, he provided gifts prior to his registration as a candidate; however,
he had already declared his election goals in Khelvachauri
District at that time.
Acts of alleged vote buying detected by ISFED were reflected in pre-election monitoring reports; We also updated the
IATF and the SAO on a periodic basis with the information but they failed to take any further legal actions.
ISFED believes that it is important for the authorities to take

meaningful measures, examine acts of alleged vote buying


in order to ensure observance of stipulations of law and prevent any such incidents from having an adverse impact on
the election environment.

HARASSMENT
To detect any acts of political harassment, ISFED focused
on

Possible harassment against employees of state agencies, political party representatives, election subject
candidates;

Possible restriction of activities of voters, public servants, political parties, election subjects and other persons by means of various types of violence.

ISFED detected over 50 acts of harassment against election subjects.41


Up to 50 withdrawals of opposition party candidates occurred in various election districts of Georgia. Further, acts
of harassment were detected in Marneuli, where leaders
and activists of the United National Movement (UNM) invaded the office of the DEC chairperson in an attempt to
exert psychological pressure against him.42
Notably, alleged pressure was exerted on opposition par-

41 See NGOs respond to reports on pressure on candidates in eleven election districts at http://www.isfed.ge/main/655/geo/
42 See TI Georgia and ISFED react to recent pre-election developments at http://www.isfed.ge/main/685/geo/

FINAL REPORT 27

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

ties by means of harassment, intimidation as well as various agreements. According to party reports, candidates
were threatened to have their family members dismissed
from work, promised to conclude a plea bargain with their
defendant relatives, candidates received phone calls from
blocked numbers demanding that they withdraw. As to victims themselves, they generally chose not to specify who
exerted the pressure.
Withdrawals became a trend. In addition to the fact that
law enforcement and investigating authorities failed to take
any adequate further actions, on May 31 the Prime Minister made a statement saying that the Georgian Dream will
not allow victory of any other political force in any of the
regions. We believe that constructive competition is one of
the prerequisites for fair elections, which is why these statements somehow promote getting rid of competitors at the
local level by one way or another.
Official response to alleged acts of pressure against candidates was rather inadequate and ineffective. The Interior
Ministry rejected the allegations and any involvement of police officers without any investigation. Following a number
of statements and calls made by NGOs the Prosecutors Office stated that investigation was launched in 4 cases only
as in 76 cases out of 80 allegations were not upheld.43
In addition to the fact that harassment and pressure are
qualified as crime, subsequent withdrawals of candidates
could have caused abolishment of party lists44 , creating
a reasonable suspicion that pressure against opposition
candidates aimed to have them removed from registration;
however, the CECs decision eliminated the threat.45

PHYSICAL ASSAULT
ISFEDs reports reflected 5 acts of alleged physical assault detected during the pre-election period, including
three against the UNM leaders46 and two involving a con-

frontation between the coalition Georgian Dreams and the


UNMs activists.47
The first incident occurred when a rally outside the United National Movements campaign headquarter in Zugdidi
was followed by verbal and physical confrontation on 6
June 2014. Family members and friends of Paata Karadava held a protest rally, a Defense Ministry intelligence
officer who went missing in 2008. They were later joined
by representatives of the Georgian Dream Zugdidi staff
youth wing and supporters. They gathered outside the
United National Movements headquarter in Zugdidi and
attempted to break into the office but the law enforcement
officers prevented them from doing so.
It is worth noting that the law enforcement bodies worked
effectively and made an important contribution to defusing
the tension. During the incident, the patrol police detained
two individuals on the charges of minor hooliganism and
resistance to police. The Zugdidi District Court imposed a
400-lari fine on one of them on 7 May.48
Another incident occurred in Rustavi, on May 28 when
members of the election bloc United National Movement
(UNM), invaded office of a non-governmental organization
CIDA, during the training of the Georgian Dream coalition.
Verbal confrontation between representatives of the two
parties followed. Police diffused the tension but it was no
longer possible to continue the training. 49
Inflicting intentional damage to ones health is a crime;
however, the problem is further intensified by the fact that
the reason of confrontation was political views. To ensure
that pre-election environment is fair and safe, it is important for the government to provide the safety of all campaign stakeholders.
Notably, the March 31 incident when unidentified persons
inflicted bodily injuries to the UNMs representative, Nugzar Tsiklauri has not yet been opened. The victim has al-

43 Statement of the prosecution service on alleged pressure against election subjects http://pog.gov.ge/geo/news?info_id=501
44 Para.6, Article 145 of the Election Code of Georgia regulates abolishment of election registration of party lists. In particular, subparagraph f stipulates that one of the grounds for abolishment of the election registration is when no later than two days prior to the elections, number of candidates on the registered
party list is below the legal minimum. (If number of voters in election precinct is over 75 000, proportionate list should include minimum 15 candidates; if it is below 75 000, minimum 10 candidates). nformation about the decision of the CEC is available in the Chapter on Election Administration, p.18Assault on
MP Nugzar Tsiklauri, Gigi Ugulava and Zurab Chiaberashvili. For additional information visit http://www.isfed.ge/main/569/geo/; http://www.isfed.ge/main/577/geo/ p.15; http://www.isfed.ge/main/684/geo/ p.18.
45 Information about the decision of the CEC is available in the Chapter on Election Administration, p.18
46 Assault on MP Nugzar Tsiklauri, Gigi Ugulava and Zurab Chiaberashvili. For additional information visit http://www.isfed.ge/main/569/geo/; http://www.isfed.ge/main/577/geo/ p.15; http://www.isfed.ge/main/684/geo/ p.18.
47 See Transparency International Georgia and International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) react to recent incident in Zugdidi at http://www.isfed.ge/main/694/geo/
48 See the information at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/694/geo/
49 See the information at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/684/geo/

28

FINAL REPORT

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

resentatives of various public movements and the coalition


Georgian Dream disrupted the meetings.
Response of the law enforcement authorities was often
inadequate, making it impossible to conduct pre-election
meetings in a safe environment and to prevent confrontation between the parties. Punishment and fine imposed on
perpetrators was also inadequate. Usually perpetrators arrested were released with a fine in the amount of 100 GEL,
which was an inadequate measure for preventing confrontations during similar counter-rallies in the future. After the
disruption of the UNMs meeting on June 7, 2014, subsequent proceedings were instituted over the act of beating
only, as opposed to disruption of pre-election campaigning.
The former is punishable with lighter punishment. We beleged that the assault was politically motivated. Delays in
investigation of similar facts discourage prevention of politically motivated assaults.

DISRUPTION OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN


During the pre-election period ISFED detected disruptions
of pre-election campaigning, total of 11, including 9 perpetrated against the UNM meetings, one against Mayoral
Candidate of Georgias Way and one against majoritarian
candidate nominated by the initiative group in the village
of Guturi, Chokhatauri Municipality.50
In particular, the UNMs meetings with population in Telavi,

lieve that proceedings instituted by the law enforcement authorities based on Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Georgia was not right, as the case involved illegal disruption of
pre-election campaign and therefore, contained signs of
crime envisaged by Article 161 of the Code.

DISMISSAL FROM WORK ON POLITICAL


GROUNDS
Zugdidi, Anaklia, Akhaltsikhe, Batumi and Tsageri were held
amid counter-rallies and confrontations.51 Activists and rep-

During the monitoring of self-government elections, ISFED


detected 4 acts of dismissal from work on political grounds. In
particular, Gurjaani Gamgebeli Emzar Jikurishvili dismissed

50 See second and third reports of ISFEDs pre-election monitoring at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/607/geo/ ; http://www.isfed.ge/main/684/geo/
51 See ISFEDs third pre-election monitoring report, p. 12 : http://www.isfed.ge/main/684/geo/

FINAL REPORT 29

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

from work two supporters of his political rival employed in


the territorial agency of Kachreti. A supporter of the bloc
Burjanadze United Opposition was dismissed from work
on alleged political grounds in Akhmeta52. During the second round of the elections, Deputy Gamgebeli of Terjola
exerted pressure against trustee of Chognari Village. As a
result, the latter submitted a letter of resignation and was
dismissed.53
Notably, compared to previous years, the number of public
servants dismissed from work was decreased; however, we
believe that during the pre-election period any staff changes
in local self-governments must be limited to the minimum,
in order for them not to influence pre-election processes,
while acts of dismissal on political grounds must be examined by relevant authorities.

ARRESTS
The pre-election period was coupled with arrests and summons for questioning of persons engaged in active political
work. During the early stage of the monitoring ISFED detected 6 such cases.54
On April 14, pursuant to the recommendation issued by
the IATF, the authorities expressed their political will and

announced a moratorium on legal proceedings against


individuals engaged in pre-election campaigning, up until the Election Day, except when there is an urgent need
or a threat of violating procedural timeframe.55 Despite the
positive initiative, former mayor of Tbilisi Gigi Ugulava was
arrested on July 3, 2014, in Tbilisi International Airport. According to the Prosecutors Office, his arrest had been necessitated by urgent need, as there was a threat the defendant would go into hiding. On July 4, 2014, Tbilisi City Court
sentenced Gigi Ugulava to imprisonment as a preventive
measure. In an event of violation of conditions of the moratorium, the law enforcement authorities must substantiate
the urgent need of an arrest. Notably, on July 2, two days
prior to the arrest, Tbilisi City Court rejected motion of the
prosecution for ordering defendant Giorgi Ugulava submit
his passport and ID card to the investigator,56 as in light
of the evidence the Court did not consider it necessary to
hinder Giorgi Ugulavas movement abroad.

PARTICIPATION OF UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS IN PRE-ELECTION CAMPAIGNING


Pursuant to para.4, Article 45 of the Election Code of Georgia, public servants of the state or municipal authorities are
prohibited from pre-election agitation or participating in ag-

52 See assessment of the pre-election period of the second round of the local self-government elections, p.12: http://www.isfed.ge/main/684/geo/
53 See assessment of the pre-election period of the second round of the local self-government elections, p.5: http://www.isfed.ge/main/740/geo/
54 On February 10, 2014, prosecution service arrested Khoni Municipality Gamgebeli Zurab Jibukhia and his deputy Besarion Chelidze on charges of abuse of official power; in particular, the case involves illegal cutting of trees in Khoni Municipality in 2010. According to the UNM, Zurab Jibukhaia was supposed
to be their candidate in local self-government elections for the position of Gamgebeli. The detention means that he will not be able to participate in the pre-election campaign. Statement released by the prosecution service said that Deputy Chairperson of Dusheti Sakrebulo Zurab Otiashvili was arrested for
accepting bribe. The UNM believes that Otiashvilis arrest has to do with his party activities, as he had been nominated as a possible candidate in primary elections scheduled. On March 28 at 19:00, Trustee of Khala Village Malkhaz Diasamidze was arrested by the investigating office of the Ministry of Finance
of Georgia in his own office. He is a supporter of the UNM and one of the candidates for office of a majirotarian member of Sakrebulo in local self-government elections. Diasamidze has been charged with taking illegal ownership of state subsidies allocated for citrus in 2013.
55 See April 14, 2014 recommendation of the IATF: http://goo.gl/Gvpr0T
56 See the statement of Tbilisi City Court: http://tcc.gov.ge/index.php?m=443&newsid=629

30

FINAL REPORT

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

itation during working hours and/or while discharging their


official powers. The violation is subject to at sanction of 2
000 GEL under Article 79 of the organic law of Georgia the
Election Code.
During the pre-election period ISFED identified several acts
of campaigning by unauthorized individuals:
1. Trustee of territorial unit in the village of Gomi, Kaspi
Municipaliti Kakhaber Katsiashvili and a specialist of the
territorial unit Marina Lomiashvili were collecting signatures
for a candidate for Sakrebulo membership, Aleksi Bidzinashvili, from Aril 220 through May 5, 2014.
2. On May 27, pre-election meeting of the coalition Georgian Dream in Mtskheta was attended by public servants
during working hours, including head of Mtskheta Gamgeoba Health and Social Services Marina Zurabishvili, employees of Cultural Division Mamuka Makharashvili and Nino
Lazviashvili and trustee of Gamgeoba of Chardakhi Territorial Agency Lekso Aslanishvili.
3. On May 15, 2014, opening of the kindergarten N9 in
Ozurgeti Municipality were attended by municipal public
servants. Guests found one of the rooms decorated with
campaign accessories of the coalition Georgian Dream
bearing the number of the party. The opening of the kindergarten was funded by the local budget. Para.7, Article 45

of the organic law of Georgia the Election Code prohibits


pre-election campaigning during an event funded from the
local budget, qualifying the action as use of public resources. The CEC probed the fact and confirmed violation of the
Election Code of Georgia. Based on Article 88 of the Code it
referred the case to the District Election Commission for the
purpose of drawing up a protocol of administrative offence
against head of the kindergarten Vera Vasadze. 57

PARTICIPATION OF ELECTION OFFICERS


IN CAMPAIGNING
Under Article 45 of the organic law of Georgia the Election
Code members of the election administration fall under the
category of individuals directly prohibited by law from performing and/or engaging in pre-election campaigning. The
violation is subject to a sanction of 2 000 GEL under Article
79 of the organic law of Georgia the Election Code.
During the reporting period we detected three facts involving
participation of election administration officers in pre-election campaigning58; however, notably corresponding DECs
took adequate actions in response to these violations.
It is important that election officers remain independent in
their activities, while nominated election subjects should realize that it is unacceptable to have commission members
cater to their interests. The Election Code contains an im-

57 See the information at: http://cec.gov.ge/uploads/other/27/27931.pd On May 19, 2014, member of Gurjaani PEC N5 Besarion Todiashvili participated in pre-election campaigning in favor of a candidate of the coalition Georgian Dream for office of Gamgebeli, Givi Gergidze.
58_On May 19, 2014, member of Gurjaani PEC N5 Besarion Todiashvili participated in pre-election campaigning in favor of a candidate of the coalition Georgian Dream for office of Gamgebeli, Givi Gergidze. _On May 23, member of Gurjaani DEC N12 Tornike Tsintsalashvili,
the National Forums proxy in the commission, demanded that chairpersons of Kachredi PECs N36 and 37 Khatia Burduladze and Tamar Lazashvili take photos of voter lists at the polling station in order to estimate the number of voters who would vote in favor of a
majoritarian candidate of the coalition and Gamgebeli Emzar Jikurishvili. _As reported by ISFEDs coordinator, Member of Krtsanisi DEC N30, Genadi Khshiani participated in disruption of meeting of the election bloc UNM in the village of Ponichala on May 31.

FINAL REPORT 31

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

leaders of religious organizations in any form, including


during Sunday sermon, contains a component of communicating with voters and constitutes a public activity, especially when it is broadly covered by media outlets. Therefore,
public actions of a Chorbishop representing the Georgian
Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church should be
viewed as political campaigning by a religious organization,
which is prohibited by the Election Code.60

perative prohibition of any influence on members of election


administration or interference with their work in an attempt
to influence their decisions.59

PARTICIPATION OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN PRE-ELECTION


CAMPAIGNING
According to media reports, Chorbishop of Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia Jacob (Konstantine Iakobashvili) made
illegal political calls during Sunday sermon containing signs
of pre-election campaign.
Everyone has constitutional freedom of expression and the
right to support his/her favorite candidate, as prescribed by
law. However, para.4g, Article 45 of the Election Code of
Georgia directly prohibits pre-election campaigning by religious organizations.
ISFED filed a subsequent claim with the CEC, seeking a
probe into the incident and adequate legal response. The
CEC demanded written explanation from the Chorbishop in
frames of administrative proceedings and based on the explanation it concluded that during the sermon the Chorbishop was not representing a religious organization and therefore, he did not violate stipulations of the Election Code.
However, ISFED believes that public statements made by

We believe that in order to ensure secular state government, it is important to observe the principle that the state
and the church are independent from one another. Therefore, we believe that representatives of Georgian Orthodox
Church as well as other religious organizations should refrain from making campaigning calls. The purpose of the
foregoing provision is to ensure independence of the election process and disassociate it from religion, in order for
each and every citizen to be able to express his/her own will
freely, without any influence.
The norm of the Election Code strictly stipulating the prohibition of pre-election campaigning by certain subjects aims
at protecting electoral process from the influence of religious figures, which is highly probable in Georgia considering the high public confidence and authority enjoyed by
religious organizations. Independence of election process
is an important precondition for the development of democratic and secular state.

DISCRIMINATORY STATEMENTS MADE


DURING PRE-ELECTION CAMPAIGNING
We believe that discriminatory statements made during
pre-election campaigning are alarming.
On May 6 during a meeting held at Civic Engagement Center in Batumi, where the Labor Party nominated candidates
for the self-government elections, head of the Labor Partys
organization in Adjara Davit Robakidze made xenophobic
remarks. He said that he believes the city must be governed
by an ethnic Georgian, adding that candidate nominated by
him for the office of Mayor is a Georgian, born and raised in
Batumi.

59 Pursuant to para.21, Article 8 of the organic law of Georgia the Election Code, A member of the election commission is not the representative of his appointer/voter. He/she shall be independent in his/her activities and shall act only in accordance with the Constitution of
Georgia, law and relevant legal acts. Any pressure upon the member of the election commission, or interference in his/her activities, with the aim of influencing his/her decision shall be prohibited and is punishable by law.
60 Para.4g, Artile 45 of the Election Codef

32

FINAL REPORT

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

A leader of the Labor Party Giorgi Gugava noted during a


pre-election meeting on May 29 in Rustavi about LGBT persons that the caste has been granted special privileges and
that they are no longer subject to any restrictions, which they
will use in their favor in the future and live as ordinary people.
During a meeting with population of Terjola on May 31, Shalva Natelashvili made homophobic remarks saying: todays
ruling party adopted a law legalizing homosexuality.
Rustavi mayoral candidate from Burjanadze-Unified Opposition, Koba Dzlierashvili highlights during almost all meetings
held with constituents in Rustavi that he and people holding
same political views as he were against adoption of the anti-discriminatory law, emphasizing that the law is an insult
and profanity for Georgian ethnicity, Christianity and the Patriarch and that self-government elections are a battle of
Christians.
We believe that discriminatory statements made by any individual and a politician in particular, which fuel hatred and
strife, are completely unacceptable. Internal party discipline
regulations must be elaborated in order to avoid the use of
hate speech.

In particular, during the pre-election monitoring ISFED found


two acts of interference with journalistic reporting by
candidates of the non-parliamentary opposition and the coalition Georgian Dream. According to the head of news service of Odishi TV and Radio Company, Nana Kobalia was
pressured by head of the campaign office of the Non-Parliamentary Opposition in Zugdidi Municipality, Bezhan Gunava. According to Nana Kobalia, Gunava demanded that he
be included in debates between candidates for the office of
Gamgebeli from the UNM and the Non-Parliamentary Opposition;
According to, journalist of New Media Association Merab Rodonaia in the village of Rukhi, activists of the coalition Georgian Dream demanded that he delete video footage he had
recorded during a meeting of the coalition in Zugdidi, which
he refused to. The activists forced him out the meeting, took
his video camera away and deleted the footage themselves.
We believe that free media is important for objective coverage of pre-election environment and any type of pressure or
an attempt to influence media will have an adverse impact on
free election environment.
Below are statistics of pre-election violations detected
by the ISFED

MEDIA ENVIRONMENT
During the pre-election period, media outlets were able to
freely impart all types of information. Media outlets covered
pre-election meetings and political debates in a fairly balanced manner. Public had equal access to all media outlets,
including those criticizing the authorities, unlike the 2012
parliamentary elections, where majority of cable networks refused to include within their scope of coverage broadcasters
critical of the authorities. Access to the latter was improved
after official legal enactment of Must Carry and Must Offer
regulations.
The state authorities did not pressure journalists or hinder
journalistic reporting in any way, not including several incidents in rural areas, where the right of journalists to attend
events of election candidates was curtailed.

Statistics of pre-election violations detected by the ISFED

Pressure on candidates participating in local self-government


elections

50

Abuse of public
resources

Pressure-intimidation

Vote buying

Arrest

Participation of Unauthorized
Persons in Pre-Election
Campaigning

Interference with
journalistic activities

4
Disruption of
Election Campaign

5
Physical
violence

Damage of campaign
materials

10

Dismissal from work


on political grounds

Discriminatory
statements

FINAL REPORT 33

MONITORING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD BY PARTIES/ELECTION SUBJECTS DURING THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

X. MONITORING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD


BY PARTIES/ELECTION SUBJECTS DURING
THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD
During the pre-election period ISFED monitored the course of
public meetings held by political parties/election subjects, and
recorded pre-election promises made during these meetings.
ISFED found that most meetings with constituents were held
by the coalition Georgian Dream, the UNM and the Democratic Movement United Georgia. Meetings were also held by
candidates nominated by initiative groups.
ISFED monitored only the meetings that were personally attended by coordinators. Coordinators in various territorial
units of Georgia attended total of 1471 pre-election public
meetings of political parties and election subjects. During the
pre-election period of first round of the elections, from April 1
through June 10, 2014, coordinators attended 1356 pre-election public meetings, most of which were held by the following
election subjects:
1. The coalition Georgian Dream held 668 public meetings
during the pre-election period. During these meetings candidates mostly promised implementation of infrastructure projects, including addressing problems of sewage and water supply system, potable water, finishing gasification in rural areas,
building local roads in villages, addressing problems of public
transportation and apartment buildings, as well as improving
streets, squares, sports facilities, creating recreational/green
zones and developing local tourism. Promises were also made
to implement healthcare projects, including building hospitals
and helping the socially vulnerable.
2. During 229 public meetings held by the UNM candidates
mostly promised bringing prices of public transportation down;
rehabilitating houses affected by earthquakes; implementing
infrastructure projects, including building roads in villages; addressing problems of irrigation and potable water; improving
the system of garbage disposal; opening new kindergartens;
addressing the problem of land cultivation in villages; implementing social and healthcare programs; helping enterprises
start operating; improving childrens playgrounds and stadiums; developing tourism.
3. Nino Burjanadze Unified Opposition held total of 149
public meetings, where majority of promises were made about

34

FINAL REPORT

implementing infrastructure projects, including rehabilitation of


buildings, improving roads, addressing the problem of sewage water system and potable water, providing street lighting,
improving amenities in sports stadiums; implementing social
projects, including providing a pension supplement of 25 GEL;
helping young families; providing assistance for veterans of
war, pensioners and socially vulnerable families; helping small
enterprises start operating, creating jobs and supporting agricultural projects.
4. Non-Parliamentary Opposition Kakha Kukava, Pikria
Chikhardze held 54 public meetings. Candidates made the following promises during the meetings: loans on concessionary
terms for small and medium businesses; improving infrastructure, including building roads, improving sewage, irrigation and
potable water systems, rehabilitating deteriorated neighborhoods, building kindergartens, solving the problem of parking;
providing care for the socially vulnerable; solving the problem
of outside vendors; creating cultural and educational areas;
improving childrens playgrounds; providing interest-free loans
for small and medium businesses; helping self-governments
address healthcare problems; greening the city and promoting
creation of jobs.
5. 42 meetings held by Shalva Natelashvili Labor Party of
Georgia were attended by ISFEDs coordinators. Candidates
made the following promises during the meetings: improving
social condition increasing pensions, social assistance; determining minimum fee for outside vendors; free healthcare
and education; tackling the problem of unemployment and increasing funding for agricultural programs; returning savings
and temporary debt relief; building municipal hospitals in every
city.
6. The following promises were made by candidates during 52
meetings held by the Salome Zurabishvili -Georgias Way:
creating jobs and providing employment opportunities for local
population; attracting investments for building factories; development of infrastructure; improving childrens squares and
stadiums; adapting the environment to persons with disabilities; addressing problems of gas, electricity and water supply;
restoring exteriors of apartment buildings; taking care of the
socially vulnerable.

MONITORING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD BY PARTIES/ELECTION SUBJECTS DURING THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

COORDINATORS OF ISFED HAVE ATTENDED 1471 PUBLIC MEETINGS HOLD BY POLITICAL PARTIES
AND CANDIDATES IN ALL MUNICIPALITIES (REPORTING PERIOD APRIL 1-JULY 11, 2014)

766

COALITION GEORGIAN DREAM

766

UNITED NATIONAL MOVEMENT-

311

NINO BURJANADZE - UNIFIED OPPOSITION

153
NON-PARLIAMENTARY OPPOSITION-

KAKHA KUKAVA, PHIKRIA CHIKHRADZE


54

SALOME ZURABISHVILI- THE GEORGIAN WAY

52
311

SHALVA NATELASHVILI - LABOR PARTY OF GEORGIA

42

ALLIANCE OF PATRIOTS OF GEORGIA

32
153

OTHER PARTIES AND INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES

61
61

32

42

52

54

7. During 31 meetings of the Alliance of Georgian Patriots


the following promises were made: solving the problem of unemployment and increasing minimum wage to 800 GEL; implementing infrastructure projects; taking care of the socially
vulnerable; promoting women participation.
8. Meetings held by other election subjects: Self-Government to People - 9 meetings, Peoples Party 8, Green Party
5, Irakli Okruashvili-Georgian Party 5, Future Georgia 2,
and other candidates.
From June 23 to July 11, 2014, in municipalities and self-governing cities were the second round of elections was held,
ISFEDs coordinators attended total of 115 meetings held by
candidates, including 98 by the coalition Georgian Dream, 12
by the UNM, 4 by Nino Burjanadze-United Opposition and 1
by the Alliance of Georgian Patriots. Election subjects called
for active participation in the elections and support.

FINAL REPORT 35

ELECTION DAY

XI. Election Day


FIRST ROUND OF THE ELECTIONS
THE MONITORING MISSION
The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy
(ISFED) monitored the June 15, 2014 local self-government
elections in all electoral districts around Georgia. ISFEDs
observation mission consisted of approximately 1,300 accredited and trained observers deployed to precinct, district
and central election commissions throughout the country.

ISFED monitored total of 1030 election precincts throughout 73 election districts of Georgia. Out of 1030 static observers 300 were stationed on randomly selected election
precincts throughout Georgia, while 349 static observers
were deployed in randomly selected election precincts in
Tbilisi and 9 static observers were deployed in Tbilisi election precincts adapted to the needs of persons with disabilities, which had not been included in representative sample.
In 11 self-governing cities61 ISFED deployed 372 static ob-

61 11 self-governing cities Rustavi, Gori, Mtskheta, Poti, Akhaltsikhe, Ambrolauri, Zugdidi, Ozurgeti, Batumi, Kutaisi, Telavi
36

FINAL REPORT

ELECTION DAY

There were two centers operating at the central office on


the Election Day SMS center and incidents center. Information received by observers via text messages throughout the day were accumulated in a special database and
further verified by operators when needed. Processing and
analysis of verified information was performed by a group
of experts.

servers in all election precincts. In addition to static observers, ISFEDs Election Day monitoring mission was also
composed of 80 mobile groups, 73 district observers, 20
lawyers and 20 operators.
During the first stage of preparations for the Election Day,
ISFED elaborated monitoring methodology, the system of
reporting and communication, database, monitoring templates, instructions, guidelines and other election materials. During the second stage of the preparations, ISFED
recruited 22 trainers and conducted the following types of
training:




55 trainings for up to 1100 static observers;


4 training for 73 district observers;
4 trainings for 80 mobile teams;
Training for 15 lawyers;
Training for 20 operators.

MONITORING METHODOLOGY
ISFEDs Election Day observation was based on the Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT) methodology62. Several days before the elections ISFED conducted simulation of the whole
PVT process, aimed at testing whether the program runs
well and whether observers are able to communicate information via text messages comprehensively and effectively.
The simulation was a success as 98% of its observers were
able to report to ISFED.

Any violation detected at election precincts or districts on


the Election Day were reported to the incidents center
composed of divisions for each region and manned by 20
lawyers. After consulting with lawyers, observers took further actions in response to each violation detected at their
respective election precinct or district. Lawyers recorded
verified and processed information in the incidents database. The database contained information not only about
violations but also about complaints filed with election precincts and districts.
Joint election portal of three NGOs63 was actively operating on the Election Day, reporting about incidents detected
by individual citizens or NGOs.
After processing cumulative information received from the
incidents and the SMS centers, ISFED drafted 5 statements about the course of the Elections, trends identified,
violations detected and polling results. The statements
were made public through ISFEDs website, social networks and press conferences.
On the Election Day ISFED held 5 press-conferences:
1. On 15.06.14 at 11:00 - setting up/opening of polling stations;
2. On 15.06.14 at 14:00 - the process of polling/voter turnout by 12:00pm;
3. On 15.06.14, at 19:00 - the process of polling/voter turnout by 17:00pm;
4. On 15.06.14, at 22:30 - the process of polling/closing of
polling stations;
5. On 16.06.14, at 09:30 - counting of votes/results.

62 By using PVT methodology on the Election Day, ISFED was able to collect quantitative and qualitative data from a randomly selected precincts and analyze the information; assess the whole process of the Election Day in a systematic and
unbiased manner, including opening of polling staitons, voting, closing of polling stations, counting of votes and tabulation of results; receive fact-based information and take further actions the with the aim of improving the process; detect errors/
violations during opening of polling stations, polling process and counting of votes; generalize information received from randomly selected election precincts to eleciton precincts throughout country; verify official results of the Election Day.
63 ISFED, GYLA and TI-Georgia

FINAL REPORT 37

ELECTION DAY

KEY FINDINGS
The ISFEDs assessment of June 15, 2014 local self-government elections has been quite positive considering that there
was a decrease in procedure-type violations during the polling process compared to both the 2010 local self-government
elections and the 2013 presidential elections. Notably, unlike
the previous elections some important violations have been
found at several polling stations including physical violence,
ballot box stuffing and taking illegal hold of/damaging materials. Considering that the scale of such incidents was limited
and the election administration took further actions in response
by annulling results at polling stations concerned, these violations have not had any impact on final Election Day results.
Further, unlike previous elections we did not detect any disturbing gaps in the first round of the elections, with respect to
voter lists. However, we did find a new trend of election subjects being present at polling stations with a status of a proxy
or an observer. We also detected acts of illegal campaigning
at election precincts. Notably, we found one important trend in
the process of drawing up of summary protocols high percentage rate of invalid ballots and high number of errors in
summary protocols64.

PVT RESULTS
Opening and setting up of polling stations
Based on the information provided by ISFEDs observers,
the opening process has improved as compared to the 2013
Presidential Election. All ISFED observers had the opportunity
to access and monitor all of their polling stations. 97.7% of
polling stations were ready to receive voters by 8:00am, while
in 2013, 95.7% of stations were ready by 8:00am. This is similar to the 2010 local elections, when 99.8 % of polling stations
were ready for voting. ISFED received reports on the opening
of polling stations from 99.7 % of PVT observers.
All observers (100%) of ISFED were free to observe the opening process, compared to 99.8% of polling stations during the
2013 elections.
In absolute majority of polling stations, no significant violations
were detected during the opening. This is similar to the 2013
presidential elections.

64 http://www.isfed.ge/main/726/geo/
38

FINAL REPORT

Opening procedures

98.7%
of polling stations were ready
for voting by 08:00 am

Polling Station

The opening process has also gone well in the self-governing


cities. None of them differ significantly from the national trend
described above.
Polling Process
Based on the ISFED PVT data, we can conclude that the
voting process was conducted in an organized and calm
environment throughout the country. Opening, voting and
counting procedures at the majority of polling stations were
in line with the rules determined by the Georgian legislation.
At 97.7% of polling stations in Georgia, voters cast their
ballots using proper voter identification. In 2.3% of polling
stations, some voters were not requested to present a proper identification document. This figure is similar to the 2010
Local Elections and the 2013 Presidential Election. The situation in the 12 self-governing cities also reflects this positive
trend.
Inking was always properly checked at 97.3% of polling
stations, which marks a slight increase from the Presidential
Election last year when inking was always checked at 94.8%
of polling stations. This is also an improvement over the 2010
Local Elections when inking was always properly checked at
95.3% of polling stations. When comparing to the national figure, most frequently the inking was not checked in Mtskheta
self-governing city.

ELECTION DAY

At 99.7% of polling stations, the ballot papers were properly


validated with a signature and seal. In 2013 the percentage
of such polling stations was 99.1% and in the 2010 local elections, it was 99.3%. The situation in the self-governing cities
Voting process

IN

97.3%

of polling stations, inking was


properly checked

counting of the votes, similar to the 2013 presidential elections


(98.6%). We identified higher rate of incidents in the self-governing city of Ozurgeti during counting of votes.
In 99.3% of polling stations, the electoral materials were
properly sealed before being sent to the district election commissions, while in 2013 the rate of such polling stations was
99.8%. The positive trend has been maintained in all self-governing cities, except Ozurgeti where slightly less number of
polling stations sealed electoral materials properly, in compliance to legal regulations.
ISFEDs observers filed complaints with 2.3% of election precincts. PECs registered all of the ISFEDs complaints, except
one. This is not a statistically significant difference compared
to 2013 presidential and 2010 local self-government elections,
when ISFED filed complaints in 1.9% and 2.3% of election
precincts, respectively.
Voter Turnout

did not significantly differ from the national figure.


In 96% of polling stations, voters were always properly inked,
a slight decrease from 97.8% during last years Presidential
Elections. This year is similar to the 2010 Local Elections,
when the inking was properly applied at 96.2% of polling stations. The situation in the self-governing cities did not significantly differ from the national figure.

During the first round of the elections, based on the results


of PVT, voter turnout throughout the country was 43% (+/-0.2
margin of error at a 95% confidence interval), which is a significant decrease compared to the voter turnout during the presidential elections (46.9%). Among self-governing cities, highest
voter turnout was found in Ambrolauri (66%), the lowest in
Kutaisi (31%).
Final voter turnout in each self-governing city:

The secrecy of vote was ensured at 96.3% of the polling stations. In this case there is no statistically significant difference
between this figure and the figure of 2010. When comparing to
the national figure, the secrecy of the vote was secured slightly
less often in the Poti and Ozurgeti self-governing cities.
There was intimidation or pressure in only 1.3% of polling
stations. The situation in all self-governing cities also reflects
this positive trend.

Voter's final turnout in Local Self Governing cities


| Round

37.1%

31%

36%

37%

18%

49%

42

Tbilisi

Kutaisi

Rustavi

Batumi

Poti

Ozurgeti

Akhaltsikhe

The process went mainly well, but there were minor shortcomings in 17.4% of polling stations.
The Process of Vote Counting

42%

34%

35%

66%

55%

Telavi

Zugdidi

Gori

Ambrolauri

Mtskheta

At 96.6% of polling stations, there were no incidents during the


FINAL REPORT 39

ELECTION DAY

Final Election results according to PVT methodology

Rustavi (100% of PVT observer reporting):

Based on the information received about the Election Day


process, ISFED is confident in projections of the Parallel
Vote Tabulation (PVT). ISFED received information from
100% of its observers and below are projections for proportionate election system and Mayoral elections. Notably,
official results according to the CEC were within the ranges
predicted by the PVT.

N.41. Davit Jikia Bloc Georgian Dream - 41.1%


N.5. Mamuka Chikovani - Bloc the UNM - 28.8%
N.12. Erasti Kitsmarishvili - Our Georgia - 11.9%
N.3. Koba Dzlierishvili - Nino Burjanadze United Opposition - 6.3%
N.8. Ivane Shatirishvili Alliance of Georgian Patriots 4.3%
N.20. Revaz Rizhamadze - Labor Party- 3.2%
N.1. Aleksandre Beridze - Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 2.1%
N.18. Aleksandre Kobaidze - Salome Zurabishvili Georgias Way- 1.6%
N.7. Elguja Kochiashvili - In the name of God God is our
Truth- 0.8%

Results for Mayoral Races


Tbilisi Mayoral Results (100% of PVT observer reporting):
Candidate and Party/Bloc

PVT
projection

N.41. Davit Narmania Bloc Georgian Dream


N.5. Nikanor Melia Bloc United National Movement

45.89%

0.65%

27.99%

0.67%

N.3. Dimitri Lortkipanidze


Nino Burjanadze United Opposition

12.85%

0.42%

N.8. Irma Inashvili - D.Tarkhan-Mouravi


Alliance of Patriots of Georgia

5.30%

0.21%

N.20. Asmat Tkabladze Labor Party

2.52%

0.12%

N.1. Kakha Kukava Bloc Non Parliamentary Opposition

2.27%

0.11%

N.6. Giorgi Gachechiladze Giorgi Gachechiladze Green Party

1.17%

0.08%

N.18. Teimuraz Murvanidze Salome Zurabishvili Georgias Way

0.50%

0.06%

N.7. Mikheil Saluashvili


In the name of God God is our Truth

0.38%

0.06%

N.11. Irakli Glonti Irakli Glonti - Reformers

0.34%

0.05%

N.9. Sergo Javakhidze Bloc Self-Government to People

0.33%

0.09%

N.36. Roin Liparteliani


Council of Georgian Workers

0.21%

0.18%

N.30. Giorgi Liluashvili Merab Kostava Society

0.13%

0.04%

N.13. Giorgi Laghidze Future Georgia

0.10%

0.02%

65 margin of error at a 95% confidence interval


40

FINAL REPORT

Margin of
error 65

Mtskheta (100% of PVT observer reporting)


N.41. Avtandil Nemsitsveradze - Bloc Georgian Dream 33.6%
N.6. Davit Machkhaneli - Giorgi Gachechiladze Green
Party - 25.6%
N.3. Ilia Rukhadze - Nino Burjanadze United Opposition
- 23.9%
N.8. Davit Alibegashvili Alliance of Patriots of Georgia 7.2%
N.2. Ivane Beridze - Political Movement of [law enforcement
and armed forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia - 4.0%
N.26. Ramaz Ghvaladze - Peoples Party - 3.8%
N.5. Gurami Kintsurashvili - Bloc the UNM - 1.9%
Kutaisi (100% of PVT observer reporting)
N.41. Shota Murgulia Bloc - Georgian Dream - 50.7%
N.5. Giorgi Tevdoradze Bloc- United National Movement
- 26.2%
N.3. Teimuraz Shashiashvili Nino Burjanadze-United Opposition - 13.5%
N.8. Alexander Kezevadze Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
-3.7%
N.20. Irakli Kikvadze Labor Party - 2.7%
N.1. Magda Gabrichidze Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 1.8%
N.9. Khatuna Machavariani Self-Governance for the People -1.3%

ELECTION DAY

Zugdidi (100% of PVT observer reporting)


N.41. Irakli Gogokhia Bloc Georgian Dream - 58.4%
N.5. Teimuraz Basilaia Bloc - the UNM - 33.1%
N.1. Irakli Gurtskaia - Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 4.3%
N.3. Rusudan Pachkoria Nino Burjanadze-United Opposition - 4.2%
Ambrolauri (100% of PVT observer reporting)
N.41. Rati Namgaladze Bloc Georgian Dream - 82.9%
N.5. Amiran Lomtadze Bloc the UNM - 17.2%
Batumi (100% of PVT observer reporting)
N.41. Giorgi Ermakov Bloc Georgian Dream- 44.4%
N.5. Giorgi Diasamidze Bloc the UNM - 17.8%
N.18. Gocha Gugunava Georgias Way - 8.2%
N.8. Teimuraz Mikeladze Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
- 7.7%
N.3. Murman Beridze Nino Burjanadze-United Opposition
- 6.2%
N.17. Merab Khimshiashvili Assembly of Unity - 6.1%
N.10. Jumber Tavartkiladze Party of People - 2.6%
N.20. Nugzar Chkhaidze Labor Party - 2.4%
N.11. Davit Diasamidze Irakli Ghlonti - Reformers - 2.2%
N.1. Alexander Tevzadze Non-Parliamentary Opposition
bloc - 1.4%
N.9. Durmishkhan Shainidze bloc Self-Governance for
the People - 1.0%

N.18. Ivane Tabatadze Georgias Way - 17.9%


N.3. Kakha Chavleshvili Nino Burjanadze-United Opposition - 12.3%
N.5. Levan Goguadze bloc the UNM - 9.6%
N.1. Irma Kvachantiradze Non-Parliamentary Opposition
- 2.9%
N.20. Mirza Chkhikvishvili Labor Party - 2.6%
N.9. Lasha Moistsrapishvili Self-Governance for the People - 0.2%
Gori (100% of PVT observer reporting)
N.41. Zurabi Jirkvelishvili - bloc Georgian Dream- 40.8%
N.14. Kakhaber Ergemlidze - Irakli Okruashvili- Georgian
Party- 28.2%
N.5. Archil Sabiashvili - bloc the UNM- 15.2%
N.3. Mamuka Nozadze - Nino Burjanadze-United Opposition- 6.9%
N.17. Tamaz Makashvili - Assambly of Unity - 5.0%
N.1. Vasil Butkhuzi - bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition
- 3.3%
N.36. Giuli Mukniashvili - Council of Georgian Workers 0.6%
Akhaltsikhe (100% of PVT observer reporting)
N.41. Giorgi Kopadze - bloc Georgian Dream- 60.5%
N.5. Gela Demetradze - bloc - the UNM- 31.0%
N.3. Zaza Natenadze - Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition- 4.3%
N.18. Gocha Atoshvili - Salome Zurabishvili- Georgias
Way- 4.1%

Poti (100% of PVT observer reporting)

Telavi (100% of PVT observer reporting)

N.41. Irakli Kakulia bloc Georgian Dream - 46.0%


N.8. Ushangi Gegenava - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia 20.7%
N.5. Vakhtang Dartsmelidze coalition the UNM - 19.2%
N.3. Davit Kantaria Nino Burjanadze-United Opposition
- 14.2%

N.41. Platoni Kalmakhelidze - bloc Georgian Dream 41.6%


N.5. Aleksi Dzuliashvili - bloc - the UNM- 23.1%
N.3. Tamazi Arjevanidze - Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition- 13.4%
N.1. Giorgi Mosashvili - bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 10.0%
N.6. Nodar Mumlauri - Giorgi Gachechiladze-Green Party- 4.8%
N.8. Zaza Devidze - Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi-Alliance of Patriots of Georgia- 4.6%
N.20. Ketevan Zakariashvili - Labor Party- 2.4%

Ozurgeti (100% of PVT observer reporting)


N.41. Beglar Sioridze bloc Georgian Dream - 34.8%
N.8. Shota Gogiberidze Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
-19.7%

FINAL REPORT 41

ELECTION DAY

RESULTS FOR PROPORTIONATE RACES


Tbilisi (100% of PVT samplereporting):
Candidate, party/bloc

PVT
Margin of
projections error 66

N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream

46.15%

0.56%

N.5. Bloc - the UNM

26.02%

0.63%

N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition

10.41%

0.36%

N.8. Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of Patriots of 6.19%


Georgia
3.41%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili - Labor Party

0.26%

N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition

1.99%

0.11%

N.6. Giorgi Gachechiladze - Green Party

1.51%

0.10%

N.18. Salome Zurabishvili- Georgias Way

1.19%

0.11%

N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and 0.74%


armed forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia

0.10%

N.7. In the name of God - God is our Truth

0.58%

0.06%

N.9. Bloc - Self-Government to People

0.40%

0.10%

N.11. Irakli Ghlonti - Reformers

0.39%

0.06%

N.26. Peoples Party

0.22%

0.04%

N.30. Merab Kostavas Society

0.21%

0.02%

N.16. Christian-Democratic Party

0.14%

0.02%

N.36. Council of Georgian Workers

0.12%

0.02%

N.12. Our Georgia

0.12%

0.02%

N.17. Assambly of Unity

0.11%

0.05%

N.13. Future Georgia

0.10%

0.02%

0.16%

Rustavi (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)


N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 40.8%
N.5. Bloc - the UNM - 27.4%
N.12. Our Georgia - 7.6%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition - 7.2%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili - Labor Party - 5.5%
N.8. Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
- 5.1%
N.1. bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 2.1%
N.18. Salome Zurabishvili- Georgias Way - 1.2%
66 At 95% confidence level.

42

FINAL REPORT

N.7. In the name of God - God is our Truth - 1.1%


N.6. Giorgi Gachechiladze - Green Party - 0.9%
N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and armed
forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia- 0.4%
N.9. Bloc - Self-Government to People - 0.4% ;
N.30. Merab Kostavas Society - 0.2%
Mtskheta (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)
N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 38.9%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition - 20.7%
N.6. Giorgi Gachechiladze - Green Party - 9.9%
N.8. Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
- 9.6%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Party - 7.3%
N.26. Peoples Party - 6.2%
N.5. Bloc - the UNM - 4.6%
N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and armed
forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia- 2.2%
N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 0.7%
Gori (99% of PVT observer reporting)
N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 36.0%
N.14. Irakli Okruashvili- Georgian Party - 28.1%
N.5. Bloc - the UNM - 15.4%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition - 7.8%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Party - 4.4%
N.8. Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
- 3.4%
N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 1.9%
N.17. Assambly of Unity - 1.6%
N.18. Salome Zurabishvili- Georgias Way - 1.2%
N.9. Bloc - Self-Government to People - 0.2%
Telavi (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)
N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 41.4%
N.5. Bloc - the UNM- 19.9%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition- 14.5%
N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 7.4%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Party - 5.4%
N.8. Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
- 4.5%

ELECTION DAY

N.6. Giorgi Gachechiladze - Green Party - 3.7%


N.30. Merab Kostavas Society - 1.9%
N.9. Bloc - Self-Government to People - 0.8%
N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and armed
forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia- 0.6%
Kutaisi (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)
N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 48.5%
N.5. Bloc - the UNM - 26.4%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition - 10.2%
N.8. Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
- 4.9%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Party - 4.6%
N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition- 2.5%
N.9. Bloc - Self-Government to People - 1.0%
N.18. Salome Zurabishvili- Georgias Way - 0.8%
N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and armed
forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia- 0.7%
N.26. Peoples Party - 0.2%
N.11. Irakli Ghlonti - Reformers - 0.1%

N.16. Christian-Democratic Party - 1.4%


N.9. Bloc - Self-Government to People - 0.4%
N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and armed
forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia- 0.3%
N.18. Salome Zurabishvili- Georgias Way - 0.3%
N.11. Irakli Ghlonti - Reformers - 0.2%
Poti (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)
N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 40.5%
N.5. Bloc - the UNM - 20.3%
N.8. Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
- 14.1%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition - 12.6%
N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and armed
forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia- 3.3%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Party - 3.2%
N.18. Salome Zurabishvili- Georgias Way - 3.1%
N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 2.6%
N.9. Bloc - Self-Government to People - 0.2%
N.17. Assambly of Unity - 0.1%

Zugdidi (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)

Ozurgeti (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)

N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 54.2%


N.5. Bloc - the UNM - 34.0%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition - 4.4%
N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 3.2%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Party - 1.7%

N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 41.7%


N.8. Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
- 15.6%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition - 13.5%
N.5. Bloc - the UNM - 12.2%
N.18. Salome Zurabishvili- Georgias Way - 6.8%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Party - 4.8%
N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 2.8%
N.30. Merab Kostavas Society - 1.4%
N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and armed
forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia- 1.3%
Ambrolauri (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)
N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 65.1%
N.5. Bloc - the UNM - 11.9%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition- 10.7%
N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 5.2%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Party- 4.6%
N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and armed
forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia- 2.0%
N.9. Bloc - Self-Government to People - 0.5%
Batumi (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)
FINAL REPORT 43

ELECTION DAY

N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 42.3%


N.5. Bloc - the UNM - 18.7%
N.8. Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
- 9.8%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition - 8.9%
N.18. Salome Zurabishvili- Georgias Way - 5.3%
N.17. Assambly of Unity - 4.7%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Party - 2.8%
N.10. Peoples Party - 1.6%
N.26. Peoples Party - 1.5%
N.11. Irakli Ghlonti - Reformers - 1.4%
N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 1.3%
N.9. Bloc - Self-Government to People - 0.7%
N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and armed
forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia- 0.5%
N.36. Council of Georgian Workers - 0.3%
N.6. Giorgi Gachechiladze - Green Party - 0.3%
N.30. Merab Kostavas Society - 0.2%

ISFEDs election observers and the analysis of information


after carefully examining election summary protocols, ISFED has identified several important trends outlined below:
1. High rate of invalid ballots

Compared to the 2010 local self-government elections,


there has been a 4% increase in average rate of invalid
ballot papers (1%), amounting to 5% throughout Georgia;

The highest percentage rate of invalid ballots was in


proportionate and Gamgebeli summary protocols,
equaling to 5% average while average percentage rate
of invalid ballots in summary protocols of Majoritarian
and Mayoral elections was 4%;

The rate of invalid ballots was above 10% in summary


protocols for Gamgebeli elections at 3% (110) of polling stations throughout Georgia, and at 5.3% (193) and
4.7% (170) of polling stations in summary protocols for
majoritarian and proportionate elections, respectively. Overall, the rate of invalid ballots was higher than
10% at 13% of the polling stations throughout Georgia,
which is quite high;

The highest average rate of invalid ballots were found


in Kvemo-Kartli and Samkhtse-Javakheti regions, as
well as Sagarejo District. At several polling stations in
these regions the rate of invalid ballots was over 15%.
These are polling stations in Sagarejo, Gardabani, Marneuli, Bolnisi, Dmanisi, Akhalkalaki, Tsalka, Adigeni, Ninotsminda. There is a lower number of polling stations
in other districts where the rate of invalid ballots was
also high e.g. polling stations in Gori, Ozurgeti, Zugdidi, Mestia.

Akhaltsikhe (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)


N.41. Bloc Georgian Dream - 57.3%
N.5. Bloc - the UNM - 29.3%
N.3. Nino Burjanadze - United Opposition - 4.9%
N.8. Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia
- 3.0%
N.20. Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Party - 2.0%
N.18. Salome Zurabishvili- Georgias Way - 1.3%
N.1. Bloc Non-Parliamentary Opposition - 1.2%
N.2. Political Movement of [law enforcement and armed
forces] Veterans and Patriots of Georgia- 1.0%
N.9. Bloc - Self-Government to People - 0.1%

HIGH RATE OF INVALID BALLOTS AND


GAPS IN SUMMARY PROTOCOLS
As noted above, ISFEDs assessment of the polling process in general was rather positive; however, not only the
process of polling but also tabulation of results and drawing
up of summary protocols is essential for having transparent
and fair elections, all which will allow us to assess the influence that these processes have had on the final election
results and whether the conduct of elections has been democratic. In this light, ISFED examined Election Day summary protocols from all polling stations. Based on reports from

44

FINAL REPORT

2. More than a thousand irregularities and violations


in summary protocols reported at hundreds of polling
stations

Up to 500 summary protocols were missing important


attributes, including a seal of the commission, signatures of election commission members, date and more.
In several instances a single summary protocol was
missing several types of attributes;

ELECTION DAY

Figures did not reconcile in up to 500 summary protocols. In a number of cases summary protocols were
enclosed with correction protocols at polling stations;
however, in majority of cases DECs and the CEC failed
to enclose summary protocols with correction or explanatory protocols in a timely manner;

One or more data had been corrected in over 50 summary protocols. The highest number of corrected summary protocols (24) was found in Samtskhe-Javakheti
Region, in Akhalkalaki and Akhaltsikhe districts in particular;

Overall, the highest number of irregularities in summary


protocols was found in Kvemo-Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti districts and in Tbilisi.

Irregularities in summary protocols could have been the


result of having unqualified election officials at polling stations. ISFED also believes that high rate of invalid ballots
could have been caused by the complexity of local self-government elections and/or nihilistic approach of the population towards the elections. However, to increase trust in the
election process, ISFED urged the CEC to recount results
at problematic polling stations. To ensure transparency of
the process, ISFED requested that the CEC invite all stakeholders representatives of election subjects, political parties and international and local non-governmental organizations - to attend the recount.
Notably, several days prior to publishing the statement ISFED provided the Central Election Commission (CEC) with
the list of polling stations where considerably high percentage share of invalid ballots was found. In particular, ISFED
recommended that the CEC recount results of 109 summary protocols of 66 polling stations where share of invalid
ballots was 15% or more.
Later the CEC stated that it examined 109 summary protocols from 66 polling stations and found several causes of
the high number of invalid ballots, including voters checking
more than one candidate or crossing out all candidates in
majority of the cases at 63 polling stations. Further, in a
number of cases votes were cast only through one ballot,
leaving the remaining two ballots empty.
Regrettably, we find it hard to understand how the election

administration identified these causes - whether it was by


recounting invalid ballots or based on verbal statement of
district election commissions. Despite our recommendation, ISFED and other monitoring organizations were not
invited to attend to monitor the process of examining and
analyzing the facts.

SECOND ROUND OF THE ELECTIONS


Monitoring Mission
The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy
(ISFED) monitored the second round of the local self-government elections on July 12, 2014 in 28 electoral districts
around Georgia. ISFEDs observation mission consisted of
approximately 800 accredited and trained observers, including 32 mobile teams, deployed to precinct and district
election commissions throughout the country, as well as the
central election commission.
For the second round elections, ISFED deployed observers
to

A representative, random sample of 350 polling stations


in Tbilisi;

All polling stations in 4 self-governing cities (Rustavi,


Mtskheta, Gori, Ozurgeti) and 7 local communities
(Khoni, Baghdati, Tkibuli, Terjola, Lanchkhuti, Khulo,
Akhmeta)

The remaining 7 electoral districts (Batumi, Poti, Kobuleti, Telavi, Kvareli, Martvili, Tianeti), where ISFED
conducted mobile observation.

Monitoring Methodology
Similar to the first round of the elections, ISFED implemented monitoring of the second round of the local self-government elections using the Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT)
methodology. There were SMS and incidents centers operating at the central office, manned by 15 operators and
15 lawyers.
For keeping public updated about the second round of the
elections, ISFED held the following 4 press-conferences:

FINAL REPORT 45

ELECTION DAY

Key Findings
ISFED believes that the second round of local self-government elections set an important precedent in the electoral
history of Georgia. The necessity of the second round in
these elections proved that a competitive electoral environment is forming in Georgia, which means that no party,
including the ruling one, is guaranteed a victory in the first
round. We think that the aforementioned set a higher standard for conducting democratic elections in the country.
As to ISFEDs assessment of the Election Day, based on
the analysis of the information received through PVT methodology ISFED concludes that the voting and vote count
processes were conducted in a calm environment. However, unfortunately, cases of verbal and physical confrontation
between the political party activists were observed in the
vicinity of the polling stations. These instances fell outside
ISFEDs PVT observation area, since they took place outside the polling stations. Noteworthy was a trend of 140 voters at 73 polling stations of 19 districts67 going to the polling
stations only to find out that they were not registered in the
voters lists. Out of these 140 voters, 53 stated that they had
cast their vote in the first round of elections on June 15.
PVT Results
Opening and setting up of polling stations
Based on reports from ISFEDs observers, the process of
opening of polling stations has improved in self-governing
cities compared to the first round of the 2014 local self-government elections. No major violations were found in the
process of opening and setting up of most part of the polling
stations in self-governing cities and municipalities where

ISFED implemented observation. However, ISFED detected ballot stuffing at election precinct N36 of Khulo Election
District, as well as minor procedural violations in several
election precincts.
All but one observer of ISFED had an opportunity to monitor
the process of opening of polling stations in all self-governing cities and municipalities.
Majority of polling stations were ready to receive voters
by 8:00am 99.4% of polling stations in Tbilisi, 83.3%
in Mtskheta, 96.3% in Khoni, 97.3% in Tkibuli as well as
self-governing cities of Gori, Rustavi and Ozurgeti, and almost all communities of Lanchkhuti, Khulo, Akhmeta, Baghdati, Terjola.

THE POLLING PROCESS


ISFEDs monitoring has found that polling process was
peaceful and no major irregularities took place. At some-

Opening procedures
The polling station was ready
for the first voter
by 8:00 am
Tbilisi - 99.4%
Mtskheta - 83.3%
Khoni - 96.3%
Tkibuli - 97.3%
Polling Station

Gori

Terjola

Akhmeta

Ozurgeti

Khulo

Baghdati

Lanchkhuti

Rustavi

100%

1. 12.07.14, 11:00 am opening/setting up of polling stations;


2. 12.07.14, 15:00 pm polling process/voter turnout as of
12 pm;
3. 12.07.14, 19:00 pm polling process/voter turnout as of
17pm;
4. 13.07.14, 09:30 pm counting of votes/results.

election precincts violations of inking and vote secrecy procedures were detected; however, these irregularities were
often mediated by means of verbal reproof.

67 Rustavi (17 PECs), Gldani (7 PECs), Isani (6 PECs), Samgori (6 PECs), Gori (6 PECs), Akhmeta (5 PECs), Saburtalo (4 PECs), Nadzaladevi (4 PECs), Khulo (4 PECs), Ozurgeti
(3 PECs), Vake (2 PCs), Krtsanisi (2 PECs) and per one precinct in Mtatsminda, Chugureti, Terjola, Baghdati, KHoni, Tkibuli and Lanchkhuti election districts
46

FINAL REPORT

ELECTION DAY

Based on parallel counting of votes:

All voters in self-governing cities of Rustavi, Mtskhketa, Gori, Ozurgeti and in municipalities of Akhmeta,
Lanchkhuti, Terjola, Tkibuli voted with proper identification documents. Rate of such voters was in Tbilisi XXX,
96.7%, in Baghdati and 96.3% in Khulo.

At absolute majority (100%) of polling stations in Rustavi, Mskheta and Gori self-governing cities as well as
Akhmeta and Terjola municipalities, inking was always
properly checked. In Tbilisi, the procedure was performed at 98% of polling stations, at 98.8% in Rustavi,
97.4% in Lanchkhuti, 97.3% in Tkibuli, 96.4% in Khoni
and 92.6% in Khulo.

At absolute majority of polling stations (100%) in


Mtskheta, Rustavi, Gori and Ozurgeti self-governing cities as well as Akhmeta, Baghdati, Khoni, Khulo, Lanchkhuti, Terjola and Tkibuli municipalities ballots were
properly validated with a signature and seal. The rate
of polling stations in Tbilisi where ballots were properly
verified was 98.9%.

All voters in Mtskheta, Gori and Ozurgeti self-governing


cities as well as Akhmeta, Baghdati, Lanchkhuti, Terjola
and Tkibuli communities were properly inked. The rate
of polling stations in Tbilisi where proper marking procedures were observed was 99.7%, in Rustavi 98.8%, in
Khulo 96.3% and in Khoni 92.9% 68.
Secerecy of vote was protected in all polling stations
of Mtskheta, Akhmeta, Baghdati, Terjola and Tkibuli.
Secrecy of vote was protected at 98.9% of polling stations in Tbilisi, 96.9% of polling stations in Gori, 96.4%
in Rustavi, 92.9% in Khoni, 92.6% in Khulo, 92.3% in
Ozurgeti, 92.1% in Lanchkhuti.

THE PROCESS OF VOTE COUNTING


The vote count at all (100%) of the polling stations in
Mtskheta, Gori, Akhmeta, Khoni, Ozurgeti, Tkibuli, Lanchkhuti districts was carried out without incidents. No viola-

tions of counting procedures were observed at 99.7% of the


precincts in Tbilisi, 98% of the precincts in Khulo, 96.6% in
Baghdati, 96.6% in Terjola.
At 100% of the polling station in all self-governing cities
where ISFED carried out PVT, election materials sent to the
district electoral commissions were sealed in compliance
with procedures envisaged by law.
At all (100%) polling stations in Tbilisi, Rustavi, Mtskheta,
Gori, Akhmeta, Baghdati, Khoni, Khulo, Ozurgeti and Tkibuli districts, precinct summary protocols had all necessary
requisites. At 97.1% (1 out of 35) of the polling stations in
Lanchkhuti and 96.8% (1 out of 31) of the polling stations
in Terjola, PECs included all relevant requisites in the summary protocols.
Voter Turnout

Voter's final turnout in Local Self Governing cities


|| Round

34.4%

34%

40%

51%

47%

49%

Tbilisi

Rustavi

Gori

Ozurgeti

Mtskheta

Akhmeta

52%

45%

54%

42%

62%

50%

Lanchkhuti

Baghdati

Terjola

Tkibuli

Khoni

Khulo

ISFED has found that compared to the first round of the


elections voter turnout was lower in Tbilisi (34.4%), Rustavi
(34%), Mtskheta (47%), while voter turnout increased in
Gori ( 40%) and Ozurgeti (51%)69.
Among self-governing communities the highest voter turnout was found in Khoni Municipality, (62%), relatively high

68 2 precincts in Khoni Election District 29


69 Voter turnout in self-governing cities in the first round of the elections - Tbilisi -37.1 ; Rustavi - 36 %; Mtskheta - 55%; Gori-35%; Ozurgeti- 49%.
FINAL REPORT 47

ELECTION DAY

voter turnout was also found in Terjola (54%), Lanchkhuti


(52%) and Khulo (50%) municipalities; relatively lower voter
turnout was found in Akhmeta - 49%, Baghdati - 45% and
Tkibuli - 42%.
Final results of the Election Day
ISFEDs PVT projections both in the first and the second
rounds of Gamgebeli and Mayoral races are based on
100% PVT observer reporting. Similar to the first round of
the elections, official results for the second round were within the ranges predicted by the PVT.
Election Day Results for Mayoral Races
Tbilisi (100% PVT sample reporting)70
PVT results for Mayoral Elections
in Tbilisi

Ozurgeti (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)


N.41. Beglar Sioridze - bloc Georgian Dream- 59%
N.8. Shota Gogiberidze - Alliance of Patriots of Georgia41%
Gori (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)
N.41. Zurabi Jirkvelishvili - bloc Georgian Dream- 62%
N.14. Kakhaber Eergemlidze - Irakli Okruashvili- Georgian
Party- 38%
Election Day results for Gamgebeli races
Akhmeta (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)
41 Beka Baidauri - bloc Georgian Dream 59%
3 Zurab Pilashvili - Nino Burjanadze -United Opposition
41%
Baghdati (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)

PVT

MOE

72.1%

0.7%

Davit Narmania N:41

27.9%

0.7%

Nikanor Melia N:5

41 Irakli Gegeshidze - bloc ,,Georgian Dream 56%


18 Mevlud Kiknavelidze ,,Salome Zurabishvili-Georgias
Way 44%
Khoni (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)
41 Jemal Mebuke - bloc ,,Georgian Dream 58%
5 Zurab Chibukhia - ,,the UNM 42%
Tkibuli (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)

N.41. Davit Jikia - bloc Georgian Dream 64%


N.5. Mamuka Chikovani - bloc the UNM 36%

41 Robinzon Gvenetadze - bloc ,,Georgian Dream


69%
3 Tengiz Chikaberidze - ,,Nino Burjanadze -United Opposition 31%

Mtskheta (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)

Lanchkhuti (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)

N.41. Avtandil Nemsitsveridze - bloc Georgian Dream63%


N.6. Davit Machkhaneli - Giorgi Gachechiladze - Green
Party 37%

41 Zaza Urushadze - bloc ,,Georgian Dream 56%


8 Barnab Chkonia - ,,Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi - Alliance of
Patriots of Georgia 44%

Rustavi (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)

70 at 95% confidence interval.


48

FINAL REPORT

N DAY

ELECTION DAY

Terjola (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)


41 Teimuraz Japaridze - bloc ,,Georgian Dream 61%
5 Tariel Panchulidze ,,the UNM 39%
Khulo (100% OF PVT OBSERVER REPORTING)
41 Besik Bauchadze - bloc ,,Georgian Dream 59%
8 Emzar Bolkvadze ,,Davit Tarkhan Mouravi - Alliance of
Patriots of Georgia 41%

REPEAT ELECTIONS
The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) monitored the June 29, 2014 repeated local
self-government elections in all 9 districts71. The ISFEDs
observation mission consisted of 14 static observers, 9
district observers and 4 mobile teams.

ELECTION DAY

Based on the information provided by ISFEDs observers


during the repeated elections on 29th June 2014, ISFED
concludes that opening of polling stations, voting, counting
and summarizing of results was conducted in a calm and organized manner. There were no major violations observed.
ISFEDs observers reported three cases of unauthorized
persons present at the polling station in Akhalkalaki PEC
# 1 and Kobuleti PEC #34. Also there were minor technical
flaws observed by ISFEDs observers upheld by election
administration.
During the Election Day ISFED uploaded 4 incidents on
www.electionsportal.ge where violations detected by NGOs
were mapped.

71 Marneuli (#25,#57); Tetritskaro (#5); Dusheti (#4,#6,#47,#52); Akhalkalaki (#1); Khoni (#22); Tkibuli (#2,#5); Zugdidi (#32); Batumi (#103); Kobuleti (#34).
FINAL REPORT 49

ELECTION DAY AND POST-ELECTION COMPLAINTS

XII. ELECTION DAY AND


POST-ELECTION COMPLAINTS
Pursuant to the strategy designed by ISFED, upon detecting a violation observer first gave verbal instruction to
members of the election commission concerned, for them
to take timely further response. If PEC remedied the violation, ISFEDs observer made an entry into the book of
records. Complaint was filed if election commission concerned failed to take adequate further measures.
Filing of complaints or any other actions taken by ISFED in
response to violations identified mostly serve the following
three important goals: 1. Register violation to allow taking
of adequate measures in response in a timely manner; 2.
Help the election administration identify incompetent staff
in order to replace them with qualified personnel in the

future and focus on problematic issues during capacity


building trainings for PEC members; 3. Elaborate recommendations for improving the election administration.

FIRST ROUND OF THE ELECTIONS


During and following the Polling Day ISFED detected 284
violations. Notably, observers recorded only a reproof in the
Election Day logbook in response to 76 violations, meaning
that PECs were able to take adequate further actions and
there was no need to file a subsequent complaint, which we
applaud.
ISFED filed 17772 complaints over 208 violations, including

72 Number of complaints was not equal to the number of violations as in some cases one complaint was filed over more than one violation
50

FINAL REPORT

NAND
DAYPOST-ELECTION
AND POST-ELECTION
COMPLAINTS
COMPLAINTS

ELECTION DAY AND POST-ELECTION COMPLAINTS

16 with PECs and 161 with DECs. Two complaints were filed
in court. In its complaints ISFED was mostly seeking elimination of violation detected, holding chairperson, secretary and
other members of relevant election commission liable.
Complaints filed with PECs
ISFED filed 16 complaints with PECs over violations of vote
counting procedures. In 6 cases violations were remedied
while in the remaining 10 cases PEC concerned failed to
take any further actions. As a result, complaints seeking imposition of liability on relevant PEC chairpersons and other
members were filed in DECs.
Complaints were filed with PECs over the following types of
violations:
Casting of vote without applying/checking indelible ink
#97 election precinct of Batumi #79 Election District, #7 election precinct of Kaspi #30 Election District (2 facts), #16 election precinct of Chughureti #7 Election District, #34 election
precinct of Akhaltsikhe #37 Election District.
Restricting observers rights illegally - #27 election precinct of Terjola #49 Election District, #9 election precinct of
Lanchkhuti #61 Election District, #53 election precinct of
Zugdidi #67 Election District.
Casting of vote with improper voter identification: with
birth certificate or without ID card - #3 election precinct of
Gori #32 Election District, #74 election precinct of Zugdidi
#67 Election District.
Presence of unauthorized persons at election precincts
- #47 election precinct of Isani #5 Election District, #19 election precinct of Kobuleti #81 Election District.
Pre-made signatures in voter lists of #58 election precinct Isani #5 Election District.
Improper documentation- #6 election precinct of Batumi
#79 Election District.
Other types of violations, like interference with the work of
election commission #6 election precinct of Batumi Election
District and #8 election precinct of Khelvachauri #83 Election
District.-

Statistics of violations over which ISFED filed complaints with PECs:


voting without checking/making
inking

restriction of observers
rights

voting with improper


documentation

unathorized persions at
the polling stations

other violations

pre-made signatures of
voters in the list voters list

improper processing
of election documentation

Complaints filed with DECs and in Court


ISFED filed 161 complaints with DECs, including 68 complaints upheld, 49 upheld in part and 36 rejected while 8
complaints were left without consideration.
satisfied

68

partially
satisfied

49

rejected
left unexamined

36
8

Complaints were filed with DECs over the following types


of violations:
Improper documentation: improperly filled out control
sheets, logbooks missing information, ballot papers improperly issued (several same type of ballots issued to one person) #23 election precinct of Samgori #6 Election District;
#30 election precinct of Didube #8 Election District; 37 and
#39 election precincts of Gurjaani #12 Election District; #4
election precinct of Telavi #17 Election District; #23 election
precinct of Gori #32 Election District; #22 election precinct
of Terjola #49 Election District; #1 election precinct of Tskaltubo #58 Election District; #30#47, #50, #53, #80 and
#121 election precincts of Kutaisi #59 Election District; #9
election precinct of Ozurgeti #60 Election District; #6 and
#30 election precincts of Batumi #79 Election District (two
facts at polling station #30); #34 election precinct of KobuleFINAL REPORT 51

ELECTION DAY AND POST-ELECTION COMPLAINTS

ti #81 Election District.

tauri #62 Election District.

Illegal restriction of observers rights #24 election precinct of Krtsanisi #4 Election District; #64 election precinct
of Nadzaladevi #9 Election District; #27 election precinct of
Terjola #49 Election District; #9 election precinct of Lanchkhuti #61 Election District; #12 election precinct of Martvili
#65 Election District; #53 election precinct of Zugdidi #67
Election District; #30, #61 and #66 election precincts of
Batumi #79 Election District;

Ballots not validated #8 election precinct of Akhaltsikhe


#37 Election District; #34 election precinct of Kobuleti #81
Election District.

Campaigning 63 election precinct of Rustavi #20 Election District #; #26 election precinct of Kaspi #30 Election
District; #24 election precinct of Lanchkhuti #61 Election
District; #13 election precinct of Batumi #79 Election District.
Voting with improper voter identification: with drivers
license, birth certificate, copy of an ID card or without an ID
Card #14 election precinct of Mtatsminda #1 Election District; #19 election precinct of Vake #2 Election District; #77
election precinct of Samgori #6 Election District; #18 election precinct of Akhmeta #18 Election District; #1 and #3
election precincts of Gori #32 Election District; #20 election
precinct of Kareli #33 Election District; #11 and #76 election
precincts of Batumi #79 Election District; #74 election precinct of Zugdidi #67 Election District.
Casting a vote without applying/checking indelible ink
#16 election precinct of Chughureti #7 Election District; #7
election precinct of Kaspi #30 Election District; #6 election
precinct of Akhaltsikhe #37 Election District; #47 Election
District of Mestia #1 election precinct; #59 election precinct
of Batumi #79 Election District.
Presence of unauthorized persons at election precincts
#47 election precinct of Isani #5 Election District; #38
election precinct of Shuakhevi #82 Election District.
Vandalizing election materials/physical violence #22
election precinct of Khoni #55 Election District.
.
Ballot fraud #33 election precinct of Chokhatauri #62
Election District.
Pre-made signatures in voter list #58 election precinct
of Isani #5 Election District; #8 election precinct of Chokha52

FINAL REPORT

Violation of vote casting regulations #74 election precinct of Kutaisi #59 Election District.
Violating ballot secrecy #26 election precinct of Kaspi
#30 Election District.
Illegally stopping the process of polling #34 election
precinct of Kobuleti #81 Election District.
Refusing to provide access to a copy of summary protocol #84 election precinct of Zugdidi #67 Election District.
Gaps in voter list #24 election precinct of Kaspi #30
Election District.
Number of election subjects and invalid ballot papers
do not match with the number of voter signatures - #11
election precinct of Isani #5 Election District; #11 election
precinct of Chughureti #7 Election Di strict; #18, #28 and
#50 election precincts of Telavi #17 Election District; #14
and #17 election precincts of Kaspi #30 Election District;
#46 election precinct of Gori #32 Election District; #30 election precinct of Kareli #33 Election District; #12 election precinct of Adigeni #38 Election District; #19 election precinct
of Khoni #55 Election District; #5 election precinct of Tkibuli #57 Election District; #3, #12, #27, #29, #43, #44, #54,
#58, #78, #79, #87 and #99 election precincts of Kutaisi
#59 Election District; #2 election precinct of Ozurgeti #60
Election District; #11 and #82 election precincts of Zugdidi
#67 Election District; #76, #85 and #101 election precincts
of Batumi #79 Election District; #6 and #19 election precincts of Kobuleti #81 Election District; #26 and #38 election
precincts of Khelvachauri #83 Election District.
Correcting data in summary protocols illegally #48
election precinct of Isani #5 Election District; #94 election
precinct of Gldani #10 Election District; #78, #94 and #104
election precincts of Gori #32 Election District; #2 and #20
election precincts of Akhaltsikhe #37 Election District; of
#15 election precinct Aspindza #39 Election District; #22,

ELECTION DAY AND POST-ELECTION COMPLAINTS

Election District; #24 and #39 election precincts of Dmanisi #24 Election District; #14 election precinct of Kaspi #30
Election District; #10 election precinct of Gori #32 Election
District; #26 election precinct of Kareli #33 Election District;
#26 election precinct of Khashuri #35 Election District; #28,
#30 and #32 election precincts of Akhaltsikhe #37 Election District; #40 election precinct of Kutaisi #59 Election
District; #35 election precinct of Lanchkhuti #61 Election
District; #6 and #20 election precincts of Chokhatauri #62
Election District; #18 election precinct of Zugdidi #67 Election District; #16 election precinct of Tsalenjikha #68 Election District; #68 election precinct of Batumi #79 Election
District; #6, #19, #20 and #33 election precincts of Kobuleti
#81 Election District; #29, #43 and #46 election precincts
of Shuakhevi #82 Election District; #26 election precinct of
Khelvachauri #83 Election District.

#27, #54, #56 and #117 election precincts of Kutaisi #59


Election District; #2 election precinct of Tsalenjikha #68
Election District; #29 election precinct of Keda #80 Election
District; #46 election precinct of Shuakhevi #82 Election
District; #26 election precinct of Khelvachauri #83 Election
District;
Improper documentation: summary protocols or their
copies lacking some of the attributes envisaged by the
Election Code, e.g. a signature, seal, date/time the protocol
was drawn up. In some cases summary protocols lacked
any of the data or contained inaccurate data, e.g. number
of voters participating in elections, number of invalid ballot
papers, etc. - #9 and #22 election precincts of Mtatsminda #1 Election District #7; #1, #8, #9, #10, #11, #20, #24,
#27, #28 and #30 election precincts of Krtsanisi #4 Election
District; #5, #7, #10, #15, #28, #40 and #50 election precincts of Isani #5 Election District #1; #4 election precinct
of Lagodekhi #15 Election District; #31 election precinct of
Telavi #17 Election District; #43 election precinct of Rustavi
#20 Election District; #75 election precinct of Marneuli #21

Violation of regulations for sealing election material


#24 election precinct of Saburtalo #3 Election District; #19
election precinct of Sagarejo #11 Election District; #21 and
#26 election precincts of Lagodekhi #15 Election District;
#23 Election District #45 election precinct of Bolnisi; #7
election precinct of Khashuri #35 Election District; #1, #8,
#12 and #16 election precincts of Terjola #49 Election District; #16, #38 #52, #54, #55, #56 and #64 election precincts
of Tskaltubo #58 Election District; #44 election precinct of
Shuakhevi #82 Election District.
Other types of violations: violation of rules for validating/
annulling a ballot; dropping a ballot in a ballot box without
an envelope or placing fewer ballots than determined in an
envelope, casting a vote for someone else, applying ink
without verifying the voter on voter list as a result of which several voters lost their votes as their names could not be found
on the list of relevant precinct #7 election precinct of Mtatsminda #1 Election District; #25 and #75 election precincts of
Saburtalo #3 Election District; #14 and #24 election precincts
of Krtsanisi #4 Election District; #75 election precinct of Isani
#5 Election District; #37 election precinct of Chugureti #7 Election District; #11 election precinct of Gldani #10 Election District; #24 election precinct of Marneuli #21 Election District; #8
election precinct of Tsalka #25 Election District; #34 election
precinct of Dusheti #28 Election District; #32 election precinct
of Kaspi #30 Election District; #13 election precinct of Gori #32
Election District; #25 election precinct of Mestia #47 District;
#21 election precinct of Terjola #49 Election District; #21 election precinct of Chiatura #56 Election District; #14 and #36
election precincts of Kutaisi #59 Election District; #33 election

FINAL REPORT 53

ELECTION DAY AND POST-ELECTION COMPLAINTS

precinct of Chokhatauri #62 Election District; #1 election precinct of Poti #70 Election District; #50, #61 (2 facts) and #66
election precincts of Batumi #79 Election District; #8 election
precinct of Khelvachauri #83 Election District.
Statistics of violations over which ISFED filed complaints with DECs:
improperly drawing up
summary protocols

49

the number of ballots and


sugnatures not matching

34

other violations

25

improper procesing of election


documentaiton

19

violation of the rule for sealing


materials

18

coreection of summary protocol


illegally

17

voting with improper documents

10

restriction of observers rights

voting without checking/applying


ink

agitation

unathorized persons at the


polling station

pre-made signaturs of voters in


the voters list

not validating ballots


not issuing copy of summary
protocol
ballot fraud
damaging election materials
illegally terminating the process
of voting
violation of the secrecy of vote
violation of the rule for casting
lots
gaps in the voters list

2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

ISFED filed two complaints in court against Batumi N103


and Khoni N19 election precincts. The process of polling
involved serious irregularities in election precinct N103 in
Batumi and ended with precinct commission failing to draw
up a summary protocol. Complaint seeking annulment of

54

FINAL REPORT

polling results and imposition of liability on PEC members


was filed in relevant district commission. The DEC upheld
part of the claim and ordered the PEC to recount ballots due
to absence of summary protocol. It subsequently adopted
summary protocol of PEC N103, which constitutes violation
of law since under the Election Code, DEC has no right to
draw up a summary protocol on behalf of a PEC. Together
with Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) we filed
a complaint in Batumi City Court disputing the resolution of
the DEC. The court upheld the claim and annulled results of
Batumi election precinct N103 and repeat elections where
held at the precinct on June 29.
As to Khoni election precinct, numbers did not add up in all
three types of summary protocols; in particular, the number of valid ballots and votes received by election subjects
was more than the number of voter signatures, which was
appealed in relevant DEC; however, the DEC did not uphold the claim for annulment of summary protocols. Together with GYLA decision was appealed in Samtretia District
Court. We welcome the fact that the court requested and
examined election documents, as a result of which it found
inaccuracies in summary protocols of Khoni election precinct N19.
Demands made in ISFEDs complaints
All of the complaints filed by ISFED with DECs demanded that violations be eliminated and further actions be taken. Also, with respect to election precinct N6 in Batumi,
requested annulment of portable ballot box was granted.
Majority of complaints filed with DECs requested imposition
of disciplinary liability on members of election commission.
Imposition of administrative liability was requested in 13
cases.
Based on violations found by ISFED, 226 members of commission were imposed disciplinary liability, including 92 PEC
chairpersons. Measure of disciplinary liability applied most
often in 126 cases in particular was reproof, including
55 reproofs issued against PEC chairpersons, 40 against
secretaries and 31 against other members of election commission. Warning was issued against PEC members in 57
cases, including in 22 cases warning was issued against
chairpersons, in 24 cases against secretaries and in 11
cases against other members of PEC. In 43 cases various amounts were retained from PEC members, including

ELECTION
ELECTION
DAY

NAND
DAYPOST-ELECTION
AND POST-ELECTION
COMPLAINTS
COMPLAINTS

ELECTION DAY AND POST-ELECTION COMPLAINTS

3 cases where salary was retained in full.

SECOND ROUND OF THE ELECTIONS

In one case Tsalenjikha DEC drew up a protocol of administrative violations. Court upheld the protocol and imposed
fine on PEC N2 chairperson for making illegal corrections in
summary protocol.

On and following the Polling Day of the Second Round of


the Elections, ISFED monitors took further legal actions in
response to 114 violations, including in 33 cases observers
issued verbal reproof only, while in remaining 15 cases reproofs were recorded in the Polling Day logbook.

Verification of polling results or inaccuracies in summary


protocol was requested in 15 cases. In 8 cases results were
recounted.
Further, ISFED requested annulment of polling results in
15 cases. In two of the cases the claim was upheld and
results from election precincts N34 of Kobuleti and N5 of
Tkibuli were annulled and repeat elections were scheduled.
In remaining cases the claim was rejected upon verification
of polling results and mostly based on statements of PEC
members.
Annulment of summary protocol was requested in 38 cases, none of which was upheld mostly based on statements
of PEC members. Instead, protocols for correction of error
were drawn up.

REPEAT ELECTIONS
There were no major irregularities reported during the June
29 repeat elections, possibly due to a small scale of the
elections. ISFEDs observers recorded 3 reproofs in the
Polling Day logbook. Election administration took further
actions in a timely manner and ISFED no longer filed subsequent complaints. In particular, irregularities were detected at polling station N4 of Dusheti Election District N28 and
election precinct N1 of Akhalkalaki Election District N40
improper documentation, as well as election precinct N34
of Kobuleti Election District N81 presence of unauthorized
persons at the polling station.
ISFED filed two complaints with DECs over presence of unauthorized persons at election precinct N1 of Akhalkalaki
Election District N40 and election precinct N34 of Kobuleti
Election District N81. Complaints sought imposition of disciplinary liability on relevant PEC members. None of the
claims were granted.

In response to 66 violations ISFED filed 59 complaints with


election commissions, including 7 complaints with PECs
and 52 complaints with DECs. One complaint was filed in
court.
Complaints filed in PECs
Total of 7 complaints were filed in PECs over violations of
vote counting regulations. 3 claims were granted and 4
were rejected.
Complaints were filed in PECs over the following types of
violations:
Violation of integrity of ballot box #11 and #30 election
precincts of Terjola #49 Election District; #12 and #27 election precincts of Khulo #81 Election District.
Improper documentation #18 election precinct of Lanchkhuti #61 Election District.
Violation of vote casting regulations #30 election precinct of Terjola #49 Election District.
Other #2 election precinct of Khulo #81 Election District
Statistics of violations over which ISFED filed complaints with PECs:
violation of intergrity of
mobile box

improper processing of election


documentaiton

violation of the rule of casting


lots

other violations=

Complaints filed with DECs and in Court


ISFED filed 52 complaints with DECs. 20 complaints were
FINAL REPORT 55

ELECTION DAY AND POST-ELECTION COMPLAINTS

granted, 14 were granted in part, 15 were rejected while 3


were left without consideration.

Violating ballot secrecy #5 election precinct of Khoni


#55 Election District.

ISFED filed complaints with DECs over the following violations:

Pre-made signatures in voter list #60 election precinct


of Saburtalo #3 Election District and #26 election precinct
of Nadzaladevi #9 Election District.

Improper documentation #31 election precinct of Gldani


#10 Election District; #13 election precinct of Akhmeta #18
Election District; #9 and #41 election precincts of Rustavi
#20 Election District; #2 election precinct of Mtskheta #27
Election District (2 facts); #10 election precinct of Terjola
#49 Election District; 18, #19, #27, #30 and #32 election
precincts of Tkibuli #57 Election District.
Improper documentation/violation of regulations for
providing access to a copy of a summary protocol
#5 election precinct of Krtsanisi #4 Election District; #71
election precinct of Isani #5 Election District; #20 election
precinct of Samgori #6 Election District; #3, #7, #8, #9,
#31, #32, #35, #43, #44, #45, #53, #63 and #84 election
precincts of Rustavi #20 Election District; #16 election precinct of Terjola #49 Election District; #16 election precinct
of Baghdati #52 Election District; 9, #14 and #28 election
precincts of Poti #70 Election District #; #33 election precinct of Batumi #79 Election District; #5, #33, #34, #47,
#52 and #53 election precincts of Khulo #81 Election District.
Violation of integrity of portable ballot box #11 and
#30 election precincts of Terjola #49 Election District; #12
and #27 election precincts of Khulo #81 Election District.
Casting a vote with improper voter identification #38
election precinct of Didube #8 Election District; #9 election
precinct of Rustavi #20 Election District; #15 election precinct of Poti #70 Election District; #3 election precinct of
Khulo #81 Election District.
Ballot stuffing #36 election precinct of Khulo #81 Election District.
Number of ballots exceed number of voter signatures
#13 election precinct of Akhmeta #18 Election District
and #20 election precinct of Khulo #81 Election District.
Illegally correcting summary protocols #10 election
precinct of Poti #70 Election District.
Illegally restricting observer rights #1 election precinct of Lanchkhuti #61 Election District.

56

FINAL REPORT

Not validating ballots #79 election precinct of Vake #2


Election District.
Casting a ballot without inking #9 election precinct of
Baghdati #52 Election District.
Violating vote casting regulations #30 election precinct of Terjola #49 Election District.
Not conducting vote casting #1 election precinct of
Terjola #49 Election District.
Violating regulations for sealing election material of
Telavi #17 Election District #51 election precinct.
Other, including violation of different election procedures by PEC members #1 election precinct of Mtatsminda #1 Election District; #33 election precinct of Saburtalo #3 Election District; #16 election precinct of Isani #5
Election District; #2 election precinct of Khulo #81 Election
District.

NAND
DAYPOST-ELECTION
AND POST-ELECTION
COMPLAINTS
COMPLAINTS

ELECTION DAY AND POST-ELECTION COMPLAINTS

Statistics of violations over which ISFED filed complaints with DECs:


improperly drawing up
summary protocols

28

improper processing of election


documentaiton

12

violation of the integrity of mobile


box

voting with improper documents

other violations

number of ballots exceeding the


number of signatures

pre-made signatures of voters in


the voters list

ballot stuffing
coreection of summary protocols
restriction of observers rights
violation of the secrecy of vote
violation of regulations for sealing
materials
not validating ballots
not checking ink
not casting lots
violation of rule for casting lots

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

ISFED filed one complaint with Tbilisi City Court seeking annulment of Vake DEC. The complaint was rejected by the
court.
Demands made in complaints filed by ISFED
In three of its complaints ISFED demanded annulment of
portable ballot box; one claim was rejected. One complaint
demanded annulment of ballots; it was granted. 3 complaints
demanded actions be made in response to a violation; only
one claim was granted.
With most of its complaints filed with DECs, ISFED demanded imposition of liability on election commission members.
Based on violations identified by ISFED, 64 members of
commission were ordered to a disciplinary liability, including
13 commission chairpersons. In 29 cases disciplinary measure taken was reproof; further, in 29 cases warnings were
issued; in 6 cases salary of PEC members were retained,
including in full in two cases.

3 of ISFEDs complaints demanded imposition of administrative liability but were rejected.


Problems/trends identified in the complaints process for
the first and second rounds of the elections
Notably, the complaints process in DECs was transparent and
ISFEDs representatives were able to attend the process and
express position of ISFED. Other interested parties and witnesses were also summoned to express their position about
complaints filed.
Nevertheless, ISFED has found a number of problems that
must be noted in order to improve the complaints process in
the future. Below is the list of the most important problems/
trends identified:
Low level of qualification of PEC members, especially with respect of summary protocols provided/issued;
Improperly drawn up summary protocols numbers did not
reconcile; summary protocols lacked one or more necessary
attributes; summary protocols had been corrected without
drawing up protocols of correction; copies of summary protocols provided lacked one or more important attributes;
Often statements of PEC members about violations they had
committed had been prepared after DEC reviewed relevant
complaint;
During complaints process DECs avoided examining evidence in a comprehensive manner, opening and examining
election documents, and in most of the cases their decisions
were based on solely on statements of PEC members;
In a number of cases DEC decisions lacked appropriate substantiation e.g. in Mestia, Marneuli, Saburtalo, Vake, Rustavi, Batumi, Lanchkhuti, Shuakhevi, etc;
In a number of instances law was inconsistently applied e.g.
in Mtatsminda, Gldani, Saburtalo, Mestia, Lagodekhi, Batumi.
In particular, DECs refused to examine ISFEDs complaints
stating that district observer was not authorized to file a complaint over a violation detected at an election precinct. Further,
in a number of cases DECs refused to combine complaints
filed by various organizations over the same issue;
Further, during the complaints process we also found that despite gravity of violation DECs preferred to impose measures
of disciplinary liability as opposed to drawing up a protocol of
violation.

FINAL REPORT 57

GENDER BALANCE AMONG CANDIDATES NOMINATED FOR THE ELECTIONS

XIII. GENDER BALANCE AMONG


CANDIDATES NOMINATED FOR
THE ELECTIONS
During monitoring of the local self-government elections
ISFED monitored whether men and women participated
equally in political life.
58

FINAL REPORT

The CEC reported that there were 14 mayoral candidates


registered for Tbilisi Mayoral race, 12 of which are men
and only 2 were women. There were total of 73 mayoral

GENDER BALANCE AMONG CANDIDATES NOMINATED FOR THE ELECTIONS

candidates for self-governing cities, 65 of which were men


and only 8 were women. As to candidates for the office of
Gamgebeli of a self-governing community, total of 261 candidates were registered, only 10 of which were women.73
As to the elections of representative municipal agencies, total of 1 129 candidates were registered for Tbilisi Sakrebulo
elections, 702 of which were men and only 427 were women. Total of 5 707 subjects were registered as candidates for
the office of a majoritarian member of Sakrebulo (outside
Tbilisi), 4 861 of which were men and 846 were women.74
Women elected for office in the 2014 local self-government elections and gender imbalance:
8

Majoritarian

92
15

Proportional

85
Female

Male

SBALANCE
NOMINATED
AMONG
FOR CANDIDATES
THE ELECTIONS
NOMINATED FOR THE ELECTIONS

Mayor

Gamgebeli

Results of the local self-government elections suggests


once more that the number of women elected through proportionate system will be more than the number of women elected through majoritarian system to offices in local
self-government authorities. In practice there is a certain relationship between the type of election system in place and
womens political representation. Proportionate and representative systems, unlike mixed systems that is currently in
place in Georgia allows parties to have diversified election
lists with more women candidates present, which means
more opportunities for increasing women participation both
at the internal (party) and broader electorate levels.76
To change the status quo, existing laws should be reformed
and new election system should be put in place to allow
increased women representation in local self-government
authorities; however, new regulations are insufficient for
making meaningful change. In order to ensure equal participation of women in political processes it is also important
that regulations are enforced and implemented in practice,
ensuring equality for women. It is very important that political parties provide equal conditions both for men and women and allow women to engage in political processes.

12
1
58
Female

Male

Based on the results of 2014 local self-government elections, women account for 15% of Sakrebulo members
elected through proportionate election system and 8% of
Sakrebulo members elected through majoritarian election
system. As to women Mayoral candidates, none of them
were able to win the elections, while in Mayoral races only
one women was elected to the office. There are total of
2083 members of Sakrebulo throughout Georgia and women account for 11,62%. There has been an improvement
from 2010, when 88,9% of Sakrebulo members were men
and women accounted only for 11,1%.75

73 See the information at: http://cec.gov.ge/uploads/other/27/27802.pdf.


74 See the information at: http://cec.gov.ge/uploads/other/27/27802.pdf
75 See http://www.isfed.ge/main/653/geo/
76 Bridge Project 2005 AEC, UNEAD v2, P.12/38
FINAL REPORT 59

RECOMMENDATIONS

XIV. RECOMMENDATIONS
Changes to be made in the Election Code: continue
working to improve election legislation and election environment. The local self-government elections have clearly
illustrated that ambiguous and vague norms exist in the
Election Code e.g. in terms of residency requirements
for candidates for offices of Mayor/Gamgebeli prescribed
by the Election Code, which due to the general nature of
the norm itself was differently interpreted by the election
administration, political parties and civil society.
Initiative groups should be allowed to nominated candidates for offices of Mayor/Gamgebeli, which will promote
competitive election environment and increase diversity of
voters choice by allowing independent candidates to run
for office.

professionalism of election commissions and their freedom from political influence.


To increase their professional capacity, it should be mandatory for all commission members to have election
certificates.
Number of commission members should be decreased
in election administrations in order to ensure hiring of qualified personnel.
Based on problems detected through the monitoring, we
believe that more attention should be paid to training of
PEC members, with a particular emphasis on drawing
up summary protocols.

In order to prevent as much as possible the use of public


resources in favor of a party, public servants participation
in election campaigning must be restricted. In particular,
the list of political office holders who have the right to participate in campaigning under the Election Code must be
narrowed down.

Voter lists: thorough work needs to be done to improve


voter lists. To this end, various measures should be taken,
including elaboration of lists based on comprehensive data
obtained through door-to-door campaign and biometric
data. Further, in light of voters residing abroad, the authorities should think about alternative ways to vote.

It is important to start discussions for choosing new


election system. To this end, a task force must be set
up, with participation of other stakeholders in addition to
Members of the Parliament. The task force should reach
an agreement for putting an election system in place that
will solve problems that exist under the current system.
In particular, it will ensure that will of citizens of Georgia
expressed at ballot boxes is proportionately reflected in
election results, decrease the number of votes lost to the
minimum and ensure participation of small parties and independent candidates.

Gender: to increase women involvement in politics, it is


important to reform the existing legislation and introduce
election system that will promote increase of women participation in local self-government authorities; further, gender quoting regulations should be revised and discussions
about binding quotas should commence.

Election Administration: for the election administration


to develop into a qualified and objective agency, regulations for recruitment of election administration members at
all levels should be revised. New regulations should focus
on recruitment based on professional qualities to promote
60

FINAL REPORT

For the Inter-Agency Task Force for Free and Fair Elections:
-Changes should be made in the IATF regulations with the
aim of ensuring that IATF members are prohibited from
pre-election campaigning and agitation;
-The IATF should strictly and systematically monitor implementation of its recommendations;
- Within the scope of its powers, the IATF should respond

RECOMMENDATIONS

to violations in a timely manner, closely follow implementation of its recommendations and publicize ways in which its
recommendations contribute to the improvement of election
environment.
Representatives of religious organizations: refrain
themselves from any public actions that contain signs of
political agitation.

MENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

FINAL REPORT 61