Report of monitoring a competition for selection of District Electoral Commission

members

One of the key issues that International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy focuses on
within the framework of the electoral reform is staffing of the electoral management body. To
promote public trust towards the electoral management body, the process of staffing should be
impartial and transparent.
Non-governmental organizations and political parties have been requesting revision of the EMB
staffing procedures for many years. We regret that no changes have been made in this regard.
The latest large-scale competition for selection of District Electoral Commission members has
demonstrated yet again shortcomings in selection process and confirmed the need to revise
applicable procedures.

Shortcomings in the process of competition for selection of District Electoral

Commission members

In December 2015, the Central Election Administration (CEC) announced a competition for
selection of District Electoral Commission (DEC) members. By virtue of the Election Code of
Georgia, there are 13 members in a district electoral commission, including 5 selected by the
CEC for the term of five years. Total number of these permanent DEC members is 380. The
competition was announced because of expiration of the five-year term for 193 members.
On January 4, 2014, the CEC amended the Regulations for Competition to Select District
Electoral Commission Members, allowing NGOs to monitor the process of selection. We
welcome the amendment because it promotes transparency of the competition.
Nevertheless, we found significant shortcomings in the competition process. Although by virtue
of the Regulations, it is the aim of the competition to determine the degree of compatibility of a
candidates professional skillset, qualifications and capacities with requirements for a particular
position, under Article 8 of the Regulations, interviews are not mandatory for the selection
process and the CEC decides about compatibility of each candidates qualifications with the
requirements without meeting the candidate first. In addition, the CEC is authorized to request an
interview with a candidate.
In the case in question, the CEC did not request interviews with any of the candidates, on
grounds that there were too many candidates (total of 771) and too short a time. In light of this, if
the CEC considered that all candidates who were shortlisted for voting met applicable legal
1

requirements, it is unclear how exactly the CEC members decided who to vote for and which
candidate to prefer based on application only, without interviews or selection criteria.
Although the CEC voted during an open meeting and NGOs present at the meeting were able to
freely monitor the process, the reasons why the CEC members chose to vote for particular
candidates were not clear. It begs the question of how exactly were the CEC members able to
evaluate professional skills, qualifications and capacities of candidates based on application
materials only. The most important part of the process substantiation and fairness of decisions
made about each individual candidate took place behind closed doors. Competition that followed
such rules gives rise to suspicions about validity and fairness of decisions. We believe that in
absence of interviews and criteria for selection of candidates, it was impossible to evaluate
candidates comprehensively, and make substantiated decisions.

Non-partisan members with partisan past

Study of work experience of electoral commission members appointed by the CEC has revealed
that a significant part of non-partisan independent members of district electoral commissions
had a party-related election experience. This has called impartiality of the CECs decisions in
question and has caused intense discussions. It has been found that some of the selected members
were proxies of different political parties in electoral commissions in the past. According to the
verified data from the parliamentary elections in 2012, the presidential elections in 2013, local
self-government elections in 2014 and the by-elections in 2015, out of 182 1 selected commission
members 67 2 turned out to have a partisan past (the data has been pulled from the most recent
and the most important elections).
Notably, most of the sixty-seven members were appointed as proxies of different parties during
different elections. In addition, in most of the cases, they were appointed by parties who are
now members of the coalition Georgian Dream; in particular, 22 members were appointed as
proxies for the political union Industry Will Save Georgia, 17 by the Georgian Conservative
Party, 10 by the Georgian Republican Party, 9 by the Georgian Dream Democratic Georgia, 9
by the National Forum, 5 by the Free Democrats, 3 by the European Democrats and ChristianDemocratic Movement each, and 1 by the United Democratic Movement, the United National
Movement and the Christian-Democratic Peoples Party each.
As to the intensity of their work as commission members, among 67 members 30 were appointed
as party proxies during two elections e.g. during 2013 and 2014 elections or during 2014 and
2015 elections; 9 were appointed as party proxies during three elections and 1 during four
elections. 27 members were nominated by parties for commission membership during one
election only, including 13 in 2012, 6 in 2014, 6 in 2013 and 2 in 2015.

Conclusions and Recommendations

See the list of selected members at: http://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/ceskosgancxadeba-saolqo-saarchevno-komisiebis-dakompleqtebis-shesaxeb0402.page

2
We verified the information through the list of electoral commission members published on the CEC website. We
do not exclude the possibility that number of such individuals is higher. For detailed information, including
commission members name, surname, political party and year of the elections see the enclosed file.

Based on the Election Code, a district electoral commission member selected by the CEC should
not be affiliated with a party. It is not known whether those 67 selected individuals are members
of a party. However, selection of individuals, who served as party proxies in past elections,
as members of district election commissions calls impartiality and political neutrality of
CEC decisions into question, as illustrated by developments following the competition. This
has a negative impact on public trust towards the electoral management body as a whole, which
is especially important in light of the upcoming elections. Therefore, CEC members should have
selected candidates by taking into account their work history in election administration and their
affiliation with concrete parties, which would have prevented suspicions about politically
motivated decisions. In addition, the CEC members had means to verify if a candidate served as
a party proxy in any of the electoral commissions during past elections.
We believe that reforming the EMB staffing procedure is necessary. ISFED, Georgian Young
Lawyers Association (GYLA) and Transparency International Georgia have put forward
recommendations that propose selection of EMB members by profession. 3
The
recommendations also propose reducing the number of electoral commission members and
introducing the two-level certification system. According to the recommendations, in order to
ensure political neutrality it should be prohibited to select individuals who have served as
members or as candidates of a political party over the recent years as electoral commission
members.
In light of the complexity of the reform, we believe that it can be implemented gradually, stage
by stage, while the reform process should commence as soon as possible. In addition, prior to
full implementation of reform, regulations for selection of electoral commission members should
be revised in light of the anticipated need to select DEC members following expiration of term of
office of some of the current members of the commissions. To improve transparency, fairness
and substantiation of decisions and promote public trust towards the electoral management body,
we believe that:

interviews should be a mandatory part of selection process;

best candidates should be shortlisted for interviews, for instance, through testing, as one
of the stages of the elections process;

during interviews candidates should be evaluated based on a pre-determined criteria and

scores, to make the evaluation process more transparent and ensure that decisions are
objective and substantiated;

We recommend that party affiliation of candidates who were shortlisted for interviews be
checked by requesting information from political parties. Because the verification process
requires considerable amount of effort and finances, verification of shortlisted candidates
only will reduce the number of candidates to be verified. In addition, to simplify the
process it can be required that the information for verification be requested from political
parties that participated in the most recent two or three elections. Finding that an
individual is a member of a political party after he or she was appointed to the office,

For complete recommendations, please visit http://www.isfed.ge/main/1007/geo/

may serve as grounds for terminating his/her powers and instituting administrative
proceedings;

Individuals who served as party proxies in the most recent (two or three) elections,
should not be appointed as electoral commission members by profession.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

#2 Vake
#2 Vake
#2 Vake
#3 Saburtalo
#4 Krtsanisi
#6 Samgori
#6 Samgori
#7 Chughureti
#7 Chughureti
#7 Chughureti
#8 Didube
#10 Gldani
#11 Sagarejo
#13 Sighnaghi
#13 Sighnaghi
#14 Dedoplistskaro
#14 Dedoplistskaro
#17 Telavi
#17 Telavi
#17 Telavi
#19 Tianeti

Selected members name,

surname
Lika Avalishvili
Natia Abelashvili
Tamar Tsertsvadze
Nino Bazadze
Maia Sultanishvili
Nato Avazashvili
Natia Abashvili
Tinatin Kalmakhelidze
Naziko Shevardnadze
Paata Enukidze
Tamar Chkuaseli
Rusudan Tabarukishvili
Nato Lomidze
Manana Mchedlishvili
Leila Tukhashvili
Davit Nasrashvili
Givi Natroshvili
Tamar Grdzelishvili
Tatia Komakhidze
Leila Kveliashvili
Maia Kutsnashvili

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#21 Gardabani
#25 Tsalka
#32 Gori
#33 Kareli
#33 Kareli
#35 Khashuri
#35 Khashuri

Tamazi Poladashvili
Khatia Paraskoevi
Tamar Tramakidze
Nikoloz Ketiladze
Lili Oniashvili
Lela Barbakadze
Nona Khachidze

29
30
31
32

#36 Borjomi
#38 Adigeni
#39 Aspindza
#45 Tsageri

Makvala Gvirjishvili
Lela Adoshvili
Lela Tamaradze
Mamuka Saghinadze

District

Nominating party
Industry Will Save Georgia
Free Democrats
United National Movement
European Democrats
National Forum
Conservative Party
Conservative Party
Conservative Party
Industry Will Save Georgia
Christian Democratic Movement
Industry Will Save Georgia
Industry Will Save Georgia
Republican Party
Republican Party
Conservative Party
Industry Will Save Georgia
Republican Party
Industry Will Save Georgia
Free Democrats
Christian Democratic Movement
National Forum
Conservative Party
Conservative Party
Industry Will Save Georgia
Christian Democratic Movement
Georgian Dream
Free Democrats
Republican Party
Conservative Party
Georgian Dream
Conservative Party
Georgian Dream
Conservative Party
Industry Will Save Georgia

Year
2013, 2014
2013
2013, 2014
2012
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2012
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2012
2013, 2014
2012
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2013
2012
2013
2014
2013
2013, 2014
2012
2014
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2012
2013, 2014
2012
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2012

33

#46 Lentekhi

Khatuna Tvildiani

34
35
36

#48 Kharagauli
#49 Terjola
#49 Terjola

Neli Vepkhvadze
Iza Magrakvelidze
Elza Bardavelidze

37
38
39
40
41

#50 Sachkhere
#51 Zestaponi
#51 Zestaponi
#52 Baghdati
#52 Baghdati

Irma Samkharadze
Lia Bibilashvili
Giorgi Kakhniashvili
Eleonora Lomsianidze
Koba Jikhvadze

42
43

#53 Vani
#54 Samtredia

Gulnara Rokhvadze
Nino Vashakidze

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52

#55 Khoni
#55 Khoni
#58 Tskaltubo
#58 Tskaltubo
#59 Kutaisi
#59 Kutaisi
#59 Kutaisi
#60 Ozurgeti
#60 Ozurgeti

Sophio Karkashadze
Lali Kashia
Lola Pantskhava
Kristine Kajaia
Nana Imnadze
Iza Peradze
Larina Laliashvili
Teimuraz Kacharava
Elguja Chkhartishvili

53
54

#61 Lanchkhuti
#64 Senaki

Lali Kikabidze
Aleksandre Kachibaia

55
56

#65 Martvili
#66 Khobi

Maia Gagua
Shortena Tskiria

57
58
59

#66 Khobi
#66 Khobi
#66 Khobi

Manana Tatarashvili
Jemali Sherozia
Datuna Jobava

60
61
62

#67 Zugdidi
#67 Zugdidi
#67 Zugdidi

Khatuna Davianti
Nana Shengelaia
Lela Lashkhia

63
64
65

#69 Chkhorotsku
#69 Chkhorotsku
#80 Keda

Nato Gabedava
Tamaz Khorava
Irina Beridze

66
67

#80 Keda
#84 Khulo

Temur Beridze
Tamar Kamadadze

Georgian Dream
Republican Party
Conservative Party
Free Democrats
Industry Will Save Georgia
Christian Democratic Peoples Party
Industry Will Save Georgia
Conservative Party
Conservative Party
Industry Will Save Georgia
Industry Will Save Georgia
Georgian Dream
European Democrats
Republican Party
Georgian Dream
Conservative Party
Industry Will Save Georgia
National Forum
Conservative Party
Industry Will Save Georgia
Republican Party
Conservative Party
National Forum
Industry Will Save Georgia
Georgian Dream
Industry Will Save Georgia
National Forum
Industry Will Save Georgia
National Forum
Industry Will Save Georgia
United Democratic Movement
Industry Will Save Georgia
Conservative Party
European Democrats
Republican Party
Georgian Dream
Industry Will Save Georgia
Free Democrats
National Forum
Republican Party
Industry Will Save Georgia
National Forum
Republican Party
Industry Will Save Georgia
National Forum
Georgian Dream
Conservative Party

2013
2014
2012
2013, 2014
2012
2012
2012
2013, 2014
2012, 2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2012
2013, 2014
2012
2013
2015
2012
2013, 2014
2014
2012
2014
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2013, 2014
2012
2014
2012
2013, 2014
2014
2013, 2014
2015
2015
2012
2013, 2014, 2015
2012
2013, 2014
2014
2015
2013
2013
2013
2015
2013
2012, 2013, 2014
2013
2014
2013, 2014
2014