IRI: Only New Elections Can Restore Confidence in Government’s Legitimacy

The report further stated that the elections were undermined by the government’s misuse of public resources, persecution of civil society, obstruction of opposition parties, systematic voter intimidation, and a lack of public trust in institutions.

“Georgia’s parliamentary election was not credible in the eyes of its citizens and mark a sad chapter in the country’s fight for freedom and democratic accountability.

Georgia’s institutions, including the Central Election Commission, the judiciary, and the government bureaucracy, functioned as arms of the ruling party rather than being independent and impartial.

Reflecting on what IRI’s mission observed and on what has transpired since the election, only new elections can restore the Georgian people’s confidence in their government’s legitimacy,” said Daniel Twining, the organization’s president.

The report states that the authorities took unprecedented steps to alter the legislative framework before the elections. According to the IRI, the adoption of the Russian Law and the subsequent government crackdown on civil society organizations had a significant impact on freedom of association and expression, raising the risks of democratic backsliding and leading to large-scale public protests.

The international observation mission identifies four main challenges: 1. Unequal conditions and misuse of state resources; 2. Harassment of civil society and opposition parties, along with systematic voter intimidation; 3. State capture of electoral and judicial institutions; 4. Public rejection of the election results.

Unequal Conditions and Misuse of State Resources

The transfer of the functions of verifying political party donations and campaign financing from the State Audit Office to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, whose head was appointed by the Prime Minister, created an unreliable environment in which the Bureau could be used against opposition groups.

Amendments to the Organic Law of Georgia On Political Unions of Citizens, which prohibited parties from accepting donations from legal entities and forming pre-election blocs, forced candidates to leave their own parties if they united on a single list. Given the one percent electoral threshold required to receive public funding, these amendments weakened the motivation for small parties to unite and compete for mandates.

Interpretations of media regulations that limited the provision of free airtime to parties, as well as the formula for distributing free airtime, restricted the ability of opposition parties to communicate with voters. The ruling party, Georgian Dream, which enjoyed significant financial advantages, influenced several media outlets to maintain its dominant position in the political narrative.

The ruling party also used state-sponsored events to promote its parliamentary candidates. Additionally, state resources were used to mobilize civil servants and socio-economically disadvantaged groups to attend its rallies, thereby increasing pressure on civil servants to engage in party activities.

Moreover, Georgian Dream reportedly launched a large-scale campaign to collect citizen data, allegedly using state resources, which violated voter confidentiality. Such government actions created an uneven playing field and undermined the fairness of the elections.

Harassment of civil society and opposition parties, as well as the systematic intimidation of voters, were also significant issues.

Although the pre-election period was peaceful, widespread and systematic political intimidation and coercion were observed, particularly in rural and minority regions. The ineffectiveness of institutional protections threatened the ability of civil society, opposition parties, and citizens to exercise their freedom of speech and expression. Intimidation tactics, such as the forced collection of voter ID cards, intensified as the elections approached.

Although election day proceeded without serious technical problems, the presence of video cameras at polling stations and the use of special pens that violated the secrecy of ballots instilled fear among voters. These factors undermined confidence in the electoral process and the protection of fundamental political rights.

State Capture of Electoral and Judicial Institutions

Changes to the Central Election Commission (CEC) have raised public concerns about the body’s independence, including the removal of the opposition-nominated deputy CEC chairperson and the reduction of internal voting barriers, which have led to suspicions of bias within the CEC.

Additionally, the CEC’s controversial decision to appoint precinct members a week in advance, which was upheld by the court, has drawn sharp criticism, as it allowed the ruling party to influence the process.

While the electronic and mechanical vote counting was carried out as expected, there was no response to the shortcomings of the voting process.

The inadequate response from investigative bodies, biased justice, and insufficient mechanisms for resolving electoral disputes further eroded trust in the process and contributed to the rejection of the election results.

Public Rejection of Election Results 

The pre-election period and election day were marked by widespread irregularities that undermined the credibility of the process. Monitoring revealed a range of sophisticated tactics used to coerce voters and manipulate the results. These included an insidious disinformation campaign aimed at obtaining voter data, pressuring voters, surveillance, and violating the secrecy of the vote.

This was compounded by unscrupulous actions on election day, including coordinated efforts to spy on voters, coerce them, engage in vote buying, conduct “carousels,” violate the secrecy of ballots, interfere with the marking procedure, and obstruct domestic observers.

Ineffective mechanisms for resolving electoral disputes further exacerbated tensions, leading to prolonged instability after the elections. The democratic principle that the public should recognize the results of elections is essential for the stability and legitimacy of any country’s democracy, but this requires trust in institutions and the electoral process. Widespread public distrust and the unacceptability of the results raise questions about the legitimacy of the election results.

IRI calls on the Georgian authorities to consider the problematic issues raised by civil society and the international community regarding the legitimacy of the government that have arisen as a result of the elections. The organization states that, in the long term, Georgia should prioritize reforms to strengthen the independence of the election administration, law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary; promote media freedom; and create a more inclusive and open political environment.

“Addressing these challenges will be vital to advance Georgia’s democratic progress, its aspirations for closer integration with Europe and, ultimately, to ensure elections are a genuine reflection of people’s will,” the report concludes.