This is the adapted version of an article originally published by FactCheck Georgia.
On December 20, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) published its final report on Georgia’s parliamentary elections held on October 26, 2024. Based on this report, leaders of the ruling party, Georgian Dream, made a series of statements, asserting that the report confirmed the elections in Georgia were democratic and that the OSCE/ODIHR had recognized their legitimacy. One of the latest statements was made by Irakli Kobakhidze, one of the party leaders, who claimed that the overall content of the report indicated “the elections were free and competitive” and that “OSCE/ODIHR recognized the elections.”
In reality, the report underscores significant and widespread violations occurring during the pre-election period, on election day, and in the post-election period. In the press release accompanying the final report, Eoghan Murphy, the Head of ODIHR’s 2024 election observation mission, explicitly stated that “numerous issues noted in our final report negatively impacted the integrity of these elections and eroded public trust in the process.” This assessment stands in stark contrast to the Georgian Dream’s evaluation.
Below are some of the violations and challenges identified by the observation mission.
Frequent compromise of vote secrecy: ODIHR notes in the report summary that the elections were generally well-organized but marked by a tense environment, with frequent compromises in vote secrecy. The causes of the vote secrecy compromise are further analyzed in the next session. In particular, the document states that potential compromises to vote secrecy were observed in 24 per cent of observations due to how ballots are inserted into ballot boxes, in 12 per cent due to how they marked their ballots, and in 7 per cent due to inadequate polling station layouts. Additionally, the OSCE identified several factors contributing to these breaches, including the proximity of Precinct Election Commissions (PECs) members, contestant representatives, or observers to ballot boxes or polling booths, marks bleeding through ballots, improper use of sleeves or envelopes, as well as the use of cameras, which could disclose voters’ choices. According to additional written communication between FactCheck Georgia team and the OSCE/ODIHR spokesperson, a mechanical summation of the numbers would be inaccurate due to overlaps, however, considering all the various ways in which vote secrecy was compromised, issues with the secrecy of the vote were noted in over 30 per cent of observations, implying that the anonymity of every third voter was potentially not protected. It should be mentioned that voting was observed in 1,924 out of 3,044 polling stations across the country.
Vote-buying, pressure, and intimidation: The OSCE/ODIHR emphasizes reports on vote-buying, misuse of administrative resources, intimidation and pressure, especially on public service employees and economically vulnerable groups, thereby restricting the right to vote freely, without fear of retribution, which is at odds with OSCE commitments and international standards. The OSCE/ODIHR underlines that in the lead-up to the pre-election period, the government of Georgia introduced financial incentives for citizens from diverse social groups aimed at improving their financial status, while also developing and enacting a law that granted amnesty to a broad range of convicted individuals. The report lists specific actions by the government that, according to the OSCE’s assessment, could exert undue influence on voters. These include a paid internship program for students, a reduction of interest rates on bank loans for pensioners, an increase in pensions for law enforcement officers, a waiver of tax liabilities, and an exemption from COVID-19 penalty charges. In total, the government’s aforementioned actions had the potential to influence the decisions of more than 642,000 voters.
An unequal electoral environment: Unlike the preliminary conclusions, where the mission emphasized that “the campaign was competitive but subdued,” the final report does not use the term “competitive.” According to the report, “contestants were generally able to campaign freely, and 18 candidate lists competed in a subdued campaign. However, persistent reports of intimidation, inducement, and pressure on voters, especially on public sector employees and economically vulnerable groups, raised concerns about the ability of some voters to freely form their opinions and cast their vote without fear, at odds with OSCE commitments and international standards.” The report also addresses violations and challenges such as the uneven playing field in favor of the ruling party, violent incidents during the campaign, the use of visual materials and rhetoric, including public statements by the government about banning key opposition parties, which contradict democratic principles.
Violations and neglect of electoral procedures: The report underlines that while preparations for the elections and the election day were generally procedurally well-administered, in some cases, important electoral procedures, such as marking voters’ fingers, were inconsistently followed. This included instances where the ink was either not regularly checked or not applied at all, accounting for 7 per cent and 4 per cent of all polling stations, respectively. It is noteworthy that marking voters’ fingers is a critical safeguard against multiple voting by the same individual, preventing the manipulation of the process through tactics such as the “carousel” voting fraud scheme. The observation mission also points out that voter identification devices sometimes failed to read voters’ IDs, requiring manual data entry, making the process prone to human error and potential misuse. Furthermore, according to the information available to the mission, PEC members obstructed the observation of voter verification, while the layout of polling stations often hindered meaningful observation, as voter registration tables were frequently positioned in a way that blocked a clear view of the procedures. According to the report, “in most cases, voting was assessed as procedurally well-organized, however, in 6 per cent of the 1,924 observations, which is a significant number, the process was assessed negatively, mainly due to indications of voter pressure and intimidation, sometimes accompanied by tension, unrest and overcrowding.”
Hindrances to the work of local observers: Attention is drawn to instances of intimidation and obstruction of local observers. Additionally, the report points out that some observer organizations faced targeted discrediting efforts by the ruling party, aimed at undermining public trust in these organizations.
Concerns regarding the election administration’s impartiality: OSCE/ODIHR notes that “overall, the legal framework provides an adequate basis for conducting democratic elections.” However, the latest revisions, some of which were made shortly before the elections and without broad political consensus, raised concerns about the impartiality of election administration and the potential for political manipulation, which is contrary to OSCE commitments. The amendments included changes to the decision-making process within the election administration, such as allowing the Central Election Commission (CEC) to bypass the two-thirds majority requirement in repeat voting, eliminating the position of the opposition-nominated deputy chairperson of the CEC, and revising the procedure for appointing CEC members – enacted without an inclusive consultative process or broad political support.
Failure to provide an effective remedy: The report stresses the lack of a thorough review of election-day complaints and appeals, which undermined the right to an effective remedy. The observation mission specifically notes that observers and contestants filed 1,203 complaints, most of which were dismissed by district election commissions (DECs) without substantive consideration, and the courts, after minimal examination, upheld the DEC decisions unchanged. Out of the 1,203 complaints, only 170 were fully or partially upheld, mostly relating to disciplinary actions against polling staff. The report emphasizes that the handling of most complaints lacked substantive consideration. Furthermore, according to the report, some decisions lacked sufficient substantiation, particularly where the legal interpretation was questionable, raising concerns over possible bias. The report highlights the Constitutional Court’s decision to reject the appeals filed by the president and political parties challenging the constitutionality of the parliamentary elections. The observation mission concludes that, overall, the handling of election-day complaints and appeals by election commissions and courts undermined the right to due process and effective remedy, while also failing to address widespread concerns regarding the integrity of the electoral process.
Fundamental and extensive violations, first and foremost the breaches of vote secrecy, voter intimidation and/or vote-buying and neglect of marking procedures, documented in the OSCE/ODIHR’s report indicate that the 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia did not meet international standards or OSCE commitments. Notably, past OSCE/ODIHR findings on Georgia’s parliamentary elections (e.g. on 2016 and 2020 parliamentary elections), despite critical comments, have explicitly stated that voters’ fundamental rights and freedoms were respected on election day, providing a solid basis for recognizing elections conducted in a free and fair environment. In contrast, there is no mention of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in the report for the 2024 elections.
It should be also underlined that the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission does not determine the recognition or non-recognition of election results, as the Georgian Dream party seeks to portray. Its mandate is to assess whether the electoral process complies with OSCE commitments, other international obligations and standards for democratic elections, and national legislation. This is clearly stated in both the preliminary conclusions and the final report of the OSCE/ODIHR. Moreover, the press release accompanying the final report underlines that “in line with its mandate, ODIHR does not recognize or endorse elections. Instead, ODIHR provides a comprehensive and impartial assessment of the electoral process based on universal principles, international obligations, and the commitments to hold democratic elections made by all OSCE states. This enables voters to form their own judgments about the quality of the election.”
The detailed FactCheck Georgia article regarding the OSCE/ODIHR report is available at: https://factcheck.ge/en/story/43353-osceodihr-recognizes-the-elections
Photo: European Parliament