"Challenges" or let's read IEOM report more carefully

International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) states in its final report that ...

"While the 5 January 2008 extraordinary presidential election in Georgia was in essence consistentwith most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections, significant challenges were revealed which need to be addressed urgently."

But what are these significant challenegs?

Speaking with my friends (also Georgians living abroad), they usually mention that "International Observers issued a report, naming these elections were conducted in a democratic way". Former and it seems future president of Georgia Mikeil Saakashvili said that “It was a brilliant election. I think everybody has witnessed the freest, the most competitive and the most successful election in the history of Georgia. (...) I have seen many observers, many assessments and many [election observation] missions, but such a high assessment has never been given to an election in Georgia before.”

But let's look closer to the report of the IEOM and realise what were the "significant challenges"

Legal Framework and Election System

Significant amendments to the United Election Code (UEC) were adopted on 22 November 2007, and further amendmentswere passed on 12 December, after the election had been called. Although these amendmentsgenerally introduced improvements to the law, enacting modifications so close to an election is not
in line with the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. While pertinent inconsistencies, gaps, and ambiguities leave room for varying interpretation, the UEC is generally adequate for the conduct of democratic elections, if implemented in good faith.

Election Administration

While the new CEC composition formula resulted in a welcome greaterpolitical inclusiveness, the commission’s members were often not observing the neutrality requiredof election administration, and many decisions were voted in a partisan manner

The opposition parties were underrepresented in managerial positions at the PEC level. The rulingUnited National Movement (UNM) held a de facto majority in PECs. According to the CEC, DEC-appointed PEC members were elected as chairpersons in most PECs, while only two chairpersonswere opposition appointees.

Voter registration

Despite major verification efforts undertaken, perceived and real inaccuracies in the voter lists remained a major concern for many stakeholders. Political parties and NGOs provided OSCE/ODIHR observers with some examples of multiple and incomplete records, omissions ofeligible voters, spelling and typographical errors, and cases of deceased persons remaining on thelist. The CEC acknowledged that mistakes might have remained, citing lack of time due to theunexpected announcement of the election. At least six complaints submitted to the CEC byopposition parties, with over 40,000 voters’ records claimed as being inaccurate. All thesecomplaints were submitted after the legal deadline for voter list verification. The CEC stated that cases listed in the complaints were checked and necessary changes were made when inaccuracieswere confirmed.

Candidate Registration

(it is importnat to mention !!)

This was the first genuinely competitive presidential election in Georgia. Candidate registration was overall inclusive and transparent. (!)

Campaign Environment

The blurring of the line between state and political party, which is not in compliance with paragraph5.4 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document, was an issue and created an unequal campaignenvironment. The distribution of vouchers for such things as utilities and medical supplies to vulnerable groups was criticized as an alleged misuse of budgetary funds in support of Mr.Saakashvili. UNM officials said the voucher distribution was planned before the election wascalled. However, there is evidence that the distribution was used for campaign purposes, blurring the separation between state activities and the UNM candidate’s election campaign. The vouchers prominently displayed that they were a subsidy from the President. Healthcare vouchers, as well as employment scheme leaflets, featured visually outstanding number “5”s – the number on the ballotunder which the UNM has run in elections since 2004. Distributors of vouchers sometimes asked recipients whether they would vote for Mr. Saakashvili, and asked them to sign documents confirming their support. Vouchers were in some cases distributed from UNM offices


Moreover, in reply to allegations that Mr. Saakashvili misused state resources, the UNM responded that the party had paid for such services. The contentiousness of this issue was fuelled by the lack of provision for candidates to supply reports on campaign financing before the election. The inauguration of a new pipeline by Mr. Saakashvili in Akhalkalaki, as well as the official opening of Tbilisi-Senaki-Leselidze highway lighting system, were given the appearance of presidential events, not in accord with Mr. Saakashvili’s status as a candidate who does not currently hold public office.

The campaign was overshadowed by widespread allegations of intimidation and pressure, amongothers on public-sector employees. These included a number of confirmed cases of pressure on opposition supporters by the police and local officials to desist from campaigning, threats ofarbitrary arrest or job dismissal and cases of landlords who were pressurized not to let premises foruse as opposition campaign offices. Isolated instances of violence against opposition activists,including kidnapping, were reported and verified. Such practices are inconsistent with paragraph 7.7 of the OSCE Copenhagen Document, which requires that campaigning be conducted in a fairand free atmosphere without administrative action, violence or intimidation.

The Media

While the media in general enjoy freedom of expression, they are under strong influence from theirowners and political patrons. Consequently, all five main TV stations were under a measure of influence from candidates and political parties. The campaign coverage in news programs lacked balance on most monitored TV stations, with Mr. Saakashvili generally receiving the most coverage. On the other hand, the newspapers monitored by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM provided adiverse range of opinions, with Mr. Saakashvili generally being the most often criticized candidate.

(let me say here that in Georgia people more watch TV than read newspapers, especially in regions, 'cause TV Channels are free of charge, but for newspapers you should pay, and taking into account impoverishment of the population in general, newspapers significantly lack behin the TV Channels and radio. You can say that it is possible to read news in the Internet, but the percentage of the population having access to the World Web is too small)

In the four weeks preceding the election, public TV devoted 27 per cent of its political and election prime-time news coverage to activities of Mr. Saakashvili, of which 98 per cent was positive or neutral. The next most covered candidate, Mr. Patarkatsishvili, received some 18 per cent, mainly inconnection with his alleged involvement in a coup plot. Some 33 per cent of this coverage was negative. Mr. Gamkrelidze and Mr. Gachechiladze, received 17 and 15 per cent of the coveragerespectively, which was mostly positive or neutral. The news coverage became more balanced inthe last two weeks prior to election day, with a notable decrease in the amount of prime-time newscoverage devoted to Mr. Saakashvili (27 per cent against 41 per cent in the first two weeks of thecampaign). The tone of his coverage, however, remained unchanged.

Two nationwide private TV channels, Rustavi 2 and Mze, showed clear support for Mr. Saakashviliand provided him with substantial prime-time news coverage. For example, Rustavi 2, Mze andpublic TV broadcast live a 28-minute prime-time news item about a meeting of Mr. Saakashviliwith teachers in Tbilisi. Other candidates did not receive such substantial coverage of theircampaign events. In addition, no other candidate had a chance to directly address the citizens with atelevised New Year greeting, which was broadcast by all three channels.

Another national broadcaster, Imedi TV, offered its viewers a different picture of the campaign.While Mr. Saakashvili received 31 per cent of the channel’s news coverage, 19 per cent wasnegative in tone. The next most covered candidate, Mr. Patarkatsishvili, received 26 per cent of thecoverage, 29 per cent of which was negative in tone. Tbilisi-based local TV Kavkazia was criticalof Mr. Saakashvili and provided a platform for his main rivals.

On 26 December, six leading journalists announced their decision to leave Imedi TV in connectionwith the accusations against Imedi’s co-owner Arkadi Patarkatsishvili. Imedi TV’s managementconsequently temporarily suspended broadcasts in order to “distance themselves from dirty political games”, alleging pressure from both Mr. Patarkatsishvili and the authorities.

The CEC conducted, for the first time, its own media monitoring, through a commercial company,and released three media monitoring reports. The methodology chosen, as well as the interpretationof the results of quantitative and qualitative analysis, have resulted in a positive assessment of the campaign coverage and did not identify any substantial imbalances in the news.

The very high cost of paid political advertising on television limited the candidates’ possibilities to campaign in the media. Three of them charged approximately ten times more for politicaladvertising than for commercials. Two weeks before the election, public TV decreased its prices to make them more accessible for candidates, however they still remained twice as high as commercialrates. Only Mr. Saakashvili was able to place paid spots on all four nationwide channels.

Complaints and Appeals

Despite numerous allegations of election-related violations, a relatively small number of official complaints were submitted to election commissions and courts. Few complaints were submitted toDECs and regional courts, with the concentration of cases in Tbilisi. Opposition parties and NGOs explained this with a lack of trust in the impartiality of the election administration and courts inadjudication of election-related complaints. There are also credible reports that the public feared submitting complaints and witness statements on politically motivated offences.

All campaign-related complaints, except one (alleging vote buying by Mr.Patarkatsishvili), were filed against the ruling party candidate or government officials. Both the CEC and courts tended to stretch the law beyond reasonable interpretation and without regard to itsspirit, in favour of the ruling party candidate and public officials.

In its adjudication of complaints, the CEC failed to follow important procedures provided by domestic laws and international standards. Notably, CEC regulations do not adequately addresshow complaints are to be dealt with. CEC members seemingly lacked adjudication skills and oftenbased decisions on political interests and not on sound interpretation of the law.

Reports were submitted to various law enforcement and governmental bodies, with allegations ofintimidation, kidnappings and attacks on opposition supporters and close family members, someimplicating law enforcement officials. The police did not appear to sufficiently investigate suchcomplaints, and the Interior Ministry reported that many cases have already been closed for lack ofevidence. The OSCE/ODIHR EOM is not aware of any criminal prosecutions being initiated insuch cases.

Election Day

Election day was generally peaceful. Overall, voting was assessed positively by a large majority of IEOM observers. However, organizational and procedural shortcomings were observed, especially with regard to inconsistent application of inking procedures, intended as a safeguard against multiple voting. This is especially significant given the reintroduction of election-day voter registration and the scale by which it was used.

The circumstances in and around polling stations were frequently problematic. Some 12 per cent of polling station premises were overcrowded, and outside 19 per cent of polling stations large numbers of voters were waiting to vote. Tension outside polling stations was noted in 2 per cent of reports, and inside the premises in 3 per cent. Outside many polling stations, buses transporting UNM supporters to vote were noted. Campaign material was noted inside 3 per cent of pollingstations visited. In addition, observers found CEC-produced stickers with the text “Where will you be on 5 January?”, with the “5” in a red circle visually resembling that used on Mr. Saakashvili’scampaign materials.

The vote count was evaluated less positively, with a significant number of IEOM observers assessing it as bad or very bad. In most polling stations observed, the counting process was very slow. A considerable number of PECs did not perform basic reconciliation procedures before opening the ballot boxes, such as establishing the number of voters who voted and entering it into the protocol. In nearly half of counts observed, voters’ choices were not read aloud during the count, and at times, PEC members and observers were not allowed to examine the ballots, inviolation of the law. Determination of ballot validity was not always reasonable and consistent. Unauthorized persons frequently participated in the vote count.

Many PECs had problems completing the results protocol, and revised figures which had been entered into the protocol earlier. Occasionally, protocols had been pre-signed and completed inpencil rather than ink. The result protocols were often not posted for public scrutiny. While theCEC is posting precinct result protocols on its website for the first time, only a small number ofprotocols had been posted by mid-morning of the day following the election.

-------

As we see IEOM is more than not satisfied with vote counting, but this is an essential part of the election procedure! How these election can be entirely free and democratic if we have "A LOT OF SO-CALLED CHALLENGES"???

International Community did not say that these election were free and fair, in general they were in line with OSCE and CoE committments about democratic elections. But let me ask then, if such kind of elections were held in Latvia or in the UK, would you be satisfied and claim that everything was done in a democratic way?

Food for thoughts....