GEORGIA – “TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY?”

Extract from an published paper on the Democratization trends in the South Caucasus through the prism of the presidential elections in 2008:

[...]

According to the assessment of Georgian political analyst David Aprasidze, “Georgia is an example of the new wave of transformation in Eurasia. Observers variously depicted it as a country “lurching towards democracy” in 2001, starting to “awaken with the Rose Revolution” in 2003, and ending with “sliding towards Authoritarianism” in 2007. (…) The ruling elite used the modernization slogan as a tool for consolidating its own power.” Indeed, since Rose Revolution which took place in 2003, Georgia has been called as a “new democracy”, “beacon of liberty” or “model new democracy” by many world commentators, politicians and leaders, most notably by the U.S. President George W. Bush on his visit to Tbilisi in May 2005 (“Georgia is today both sovereign and free and a beacon of liberty for this region and the world” ).

However, Freedom House 2005 report “Nations in Transit: democratization to Central Europe and Eurasia” noted that “strengthening the state was accompanied by certain setbacks in democratic freedoms and the balance of political power. The new government, eager to maintain the momentum of revolutionary change and achieve fast results, has not always respected existing laws and procedures in pursuing its policies. Constitutional changes in February 2004 weakened the Parliament and moved Georgia in the direction of superpresidentialism. Independent media became less critical and pluralistic, prosecutors became less likely to follow due process, and the courts rarely dared to disagree with the prosecution.” Although according to the Freedom House “Freedom in the World” reports Georgia has never been a free country, remaining partly free, its rating of political rights and civil liberties decreased from 3 in 2005 to 4 (out of 6) in 2008/2009. Georgia’s “democracy rating” declined due to the restrictions placed on political opposition following the November 2007 emergency declaration and circumscription of media and expression in the aftermath of the November protests.

However, for those analysts closely following the situation in the country, the events which unfolded in Georgia was hardly a surprise. Political opposition cried that „[Georgian] government reversed from the democratic development of the state, and we do not know, where we are going now”, but „Rose Revolution has transformed into Rose Terror with the sole aim – to establish a dictatorship in the country.”

Georgia’s leaders rebuffed every criticism of the government and its policies and depicted such opposition as national betrayals. Meanwhile, as Georgian MP Vladimir Papava writes, “the parliament has become so weakened that it is now called the “government’s notary.” In addition to the weakening of parliament, the judiciary has also lost its strength and independence. Today, it is run by the General Prosecutor’s Office, firmly rooting it within the executive branch.” And while corruption had been rooted out among policemen, university staff and ordinary civil servants, we can speak about neo-corruption or “elite” corruption, the term which was first used and described by Georgian ombudman Sozar Subari – “There is a group of people that enjoy the everything- permissible-status; they are privileged in all aspects. They can exploit the official structures, dismiss, arrest whom they desire, shut down the business, destroy, take away, prohibit, sequestrate, etc. Them and their close people is permitted everything, what is nobody allowed.” This became evident after former Defence Minister and once close presidential ally Irakli Okruashvili was charged with extortion, money laundering and misuse of power only after he accused president Saakashvili of ordering murders and formed an opposition party.

On November 7, 2007 authorities violently dispersed a protest rally, which was held in front of the Parliament located on the main street of Tbilisi. Meanwhile, police said that the demonstration was not broke up. “We have resumed traffic on the Tbilisi's main thoroughfare [Rustaveli Avenue], because we have been receiving numerous requests from citizens to unblock the road,” Giorgi Grigalashvili, chief of the Georgian patrol police, said. However, authorities not only “cleaned the street”, but also broke into the office of the independent TV station IMEDI (the most popular of the three privately-owned TV stations, with two thirds of the national audience and run by opposition figure Badri Patarkatsishvili), seizuring its property without any warrant to prove the legality of their actions. President Saakashvili immediatelly declared a state of emergency, accusing Russia of attempts to overthrow him and shutting down all the news programmes on independent TV stations (Imedi TV and TV Kavkasia went off the air), leaving the state controlled Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB) as the only station to broadcast the news. The next day president announce the exraordinary elections will take place on January 5, 2008, later resinging from his post accordingly with the constitution.

The International Election Observation Mission in its preliminary conclusions stated that these elections were "in essence consistent with most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections". However, "significant challenges were revealed which need to be addressed urgently.

Doubtlessly, these elections were the first genuinely competitive presidential elections in Georgia with seven candidates running for the presidential seat. However it is important to mention some "challenges" according to the IEOM report, 6 January 2009 :

1. The campaign was overshadowed by widespread allegations of intimidation and pressure, among others on public-sector employees;
2. The opposition, already dealing with a short and unexpectedly early campaign period, had poor funding and was left without a major nationwide broadcast platform, first because of the state of emergency and then because of TV Imedi’s suspension. The very high cost of paid political advertising on television limited the candidates’ possibilities to campaign in the media. Only Mr. Saakashvili was able to place paid spots on all four nationwide channels;
3. The campaign coverage in news programs lacked balance on most monitored TV stations, with Mr. Saakashvili generally receiving the most coverage;
4. GEL 22,986,081 (about USD 14.4 million) was spent on Mikheil Saakashvili’s re-election campaign;
5. The blurring of the line between state and political party, which is not in compliance with paragraph 5.4 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document, was an issue and created an unequal campaign environment;
6. While the new CEC composition formula resulted in welcome greater political inclusiveness, the commission’s members were often not observing the neutrality required of election administration, and many decisions were voted in a partisan manner. The opposition parties were underrepresented in managerial positions at the PEC level. The ruling United National Movement (UNM) held a de facto majority in PECs;
7. Outside many polling stations (mainly in Tbilisi), buses transporting UNM supporters to vote were noted;
8. The vote count was evaluated less positively, with a significant number of IEOM observers assessing it as bad or very bad.

According to the CEC results, published on January 13, 2008, Mikheil Saakashvili got 53, 41% with the turnout 56, 18%. However, opposition claimed that Saakshvili has received 37% of the votes and 600-700 summary protocols have been falsified, calling for the second round of elections. But despite of the “significant challenges to be addressed urgently”, international election observers in general hailed polls as democratic:

• “After having observed the election in several regions, in polling stations and following the overall path of the election, we consider it to have been carried out in a free and fair manner” (group of Estonian parliamentarians)
• “In general the election was democratic and fair and was held in line with international standards.” (Lithuanian observers)
• “In Georgia yesterday democracy took a triumphant step.” (Alcee L. Hastings, the U.S. Congressman who coordinated the OSCE short-term observation mission)

Meanwhile, European leaders rushed to congratulate Mihkeil Saakashvili even before the official annoncement of the results by CEC on January 13: President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko, President of France Nicola Sarkozy, President of Estonia Thomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Turkey Abdullah Gul, President of Poland Lech Kaczinsky and others.

These elections disclosed the polarisation of the society in Georgia, which mainly has a geographical character. Mikheil Saakashvili won elections mostly in the regions, but lost in the capital Tbilisi, where more than a half of the population lives. This polarization has undermined confidence in the presidential poll; as a result quite a big number of the population considers acting president as illegitimate. The most vivid example of that was on January 20, the day of the inauguration of the re-elected president Saakashvili. Everyone in the outside world had seen the picture, where a newly elected president goes through the cheerful crowd, a lot of people gathered to greet their re-elected president. But that was a well staged show, because only selected people, who had special invitations issued by the authorities, had a chance to get closer to the place of the inauguration, other people (tens of thousands) gathered in the hippodrome to show their protest.

[...]