Global Integrity Report

Georgia Home

Facts

Timeline

Notebook

Integrity Scorecard

2007 Assessment

Georgia: Integrity Indicators Scorecard

Georgia: Integrity Scorecard Report > Sub-Category: Election Integrity
Indicators		Score
17	In law, is there an election monitoring agency or set of election monitoring agencies/entities?	100
18	Is the election monitoring agency effective?	65
19	Are elections systems transparent and effective?	67

Indicator and sub-Indicator Details

In law, is there an election monitoring agency or set of election monitoring agencies/entities?

17: In law, is there an election monitoring agency or set of election monitoring agencies/entities?

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Election Code of Georgia

Is the election monitoring agency effective?

18a: In law, the agency or set of agencies/entities is protected from political interference.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Election Code of Georgia

Peer Review Comments: See also the CEC charter at [ LINK ].

18b: In practice, agency (or set of agencies/entities) appointments are made that support the independence of the agency.

Score:

100

Comments: Appointments of the key personal at all levels of election administration are made according to the political loyalties. Some officials are rulling party activists and there is no professional school or any other agency providing substantial training for election officials.

References: see reports from May / June 2005, when the appointments to the Central Election Commission were made.

18c: In practice, the agency or set of agencies/entities has a professional, full-time staff.

Score:

100

Comments: By law, all election administration is required to have a special training and qualification, but as there is no special education facility the system is just starting. A couple of NGOs started last year special modules for the first and second level administation.

References: Election Code of Georgia; Interview with the Parliamentary Secretary of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association Besarion Abashidze No media reports on the subject exist.

Peer Review Comments: The problem is not because of the lack of a special education facility, but because every new chairperson seems to bring in his or her own staff. This means that those staff who have already been trained in one area find themselves moving to different positions. This is not only a problem with CEC. This happens in most public agencies.

18d: In practice, the agency or set of agencies/entities makes timely, publicly available reports following an election cycle.

Score:

100

Comments:

References: There are no media reports on secrecy. see web page of the Central Election Commission of Georgia at www.cec.gov.ge

18e: In practice, when necessary, the agency or set of agencies/entities imposes penalties on offenders.

Score:

100

Comments:

References: No media reports exist. The agency does not have any legal capacity on punishment. All they can do is to send reports to the Ministry of Justice or other law enforcement agencies.

Are elections systems transparent and effective?

19a: In practice, there is a clear and transparent system of voter registration.

Score:

100

Comments: Election lists and voter registration are the main sources of manipulation during elections.

References: 22.11.2006 The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) is implementing the project "2006 Local Elections: Building Confidence in the Election Process - Voters' Lists Audit". The project is funded by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the technical/expert assistance is provided by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). Please, see ISFED's presentation on the audit results of the final lists of voters: [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: The situation is certainly not perfect but a lot better than in other post-Soviet countries.

Peer Review Comments: While I agree that there are many problems with this issue, 0 is not the right score in the case of Georgia's electoral system and its practices regarding the proper registration of voters. There are violations in regions where opposition parties and international organizations cannot monitor the process properly, but, generally, even if there are attempts to distort data, coverage by independent media and the support of international organizations allow interested parties to put pressure on relevant agencies.

19b: In law, election results can be contested through the judicial system.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Georgia Election Code

Peer Review Comments: Law of Georgia on the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court is the final reviewer of election cases.)

19c: In practice, election results can be effectively appealed through the judicial system.

Score:

100

Comments: All candidates or parties can appeal, but we have never seen anyone ever winning even on the most obvious cases.

References: Please, see the Joint Statement of The International Society of Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) and Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA) about a ruling adopted by the Central Election Commission of Georgia on Oct. 9, 2006, concerning the distribution of mandates by proportional principles in Tbilisi Local Council: [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: We have seen successful challenges in the court - under Shevardnadze and under Saakashvili.

Peer Review Comments: For obvious reasons, the time frame for lodging appeals is very short, which often deters the appellant's lawyers in preparing a good enough case to win in court.

19d: In practice, the military and security forces remain neutral during elections.

Score:

100

Comments: The minister of Defense has been officially and openly expressing support to the ruling party and calling on all military to support. The same was the case with the minister of the Interior.

References: There are no media reports on use of force. see report: MONITORING MISUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES 2006 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS Tbilisi, Georgia, TI-Georgia, 2006

19e: In law, domestic and international election observers are allowed to monitor elections.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Georgia Election Code

19f: In practice, election observers are able to effectively monitor elections.

Score:

100

$Scoring Criteria :: 100 Score Criteria: Election observers have unfettered access to polling sites, counting stations, and voters themselves. The government does not interfere with the observers\' activities. <p>50 Score Criteria: Election observers generally have access to polling sites, counting stations, and voters but encounter restrictions in certain areas. The government may impose burdensome regulatory or bureaucratic requirements on observers to discourage their involvement. <p>0 Score Criteria: Election observers\' movements are significantly limited by the government and many polling and counting sites are restricted or barred from observers. The government imposes so many bureaucratic or regulatory burdens on the observers that their mission is rendered ineffective.$

Comments:

References: MONITORING MISUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES 2006 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS Tbilisi, Georgia, TI-Georgia, 2006

18.05.2007 The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) is announcing inter-organizational open vacancy for the position of administrative officer.

Please, see full information

18.12.2006 ISFED Project Manager Eka Siradze-Delaunay took part in the Domestic Observers Forum on 12-14 December, 2006 in Bratislava (Slovakia). Forum was organized by The Network of Europeans for Electoral and Democracy Support (NEEDS) in partnership with OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), Slovakian monitoring organization (MEMO'98) and European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations (ENEMO). The aim of the Forum was to involve the representatives from the leading European civil society organizations in election monitoring in order to conduct credible and effective election observation missions. The theme of the Forum was "The Use of IT in the Electoral Process and the Implications for Election Observation Methodology". The key objectives of the Forum were to train international and domestic election observers, increase their professionalism and capacity by identification of the current practices across the OSCE region in using IT in the electoral process and sharing of the standards for the usage of IT and strategies observer groups can employ to effectively observe elections.

8.12.2006 ISFED Executive Director Tamar Zhvania took part in the international seminar hold on Dec. 5-7, 2006, in Mexico (Mexico). Program was organized by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The main goal of the program was to share experiences and discuss monitoring methodologies of electoral processes of the different countries. About 200 representatives of NGOs from different countries took part in the international seminar.

7.12.2006 On Dec. 7, 2006, the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) organized a roundtable discussion on "Recent Constitutional Amendments in Georgia". Members of the organizational commission on public discussions, MPs, representatives of government, international and non-governmental organizations, as well as independent experts and media participated in the roundtable discussion on the draft law "on Amendments and Supplements to the Constitution of Georgia".

Please, see ISFED's Roundtable Press Release, Explanatory Note and Draft Constitutional Amendments.

Roundtable Press Release...» Constitutional Amendments...» Explanatory Note...»

22.11.2006 The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy" (ISFED) is implementing the project "2006 Local Elections: Building Confidence in the Election Process - Voters' Lists Audit". The project is funded by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the technical/expert assistance is provided by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). Please, see ISFED's presentation on the audit results of the final lists of voters ...»

18.10.2006 On Oct. 17, 2006, ISFED monitored the re-run October 5 Local Self-Government Elections in: Abasha (in 19 precincts), Liakhvi (in five precincts), Gardabani (in two precincts), Dusheti (in one precinct), Akhmeta (in one precinct). Please, see ISFED Statements about the monitoring results of the re-run October 5 Local Self-Government Elections:

Statement #1 ...» Statement #2 ...» Statement #3 ...» Statement #4 ...»

12.10.2006 Please, see the Joint Statement of The International Society of Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) and Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA) about a ruling adopted by the Central Election Commission of Georgia on Oct. 9, 2006, concerning the distribution of mandates by proportional principles in Tbilisi Local Council.

6.10.2006 ISFED Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT) Proportional results ....» ISFED Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT) Majoritarian results: Kutaisi ...» Poti ...» Batumi ...» Rustavi ...»

6.10.2006 The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) has conducted a large-scale monitoring of the local elections in Georgia. at: [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: Again, I believe Georgia needs to be compared to other post-Soviet countries. If you compare Georgia to those countries, election monitoring has advanced quite well.

Peer Review Comments: I raised this score because international observers have unfettered access, while I would rate the access of local observers as 50.