Documents

According to ISFED, signs of possible vote buying and use of administrative resources during the reporting period continues to be the main challenge of the election environment. ISFED found use of administrative resources in involvement of the ruling party’s majoritarian candidates in events funded by the State and local budgets. It appears that the ruling Georgian Dream party is trying to use all available administrative resources for electoral purposes.

During the election campaign period, a level playing field for candidates has not been secured. Candidates who were supported by the authorities could also count on support from local authorities, courts, and electoral authorities and often did not have to face the restrictions associated with the Covid 19 pandemic when conducting their campaigns. State controlled media dominated the public sphere and manipulated public opinion in the mass media by obstructing opposition candidates and creating advantages for "administrative" candidates.

The analysis of the process of candidates’ registration in self-government elections shows an unproportionally high dropout rate of opposition candidates. In the main elections to regional parliaments and councils, parties supported by the authorities could nominate 98 % of their candidates, self-nominated candidates could register in over 60 % of cases, and parties without „administrative support” were rejected in almost 90% of cases.

Opora issued their first interim report of the pre-election campaign period for the local elections. Officially, election campaigning began 05 September, however, political parties, their local organizations, and potential candidates de facto already launched their active campaigning in August. This stage of early campaigning is unregulated by any electoral legal framework and there are no controls over campaign spending. The uncontrolled spending on political ads on social media is also a concern highlighted in the report available on OPORA's website here.

ISFED identified 8 cases of alleged vote buying; cases of dismissal based on possible political motive in 5 municipalities; 5 cases of intimidation/harassment based on possible political motive; 2 cases of possible use of administrative resources; 2 cases of withholding social assistance based on possible political discrimination; 1 case of intimidation of ISFED observer; 1 case of interference in political activities and in pre-election campaigning by the Church; and 1 case of creating obstacles for registration of a political party.

From the first days of early voting, observers from various civic initiatives faced obstacles from PEC members and police officers. Numerous observers were removed from polling stations, deprived of accreditation, and even detained. The restrictions imposed by the CEC on the number of observers at polling stations during early voting made this electoral phase completely non-transparent for independent citizen observation. These restrictions were aimed at disrupting independent observation of this stage, rather than pursuing the declared medical safety measures in connection with the pandemic.

On August 4, early voting in the presidential election was launched to continue until August 8. According to “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections”, most pro-government observers were registered immediately after the formation of the PECs in June. As a result, only observers from pro-government organisations and political parties will observe the election, administered by the election commissions, which mostly consist of the members representing the same organisations.