Shalva Papuashvili: “The OSCE/ODIHR clearly stated in their report, both in writing and verbally, that these elections were legitimate, that Georgia has an elected government. This is a clear OSCE/ODIHR report and conclusion, and our expectation is that everyone, including the EU, will remain loyal to OSCE/ODIHR’s conclusion.”
According to the OSCE/ODIHR's preliminary report on 26 October 2024, during the parliamentary elections in Georgia, significant violations were observed which, together with Georgia’s constitution, contradict international election standards and OSCE recommendations. Whilst the observation mission generally praised the competitive environment and technical administration, it detailed serious violations, including breaches of ballot secrecy, alleged vote-buying and intimidation, misuse of administrative resources and disregard for marking procedures which negatively impact public trust in the electoral process.
Furthermore, unlike the evaluations of the 2016 and the 2020 parliamentary elections, where the OSCE/ODIHR, despite critical remarks, clearly noted the protection of voters’ fundamental rights and freedoms on election day (which reinforced the credibility of results), no such statement appears in the 2024 election assessment. For instance, the preliminary conclusions for the 2020 parliamentary election stated: “The 31 October parliamentary elections were competitive and, overall, fundamental freedoms were respected.” A similar assessment was provided for the first and second rounds of the 2016 parliamentary elections as well.
Analysis:
On 31 October 2024, during a briefing, the Chairman of the Parliament of Georgia, Shalva Papuashvili, stated: “The OSCE/ODIHR clearly stated in their report, both in writing and verbally, that these elections were legitimate, that Georgia has an elected government.”
On 27 October 2024, the day after Georgia’s parliamentary elections, the OSCE/ODIHR's observation mission published a report with preliminary findings and conclusions aimed at determining “whether the elections complied with OSCE commitments and other international obligations and standards for democratic elections and with national legislation.” Papuashvili’s claim, focusing on the OSCE/ODIHR’s statement that the elections were „legitimate,” “distorts the content of the preliminary report which actually highlights several serious violations and deficiencies.
The report states that the parliamentary elections were generally competitive, allowing electoral subjects to conduct campaigns freely. However, visuals and rhetoric used during the campaign, including statements by the government about eliminating opposition parties, further deepened political polarization. The report notes that the elections were well-organised procedurally and that public information campaigns around new electronic technologies were intensive. Additionally, the OSCE/ODIHR observes that Georgia’s legislative framework provides a generally adequate basis for democratic elections. Nonetheless, recent legislative changes adopted without broad cross-party support raised concerns about the potential for political manipulation, contrary to OSCE commitments and international good practice.
By the same token, the mission pointed to multiple violations in both the pre-election period and on election day, disregarding OSCE/ODIHR recommendations and international election standards, that negatively impacted public trust in the process. Specifically, it notes violations such as an uneven playing field favouring the ruling party, tension and physical confrontations at polling stations, suspected vote-buying and intimidation, misuse of administrative resources, and frequent breaches of ballot secrecy. In fact, the report references non-compliance with OSCE/ODIHR recommendations and international standards seven times.
The preliminary report emphasises that vote secrecy was potentially compromised in 24% of observations due to the manner of ballot insertion into VCDs and in 7% of cases due to inadequate polling station layout. Secrecy was also potentially compromised due to visible colour markings on the reverse of the ballots. Moreover, OSCE/ODIHR observers noted that at the majority of polling stations, representatives of the ruling Georgian Dream party recorded the voting process while the cameras were often directed at VIDs or polling booths, potentially compromising the secrecy of the vote.
Inconsistencies in election procedures are highlighted with voters’ fingers not consistently being checked for ink (7%) or not always being inked before voting (4%). Attention is also drawn to instances of intimidation and obstruction of local observers.
The preliminary report further notes that before the election campaign began, the Georgian government introduced multiple initiatives targeting vulnerable social groups, potentially impacting voter choice. These included a law offering amnesty for a broad range of criminal sentences, paid internships for graduates, reduced interest rates on loans for pensioners, increased pensions for law enforcement personnel, waiver of tax liabilities occurred before 2021, and exemption from COVID-19 penalty charges. The OSCE/ODIHR expressed concern over cases of intimidation, coercion and pressure on voters, particularly those in the public sector and economically vulnerable groups, which limits the right to a free choice and vote, contradicting OSCE commitments and international standards. According to OSCE/ODIHR statistics, the government’s actions could potentially influence the choice of over 800,000 voters.
Fundamental and extensive violations, including breaches of ballot 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. This, in turn, negatively impacts the credibility of the election results.
It is worth noting that, in declaring the elections as “legitimate,” Chairman Papuashvili fails to mention the numerous violations and deficiencies cited in the preliminary report, thus presenting the OSCE/ODIHR’s conclusions incompletely and inaccurately. Papuashvili’s assertion is based on the statement of an OSCE short-term observer who referred to “elected leadership” during a press conference. However, such a reference does not suffice to recognise election credibility or meet an EU candidate state’s standards as reiterated by statements from the EU, the US and other international partners.
Past OSCE/ODIHR preliminary conclusions on Georgia’s parliamentary elections, despite critical comments, have always 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. For instance, in the 2020 parliamentary elections, the preliminary conclusions stated: “The 31 October parliamentary elections were competitive and, overall, fundamental freedoms were respected.” Similar assessments are provided for first and second rounds of the 2016 parliamentary elections: “The 8 October elections were competitive, well-administered and fundamental freedoms were generally respected” and “The 30 October run-offs were competitive and administered in a manner that respected the rights of candidates and voters.”
In contrast, there is no mention of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in the preliminary report for the 2024 parliamentary elections which instead lists numerous significant violations accompanying both the pre-election period and election day.
The above examples confirm that the OSCE/ODIHR explicitly mentions respect for electoral rights and freedoms when the process and election day are positively assessed which did not happen in the case of the 2024 parliamentary elections.
It is important to note that during an OSCE/ODIHR press conference on 27 October 2024, the OSCE’s special coordinator and head of the short-term observation mission, Pascal Alizard, referred to the “elected leadership,” expressing hope that “yesterday’s elected leadership will effectively address the main challenges facing this country.” Papuashvili likely refers to this statement when asserting that the OSCE concluded that “Georgia has an elected government.” However, such wording does not appear in the OSCE/ODIHR preliminary report. In fact, the preliminary report was prepared before the election process concluded and does not encompass the full election process, only the pre-election period and election day. According to the report: “The final assessment of the elections will depend, in part, on the conduct of the remaining stages of the electoral process, including the count, tabulation and announcement of results, and the handling of possible post-election day complaints or appeals.” This implies that the preliminary critical findings could, theoretically, become more severe after OSCE/ODIHR fully assesses the whole electoral process.
In this context, it is noteworthy that conducting free, fair and competitive elections and fully addressing OSCE/ODIHR recommendations was one of the nine steps outlined by the EU for Georgia. On 30 October 2024, the EU Ambassador to Georgia, Pawel Herczynski, openly stated that serious violations were noted in the parliamentary elections which “do not meet the standards expected of an EU candidate country” and emphasised the need for their swift, transparent and independent investigation. In the European Commission’s 2024 communication on enlargement policy, it is stated that “the [OSCE/ODIHR’s]preliminary findings confirm the need for a comprehensive electoral reform that was already highlighted in past key recommendations.”
