Irakli Kobakhidze: “…OSCE/ODIHR recognizes the elections”
Verdict: FactCheck concludes that Irakli Kobakhidze’s statement is FALSE.
First and foremost, it should be underlined that the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission does not determine the recognition or non-recognition of election results but instead evaluates whether the electoral process complies with OSCE commitments, other international obligations and standards for democratic elections, and national legislation.
According to the final report of the election observation mission, significant violations were observed during Georgia's parliamentary elections held on October 26, 2024, which alongside the Constitution of Georgia, contradicts international election standards and OSCE recommendations. The final report generally assesses the technical administration of the elections positively. At the same time, unlike the preliminary conclusions, it does not describe the elections as "competitive" and highlights violations and challenges, such as vote-buying and intimidation, misuse of administrative resources, and disregard for marking procedures, that negatively impact public trust and integrity of the electoral process. The report emphasizes frequent compromises in vote secrecy. It should be stressed in this context that according to the Constitution of Georgia and international standards, the principle of vote secrecy represents one of the fundamental elements of free and fair elections and plays an integral part in legitimizing the democratic process.
It is important to emphasize that, 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 and thus pointed to the credibility of the results, no such statement appears in the 2024 election assessment. According to the statement of Eoghan Murphy, the Head of ODIHR’s 2024 election observation mission, “numerous issues noted in our final report negatively impacted the integrity of these elections and eroded public trust in the process.”
Based on the above-mentioned, FactCheck concludes that Irakli Kobakhidze’s statement is false.
Analysis
On December 20, 2024, during a briefing, Irakli Kobakhidze, one of the leaders of the "Georgian Dream" party, evaluated the final report of the OSCE/ODIHR concerning Georgia's parliamentary elections. Kobakhidze stated that the overall content of the report indicates that "the elections were free and competitive." He also claimed that "OSCE/ODIHR recognizes the elections." To support this assessment, Kobakhidze cited phrases taken from the report, such as “overall, the [Georgian] legal framework provided an adequate basis for conducting democratic elections,” “the registration of parties was conducted properly, and the elections offered voters a wide choice,” “contestants were able to campaign freely,” “the media landscape was diverse,” “preparations for the elections were well-administered”, “the election administration efficiently managed the technical aspects of the elections,” “election day was generally procedurally well-organized and administered in an orderly manner,” “the law provided for election observation by citizen and international observers”.
On December 20, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) published its final report on Georgia's parliamentary elections held on October 26, 2024.
In evaluating the election results, Irakli Kobakhidze seeks to highlight the positive aspects of the OSCE's conclusions, but fails to mention that each phrase he quotes is followed by the word "but." He refers to the numerous violations and shortcomings outlined in the report only in the context of isolated incidents, thereby misrepresenting the OSCE/ODIHR's overall assessment.
First and foremost, it should be underlined that the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission does not determine the recognition or non-recognition of election results. Its mandate is to assess whether the electoral process complies with OSCE commitments, other international obligations and standards for democratic elections, and national legislation. This is clearly stated in both the preliminary conclusions and the final report of the OSCE/ODIHR. Moreover, the press release accompanying the final report underlines that “in line with its mandate, ODIHR does not recognize or endorse elections. Instead, ODIHR provides a comprehensive and impartial assessment of the electoral process based on universal principles, international obligations, and the commitments to hold democratic elections made by all OSCE states. This enables voters to form their own judgments about the quality of the election.” Therefore, the recommendations outlined in the report do not imply recognition of the election results or granting legitimacy to the government, as the "Georgian Dream" party tries to portray.
Concerning the vote secrecy compromise, ODIHR notes in the summary that the elections were generally well-organized but marked by a tense environment, with frequent compromises in vote secrecy and several procedural inconsistencies, as well as reports of intimidation and pressure on voters that negatively impacted public trust in the process.
In the next section, where the election day is examined in more detail, the causes of the vote secrecy compromise are further analysed. The document states that potential compromises to vote secrecy were observed in 24 per cent of observations due to how ballots are inserted into ballot boxes, in 12 per cent due to how they marked their ballots, and in 7 per cent due to inadequate polling station layouts. Additionally, the OSCE identified several factors contributing to these breaches, including the proximity of Precinct Election Commissions (PECs) members, contestant representatives, or observers to ballot boxes or polling booths, marks bleeding through ballots, improper use of sleeves or envelopes, as well as the use of cameras, which could disclose voters’ choices. These issues, compounded by rumours that vote-counting devices (VCDs) could be used to track voters’ choices, contributed to a perception among many voters that the secrecy of their vote was violated.
Georgia’s Reforms Associates (GRASS) reached out to OSCE/ODIHR to clarify what percentage of observed cases may have involved a breach of vote secrecy. The mechanical summation of the numbers presented in the OSCE's conclusions, given the potential overlaps, would be inaccurate. In a response letter, OSCE/ODIHR spokesperson Katya Andrusz confirmed that such a mechanical summation could not be performed due to the existing overlaps. Additionally, according to her, “taking into account all the different ways in which the secrecy of the vote was compromised, including layout, the manner in which voters marked their ballots, the way in which the ballots were inserted in the machine, and other secrecy issues or a combination of these, there were issues noted with the secrecy of the vote in more than 30 per cent of observations by the international observers.”
In this context, it is important to note that the principle of vote secrecy is a fundamental element of democratic, free, and fair elections, and is safeguarded by both the Constitution of Georgia and international standards. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in its resolution adopted in 2007, states that “ensuring the secrecy of voting remains a key aspect of free and fair elections” and “plays an integral part in legitimising the democratic process.” “It ensures that citizens are able to express themselves freely… and that legislative and executive bodies are legitimate.” The Parliamentary Assembly therefore calls on member states to guarantee secret voting for all citizens, as well as to ensure maximum security in electronic voting.
The OSCE/ODIHR report also emphasizes credible reports on vote-buying, misuse of administrative resources, and pressure on public service employees and economically vulnerable groups, thereby restricting the right to vote freely, without fear of retribution, which is at odds with OSCE commitments and international standards. The OSCE/ODIHR underlines that in the lead-up to the pre-election period, the government of Georgia introduced financial incentives for citizens from diverse social groups aimed at improving their financial status, while also developing and enacting a law that granted amnesty to a broad range of convicted individuals. The report lists specific actions by the government that, according to the OSCE's assessment, could exert undue influence on voters. These include a paid internship program for students, a reduction of interest rates on bank loans for pensioners, an increase in pensions for law enforcement officers, a waiver of tax liabilities incurred before 2021, and an exemption from COVID-19 penalty charges. According to OSCE/ODIHR statistics, the government's aforementioned actions had the potential to influence the decisions of more than 642,000 voters in total.
The report stresses the lack of a thorough review of election-day complaints and appeals, which undermined the right to an effective remedy. The observation mission specifically notes that observers and contestants filed 1,203 complaints, most of which were dismissed by district election commissions (DECs) without substantive consideration, and the courts, after minimal examination, upheld the DEC decisions unchanged. Out of the 1,203 complaints, only 170 were fully or partially upheld, mostly relating to disciplinary actions against polling staff. The report emphasizes that the handling of most complaints lacked substantive consideration. Furthermore, according to the report, some decisions lacked sufficient substantiation, particularly where the legal interpretation was questionable, raising concerns over possible bias. The report highlights the Constitutional Court's decision to reject the appeals filed by the president and political parties challenging the constitutionality of the parliamentary elections.
The observation mission concludes that, overall, the handling of election-day complaints and appeals by election commissions and courts undermined the right to due process and effective remedy, while also failing to address widespread concerns regarding the integrity of the electoral process.
In addition to vote secrecy compromise, vote-buying, intimidation, and restrictions on effective remedy, the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission identifies a range of other violations that occurred during the pre-election period, on election day, and after the elections. According to the report, these violations demonstrate a disregard for previous OSCE/ODIHR recommendations and international electoral standards, which had a detrimental effect on public trust in the electoral process.
OSCE/ODIHR notes that “overall, the legal framework provides an adequate basis for conducting democratic elections.” However, the latest revisions, some of which were made shortly before the elections and without broad political consensus, raised concerns about the impartiality of election administration and the potential for political manipulation, which is contrary to OSCE commitments. The amendments included changes to the decision-making process within the election administration, such as allowing the CEC to bypass the two-thirds majority requirement in repeat voting, eliminating the position of the opposition-nominated deputy chairperson of the CEC, and revising the procedure for appointing CEC members - enacted without an inclusive consultative process or broad political support.
Unlike the preliminary conclusions, where the mission emphasized that "the campaign was competitive but subdued," the final report does not use the term "competitive." According to the report, “contestants were generally able to campaign freely, and 18 candidate lists competed in a subdued campaign. However, persistent reports of intimidation, inducement, and pressure on voters, especially on public sector employees and economically vulnerable groups, raised concerns about the ability of some voters to freely form their opinions and cast their vote without fear, at odds with OSCE commitments and international standards.” The report also addresses violations and challenges such as the uneven playing field in favour of the ruling party, violent incidents during the campaign, the use of visual materials and rhetoric, including public statements by the government about banning key opposition parties, which contradict democratic principles.
The OSCE/ODIHR observation mission also addressed the issue of transparency in the use of electronic technologies. In particular, the report notes that in October 2024, shortly before elections, the CEC tasked a private company with conducting a new audit specifically related to the parliamentary elections, which confirmed that system and functional updates to the software did not compromise the integrity, reliability, or security of the voting process. However, this report was only published after election day, preventing stakeholders from reviewing its findings in due time. Additionally, the OSCE/ODIHR mission points out that there was limited information regarding the external providers involved in implementing and auditing the devices. Furthermore, stakeholders did not have full access to oversee all stages of the implementation of electronic technology, review detailed documentation, and examine audits, at odds with international good practice.
According to the final report of the OSCE/ODIHR, while most interlocutors did not express significant concerns about the accuracy or inclusiveness of the voter lists before election day, some questioned the legitimacy of multiple registrations at the same addresses involving voters unknown to the actual residents.
The observation mission assesses the media landscape as "diverse yet highly polarized." Additionally, in light of recent developments, the report expresses concern regarding the safety of journalists.
Preparations for the elections and the election day was generally procedurally well-administered but marked by a tense environment and physical altercations near election districts, incidents of voter intimidation and pressure, and frequent breaches of vote secrecy. In some cases, important electoral procedures, such as marking voters' fingers, were inconsistently followed. This included instances where the ink was either not regularly checked or not applied at all, accounting for 7 per cent and 4 per cent of all polling stations, respectively. It is noteworthy that marking voters' fingers is a critical safeguard against multiple voting by the same individual, preventing the manipulation of the process through tactics such as the "carousel" voting fraud scheme.
The observation mission also points out that voter identification devices sometimes failed to read voters’ IDs, requiring manual data entry, making the process prone to human error and potential misuse. Furthermore, according to the information available to the mission, PEC members obstructed the observation of voter verification, while the layout of polling stations often hindered meaningful observation, as voter registration tables were frequently positioned in a way that blocked a clear view of the procedures.
While almost all PECs were familiar with handling of the devices, in 9 per cent of observations, not all voters received adequate instructions on marking and casting ballots, which is an important measure to reduce invalid ballots and ensure vote secrecy. At 54 per cent of the polling stations using electronic devices, some voters did not fully understand how to cast their ballots. At polling stations using the traditional voting method, the instruction procedure was neglected in 26 per cent of the observations.
According to the report, “in most cases, voting was assessed as procedurally well-organized, however, in 6 per cent of the 1,924 observations, which is a significant number, the process was assessed negatively, mainly due to indications of voter pressure and intimidation, sometimes accompanied by tension, unrest and overcrowding.”
Attention is also drawn to instances of intimidation and obstruction of local observers. Additionally, the report points out that some observer organizations faced targeted discrediting efforts by the ruling party, aimed at undermining public trust in these organizations. Additionally, the report provides a detailed overview of post-election developments. The OSCE/ODIHR mission expresses serious concern over the violent dispersal of protest rallies and mass detentions, which violated the right to peaceful assembly and intensified the political crisis in the country.
What did the OSCE/ODIHR write about Georgia's 2016 and 2020 parliamentary elections?
Fundamental and extensive violations, first and foremost the 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.
To illustrate this, we can refer to the OSCE/ODIHR assessments of Georgia's parliamentary elections in previous years. Past OSCE/ODIHR findings 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 final report stated: “…the elections [of October 31] were competitive and, overall, fundamental freedoms were respected.” Similar assessments are provided in the 2016 parliamentary elections report: “…the 8 October elections “were competitive, well-administered and fundamental freedoms were generally respected.”
In contrast, there is no mention of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in the final report for the 2024 parliamentary elections which instead lists numerous significant violations accompanying both the pre-election period and election day. In the press release accompanying the final report, Eoghan Murphy, the Head of ODIHR’s 2024 election observation mission, explicitly states that “numerous issues noted in our final report negatively impacted the integrity of these elections and eroded public trust in the process.” According to the same press release, “The elections took place amidst serious concerns about the impact of recently adopted legislation on fundamental freedoms and civil society, steps to diminish the independence of institutions involved in the election process, and pressure on voters, which combined with election day practices compromised the ability of some voters to cast their vote without fear of retribution.”
Irakli Kobakhidze’s statement attempts to convey the impression that OSCE/ODIHR gave a positive assessment of the 2024 parliamentary elections. In reality, the head of the mission himself explicitly pointed out that the violations identified during the process negatively affected the integrity of the elections and led to an "erosion" of public trust. Kobakhidze, however, disregards the main aspects of the findings, thus creating a distorted picture and seeking to mislead the public. The fundamental and widespread violations documented by OSCE/ODIHR does not indicate that, according to the report, "the elections were free and competitive" and that "OSCE/ODIHR recognizes the elections." Therefore, Factcheck concludes that Irakli Kobakhidze’s statement is false.
Editor's note:
The article was updated on January 17 to include clarification based on written communication with Katya Andrusz, the spokesperson for OSCE/ODIHR.
