Georgia's calm election

Georgia goes to the polls on 8 October to elect a new parliament. Since Georgia is a parliamentary republic the party that wins the elections will form the government. Campaigning started on 8 June, and in parallel the process for holding the elections has been going on in earnest. Commonspace.eu correspondent Joseph D'Urso met the Chairperson of the Georgian Central Elections Commission, Tamar Zhvania in Tbilisi and asked her about the preparations.

 

How are your preparations going for the elections on October 8th?

The election campaign began on 8th June, so it has already been more than two months. So far we can say it is a very calm and peaceful environment compared to previous elections.

 

What are the main differences between now and 2012?

The main difference is that there is no violence. Of course [the parties] campaign, and have the right to do so according to the election law. But there is no real evidence of violent behavior.

 

Could you tell me more about why the Centrists, a pro-Russian party, have been excluded from the elections by the CEC?

It doesn't matter whether the party is pro-Russian, pro-American, or pro-European, it really doesn't matter in terms of the legal requirements. In terms of the election registration, and the registration procedure, we rejected the Centrists on a legal basis.

When they submitted the application for registration, all the documentation was correct based on the election code [article number 113]. If all documents are submitted in the proper way, the respective department issues a conclusion about the appropriateness, then we give them the possibility to submit supporter signatures, at least 25,000. This is a procedure required by law.

[The Centrists] submitted the documentation. However it was refused by the public registry at the first stage, and finally a decision was made by the public registry on 1st August that all procedures were not legal. So it rendered all the documentation illegal, which was a cause for cancelling the registration.

Not having an authorized legal chairperson was the legal reason for cancelling [the Centrists'] electoral registration.

 

Why did this happen at such a late stage?

We were informed at a late stage because the decision of the public registry was made on 1st August, we didn't know about this decision, and on 15th August they publicly announced their decision to reject the registration of the chairperson. This gave grounds to cancelling the electoral registration.

 

How was the new voter list was compiled?

The Ministry of Justice compiles the voter list. We also receive data from other ministries and agencies, for instance we receive data on internally displaced people (IDPs) from the ministry of refugees and settlement. We also receive some data from the ministry of defence with regard to military personnel.

The CEC is responsible only for consolidating and forming the voter list, which means we have to split voters based on polling stations. We analyse whether these voters are living in Georgia, because we split these voters based on polling lists, so we need to know addresses.

However we have a period of display and challenge, which means we publish the voter list, based on each polling station. Then voters can check on our website for their name, or the names of family members. Also, one month prior to Election Day, we publicly place the voter list at polling stations, and voters can go and check themselves.

If we discover any error, such as a voter being excluded, there is a procedure for making corrections.  We continue adjusting the list until ten days prior to Election Day, after which we cannot make any further changes because we print it.

 

Have all parties accepted the voter list?

When we talk about complaints by political parties regarding the voter list, it was more about perception than facts. I have headed the CEC for three years, and during this time we have never received, and never observed, any evidence-based irregularities in the voter list, either officially or unofficially. Even now [parties] have the right to get the voter list. All parties requested to receive it, and all of them have it. No complaints.

 

They haven't submitted any complaints that have been recognized, or they have submitted none at all?

No complaints.

 

Do you think that will change as we get closer to the election?

In three years observing this process, there have been no evidence-based problems. But we are open in case they discover anything of course. That it why we are working, that is why we are checking, that is why we have this display and challenge period, in case there are some irregularities. We are open to make corrections of course.

 

What happened in May, when there was violence at a by-election?

The Kortskheli incident. It's very famous. It happened during a by-elections in Samegrelo region. This violence was not inside the polling station, or outside it, but it was close to the border. Supporters of United National Movement and Georgian Dream, and even some politicians started to argue and then it became violent.

This was very problematic because it happened on Election Day. We really need to investigate such incidents and punish the culprits, to prevent and avoid the same type of problem during the general election. I am optimistic the lesson has been learned by everybody, including government, including the parties, that there is no place for violence in elections.

The election administration is working very closely with the ministry of the interior to ensure security during the pre-election period and on Election Day in October.

 

What kinds of electoral observation will take place?

We are registering NGOs willing to observe the election throughout the country.  So far we have registered 41 domestic NGOs and many international ones.

We expect to have lots of domestic NGOs observing the elections, and also lots of international organisations. However we have observed problems with political affiliated observers, which I call fake observers, because some of them support political parties.

Usually it is always the government, but this is not the case in Georgia right now. Here all the parties running for election have their own supporting NGOs, and some openly support political parties.

We have some very good organisations and we really count on them, because otherwise we cannot get the evidence of any problems.

 

How would you evaluate the relationship between the parties and the CEC at the moment?

I would say there is very good communication. Of course political parties have their political agenda. But when it comes to cooperation, they attend our meetings and are always very open to come and talk to the electoral administration.

We always give them all possible information. We made documents available, maps for instance. They are satisfied. With the boundary delimitation process, we involved all of them.

 

Are there party members on the committee?

Yes. Well they are not party members. They are appointed by political parties. We have thirteen members. Six members including myself are elected based on professional grounds, while seven are appointed by different political parties: Georgian Dream, The Republicans, Free Democrats, Democratic Movement, Conservatives, Industrials, and United National Movement.

These seven parties have the right to appoint members to the central, district and precinct committees. Apart from this appointment, they also have other representatives and proxies. Other parties also have the right to have proxies in the districts and precincts, but only these seven parties have qualified to appoint members to the CEC.

 

Is there anything else you'd like to say about the upcoming elections?

In terms of administration, these elections will be very difficult.

Apart from the parliamentary vote we have extraordinary elections in six municipalities, for mayors, by-elections in six districts, and to the Adjara Supreme Council. Which means four elections will be held together.

 

Do you have the resources?

Yes I think and hope so. It is easy to make logistical mistakes. Elections, I would say, are 70% about good logistics. But we count on having adequate resources to manage these kinds of problems.

 

source: Commonspace.eu correspondent Joseph d'Urso interviewed Tamar Zhvania Chairperson of the Central Elections Commission of Georgia in Tbilisi on 21 August 2016

photo: Tamar Zhvania (archive picture)

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)