Statement of the CEC Chief over Presidential Elections and Preparations of Parliamentary Polls

January 8, 2004, Tbilisi – Mid-Term Presidential Elections were held in Georgia on January 4, 2004. Election day passed by peacefully in a normal atmosphere. Election administrators at all levels, acted in accordance with the terms established by the Georgian Constitution and the Unified Election Code. Domestic and international observers were able to monitor the election process without obstacles. In spite of some minor contraventions and technical problems, no fraud, at least no massive fraud took place.

Election day, the key part of the January 4, 2004 Mid-Term Presidential Elections, was certainly very different from elections that have been held in Georgia for the last few years.  I hope that the concluding part of the Mid-Term Presidential Elections, summarization and tabulation of the election results, will be carried out in accordance with the law as well.

Georgian voters defined the face of the January 4, 2004 elections by their active participation and by showing the Georgian government and international community that Georgian citizens want free and fair elections and are willing to elect their own Government.

I would like to thank the citizens of Georgia because their great civic and political culture has launched a new tradition of conducting lawful elections in Georgia. I do not think that the January 4, 2004 Mid-Term Presidential elections were held in accordance with all international standards, but it is obvious that significant progress has been made in this direction.  

January 4, 2004 showed how essential strong political will is in order to hold free and fair elections in the country. The position of the Georgian Government played a major role in enabling the Central Election Commission to prepare and conduct the Mid-Term Presidential Elections within very tight timeframes. 

The biggest evidence of this position was the visit of Nino Burjanadze, the interim President of Georgia, to the Central Election Commission on December 23, 2003. The firmness of the Georgian government created an atmosphere in the country in which elections would not be associated with battle, controversy and chaos.

Without the strong will of the international community to support the young Georgian democracy, the Georgian people and government would have faced very serious problems in attempting to conduct the Mid-Term Presidential elections in accordance with the timeframes established by the Constitution.

I would like to thank donor countries and international organizations for providing the immediate and effective financial and technical support and consultations. It is very difficult for me, as a citizen of Georgia, to find enough words to express my appreciation for the enormous moral support which the democratic world has expressed towards Georgia.  
The presence of about 450 international observers at the January 4, 2004 Mid-Term Presidential elections, within the joint observation mission of OSCE/ODIHR, the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Euro Parliament, enabled citizens in Georgia as well as outside Georgia, to obtain detailed information about the election process.
 
Along with the evaluation of the Presidential elections (which is certainly different from the evaluation of the November 2, 2003 Parliamentary Elections), this authoritative observation mission has presented valuable recommendations which must be taken into consideration during the next elections in order to bring election processes closer to international standards.

I wish and hope that the same number of international observers will monitor the new Parliamentary elections which will be held in Spring, 2004.

International organizations working in Georgia such as: OSCE, UNDP, USAID, IFES, NDI and IRI have put great effort in improving the election processes in the country. 

These organizations assisted the election administration and at the same time contributed to the development and maintenance of local observation institutions in Georgia. Special credit goes to “Fair Elections” and Georgian Young Lawyers Association for their flawless and qualified work, which not only ensures the transparency of the election process but also builds civic participation in the country.
The media played a significant role in ensuring the transparency of the election preparation process and the conduct of the elections. The media remains interested in the vote counting process, which builds public trust towards the election administration.

The conduct of the January 4, 2004 Mid-Term Presidential elections was of a satisfactory standard but several contraventions and technical problems were still witnessed throughout election day. Moreover, the work of election administration in the non-competitive election atmosphere, does not guarantee that the election administration will be able to work as well in a more politically tense and competitive environment.

I suppose that the new Parliamentary elections will test the election administration more realistically. However, as of today, I would like to thank the members of election administration for their generally efficient work, which has lived up to the expectations of Georgian voters.

However, there were contraventions and I would like to note again that District Election Commissions and the Central Election Commission must react appropriately to every single case of contravention, which has been witnessed by observers, journalist and voters.

Despite the fact that we have made obvious progress in administering the elections, it is necessary that we immediately start discussing how we can get Georgian elections closer to International standards. I would like to point out several key issues:

• Election legislation

The election law needs to be improved. In conditions where there is a lack of trust among election subjects and the absence of public trust towards election administration, the Georgian Parliament has attempted to compensate this mistrust by complicating the legislation, especially voting and result summarizing procedures. Complicated procedures, especially when election administrators are not well qualified, have turned out to be very difficult to fulfill. This not only fails to restore trust among election subjects but it also causes unnecessary problems. Now that the January 4, 2004 elections have built public trust towards election administrators, simplifying the election legislature would make the election administration more effective.

• Composition of election administration

Despite the fact that the Central Election Commission and election commissions at all levels have worked much more effectively and cooperatively in preparing for the January 4, 2004 Mid-Term Presidential elections, adoption of new rules for the composition of election administration to be more politically balanced way would definitely boost the confidence of election subjects towards each other and increase public trust towards election administration.
Clear division of State and party structures greatly depends on the rules for composition of election administration so that State administrative resources are not illegally utilized by any election subject.

I believe that we should move towards composing election administration on professional criteria, but representation of political forces more equally would be a very big step forward for the new Parliamentary elections of 2004.

The difficulties raised in the process of composing Precinct Election Commissions forced the Central Election Commission to adopt a decree, which allowed District Election Commissions to form special groups that would assist the PECs on election day.  Unfortunately, we were not able to clearly define the mechanism of selecting the citizens for these groups, which has made the gap between election administration and party structures even more ambiguous.

It is equally important that we think about improving the qualifications of election administrators. This was a problem in the vote counting and result summarizing process despite the fact that the International Foundation for Election Systems, UNDP and Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association have greatly helped the Central Election Commission with training of lower level election commission members.

I think the members of the Central Election Commission and its apparatus also need to improve their qualifications. Internal reforms in the election administration especially to improve the effectiveness of the staff of the Central Election Commission are vitally important.

• Voter lists

The rules for producing the voter list for the January 4, 2004 presidential elections were adopted by the Central Election Commission because of very tight timeframes. The incompleteness of citizens’ information held by State agencies required Georgian voters to contribute their effort in this process.

For the new Parliamentary Elections of 2004, the election administration must computerize the handwritten lists of voters which were used at the January 4, 2004 Presidential elections and to define an additional period for voter registration for those voters who have not completed registration either from December 15-27 or on January 4, 2004. A citizen who has completed voter registration before the Mid-Term Presidential elections or on election day, must be guaranteed that her/his name will be on the voter list.

Until the problem of citizen’s registration is resolved in Georgia, election registration will remain a problematic issue. Fundamental reform in the field of citizens’ registration should be introduced after the Parliamentary elections. As of today, we can think about some provisional activities on how to enable voters who do not live at their place of registration to vote in accordance with their place of residence.

• Voter marking

Despite the fact that “election carousel” – multiple voting did not taken place on January 4, 2004, voter marking, as a mechanism for preventing “election carousel” must remain for the new Parliamentary elections in Spring, 2004. 

There have been a few cases where voters refused to be inked. This was not the fault of PECs but it was caused because of some negative attitudes towards voter marking from the side of voters themselves. I think it is necessary that the information campaign for the popularization of marking procedure be continued.

• Media

The media played a very big role in the field of voter education and in covering the election process though it is desirable that the media be more neutral.
Even though this is a requirement of the law, the Central Election Commission does not have any human, technical and financial resources for monitoring the media. Even if such a structural unit is not formed within the election administration for the new Parliamentary elections, we must recognize that this issue needs to be taken care of.

• Participation of ethnic minorities in the elections

The only thing that the election administration managed to do in terms of educating ethnic minorities about the election process and their rights, was printing of voter registration forms in Azeri, Russian and Armenian languages and printing of election ballot papers in Russian.

Manuals for PEC members were also prepared in Azeri, Armenian and Russian. Unfortunately, it was not possible to prepare summary protocols and other necessary documents in Azeri, Russian and Armenian languages. This has to be done for the new Parliamentary elections in 2004 and for all elections that will follow.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude towards the Georgian electorate, Georgian government, International Community, domestic observers and media as with their assistance the election administration was able to hold elections different from the previous ones.

Mr. Zurab Tchiaberashvili,
The Chairman