Site icon Civil.ge

CSOs Assess Pre-Election Environment

ISFED, TI Georgia and Charter of Journalistic Ethics present pre-election environment assessment. Photo: isfed.ge

Local watchdogs, the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), Transparency International (TI) Georgia, and Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics, a non-state self-regulatory body, assessed the pre-election environment as “somewhat competitive.”

They said even though all parties could run the election campaign, the ruling party benefitted from a greater advantage “due to the mobilization of administrative and other types of resources on its side.”

The groups added that the pre-election environment was also “harmed by the cases of political pressure, threats, as well as forced dismissal or coercion to resign, and ineffective investigations of such cases by relevant state agencies.” 

According to the assessment, in the run-up to the polls the involvement of the State Security Service “was often evident” in the cases of alleged coercion. It added that the line between the ruling Georgian Dream party and the state was also blurred.

“Ineffective investigations of the attacks on members of the media have affected the pre-election processes and increased the degree of polarization in the society,” the report stressed, arguing the “ruling team did not have sufficient political will to ensure a safe and democratic electoral environment.”

The groups pointed out that the local polls have “a special feature” – the post-2020 elections political crisis that resulted in the EU-brokered April 19 deal between the ruling GD and opposition parties. They noted that the agreement led to an amended election code, increasing the share of proportionally elected members in municipal councils, among others.

The assessment said that new legislation also increased the number of members of the Central Election Commission appointed by political parties led to “more transparent and meaningful discussions at commission meetings.” 

But the watchdogs highlighted that the process of electing the new CEC Chair and professional members “failed to address questions about credibility and impartiality.” 

Read more: 

This post is also available in: ქართული (Georgian) Русский (Russian)