ENEMO: Elections in Georgia were held in a polarized and restrictive environment, undermining inclusivity, transparency, and fairness, which significantly compromised the democratic integrity of the election process
The 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia were held in a polarized and restrictive environment, undermining inclusivity, transparency, and fairness. Critical violations included violence against opposition members, voter intimidation, smear campaigns targeting observers, and extensive misuse of administrative resources. Restrictive enforcement of campaign regulations limited competition, exerted significant pressure on civil society and the media, and reduced space for government criticism. Although the election administration generally conducted the process professionally and efficiently, ENEMO expressed concerns regarding the CEC's independence and impartiality. The cumulative impact of these observed issues significantly compromised the democratic integrity of the election process.
This statement was made by Zlatko Vujović, Head of ENEMO Election Observation Mission, at a press conference organized by ENEMO to present the Preliminary findings and conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission for Georgia's Parliamentary Elections.
Mr. Zlatko Vujović, Head of Mission, stated, “On October 26, 2024, Georgia held parliamentary elections under a new list-based proportional system in a highly polarized political context, intensified by legislative controversies, particularly the adoption of the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence in July 2024. This legislation sparked mass protests and backlash against the government. Reports of mistreatment and harassment of protesters, along with allegations of mass surveillance, significantly affected public trust in institutions and led to instances of self-censorship throughout the election period. This atmosphere, compounded by disinformation campaigns and alleged misuse of administrative resources, restricted inclusivity and fairness within the electoral process."
While Georgia’s Constitution and Election Code provide a foundational structure for conducting elections, recent fragmented amendments raised concerns over stability and consistency. Key legislative actions included banning pre-electoral coalitions, raising the electoral threshold from 1% to 5%, banning donations from legal entities, and abolishing gender quotas. These changes negatively impacted the ability of smaller parties, emerging political entities, and female candidates to compete effectively. Additionally, amendments affecting the composition and decision-making of the Central Election Commission (CEC) were adopted without broad consensus or meaningful public consultation, undermining confidence in the reform process and the election administration’s independence and impartiality.
By 26 October, a total of 216 complaints had been submitted to election management bodies, primarily concerning PEC operations (78), misuse of administrative resources (28), and campaigning violations (75). Of these, 40 complaints remain pending, while only 17 were satisfied, with the rest dismissed or rejected. Additionally, approximately 35 election-related cases have been adjudicated in court, addressing issues such as recognizing subjects with declared electoral goals, free airtime allocation, voting abroad and right of broadcasters to recognize parties as qualified electoral subjects.
ENEMO notes a tendency among the courts to apply broad interpretations when upholding restrictions, while adopting narrow and rigid approaches when the expansion or protection of rights is concerned. Procedural requirements and short deadlines—particularly a two-day limit for appeals and decisions—potentially restrict the development of comprehensive cases, especially for complex disputes.
Vujovic concluded “Election-related complaints and decisions were generally accessible through an online registry, allowing transparency, and election commissions and courts largely adhered to prescribed deadlines, supporting timely recourse”.
Ms. Dubravka Popović, Political and Campaign Analyst noted that “ Allegations of undue pressure on public sector employees, selective media access, and misuse of administrative resources marred the campaign. Some opposition political parties had their access to media restricted, negatively impacting voters’ exposure to diverse viewpoints. Geopolitical issues dominated the campaign, framed as the ruling party's choice between war and peace, while the opposition portrayed it as a choice between Europe and Russia. ENEMO notes that disinformation narratives promoted by the ruling party and foreign actors compromised the integrity of the information space and distorted public perception.
There have been numerous reports of abuse of public resources for organizing and intimidating voters. This included reports of confiscating citizens’ IDs, reports of use of social services to pressure socially vulnerable groups, as well as extensive reports of the use of the education sector to ensure its employees attend ruling party events and vote for the ruling party.
Popovic concluded that ENEMO raises strong concerns about the impact of these practices on preserving trust in elections and the legitimacy of election results.
The media scene is highly polarized. Access to free airtime and paid political advertisement was only partially respected. The media did not have a legal route to obtain clarifications on whether political party ads violated prohibitions on hate speech, inciting violence, and inter-ethnic hatred, states Popović.
She stated that “The Anti-Corruption Bureau interpreted the definition of a subject with a declared electoral goal too widely when applying it to non-governmental organizations and related individuals. ComCom’s interpretation that political entities whose leaders announced they would join other electoral lists granted qualified political parties ineligible to free airtime. ENEMO deems these actions of the two regulatory bodies negatively impacted freedom of expression and the ability of opposition political parties to run election campaigns, reducing space for criticism of the government”.
Ms. Kristina Kostelac, Deputy Head of Mission stated “Election Day in Georgia saw numerous serious issues affecting the integrity of the process. ENEMO observers reported multiple acts of violence and intimidation, including assaults on opposition figures, supporters, and journalists, particularly in Marneuli, Tbilisi, and Kakheti, allegedly by Georgian Dream affiliates. The tense atmosphere around polling stations included voter intimidation, unauthorized individuals, and organized transportation, with Georgian Dream agitators repeatedly influencing voters. Additionally, the installation of cameras in polling stations by Georgian Dream representatives raised concerns about voter privacy. While procedures were generally followed, these cumulative issues significantly compromised the fairness of Election Day.”
ENEMO assesses that the election administration, including the CEC, District Election Commissions (DECs), and Precinct Election Commissions (PECs), operated in a professional and efficient manner but with notable transparency shortcomings. The last-minute CEC decision setting the date for the distribution of functions between PEC members was not publicly communicated, limiting observer access. Opposition-nominated CEC members cited unequal treatment and difficulties in accessing information.
Kostelac stated that “New election technologies, including voter identification devices and optical ballot scanners, were introduced in 75% of precincts, covering approximately 90% of voters”.
ENEMO interlocutors did not express any major concerns regarding the accuracy and inclusiveness of the voters’ list.
Kostelac emphasizes that “The current electoral system does not permit candidates to stand independently, which is in contradiction with international obligations and standards for democratic elections”.
A total of 18 electoral subjects were registered by the CEC, providing voters with a wide range of political alternatives. However, candidates were not allowed to run on another party’s list, without formally changing or suspending their party membership beforehand. ENEMO notes that while the party and candidate registration process was transparent and inclusive, this last regulation hinders freedom of association.
ENEMO assesses the removal of gender quotas as a significant regression, risking the entrenchment of gender disparities.
When it comes to minority groups' representation and engagement in the electoral process, Kostelac states “were limited, with overall insufficient legislative and administrative efforts to encourage minority inclusivity in candidate lists and voter outreach”.
Ahead of Georgia’s 2024 parliamentary elections, domestic observers faced significant challenges within an increasingly restricted civil society space. Mounting pressure from government actions—such as legal obstacles and intensified scrutiny under the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence—limited their ability to operate, raising concerns about the transparency of the electoral process. Direct interference, such as temporarily suspending Transparency International Georgia’s observation activities, exemplified the strained relationship between civil society and the ruling party, exacerbating the tense political climate.
Some international organizations became targets of smear campaigns by ruling party leaders and affiliated media, further complicating the observation environment and detracting from impartial oversight. Such pressures on domestic and international observers highlight a restrictive climate for effective monitoring, challenging efforts to ensure a fair and transparent electoral process.
Preliminary Statement in English: EN_Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions.pdf
Preliminary Statement in Georgian: GE_Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions.pdf