“We categorically declare that the electoral administration registers observer organisations in compliance with the law, and all those who met the legally established criteria had the opportunity to observe the electoral process at the October 4 elections,” reads the statement issued by the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) of Georgia.
According to the statement, manipulation of this issue and the division of observer organisations according to various criteria, including labelling them as “fake observers”, aims to undermine the process deliberately.
“The electoral administration considers that the latest disinformation statement from the European Platform for Democratic Elections (EPDE) raises even more questions about the organisation’s objectivity. The organisation’s appeals to the CEC, to put it mildly, call its competence into question. It is inconceivable that an organisation which, at the very least, observed last year’s parliamentary elections in Georgia would be unaware that the registration criteria for election observers and their rights are public and posted on the CEC’s official website. The same can be said regarding the expenses associated with visits by representatives of foreign electoral administrations invited by the CEC.
It is also worth noting that the electoral administration, as a rule, invites only its colleagues from abroad for the purpose of observing elections and sharing experience, rather than international observer organisations. In accordance with this practice, the CEC of Georgia also participates in numerous missions of this type. A competent observer organisation should be aware of this fact as well.
It remains unclear what purpose is served by EPDE’s latest appeal to Georgia’s electoral commission, in which it requests that the CEC ‘recommend to electoral administration representatives that they refrain from public qualitative assessments carried out without a standards-based mission’. We would like to remind EPDE representatives that inviting electoral administrations from other countries to observe the electoral process is not only a recognised Georgian practice but also an established element of international good practice.
Furthermore, last year, for example, when EPDE itself was observing the electoral process, it did not raise any objections or consider this to constitute any form of violation.
Consequently, it remains unclear why what was not regarded as problematic in previous years has now become an issue. Furthermore, EPDE’s list of so-called ‘fake observers’ includes our colleagues from abroad, some of whom did not conduct any assessment at all within the framework of the mission, while others evaluated the process solely from a professional perspective, focusing on technical aspects. Therefore, it is uncertain according to which standard EPDE is operating when it labels our colleagues from various countries as ‘fake observers’, even if only on account of their presence in the country.
Another of EPDE’s appeals to the CEC is to ‘join interested parties in encouraging timely and full-scale ODIHR invitations and to facilitate the observation process of strong local observer organisations in the next electoral cycle’. A competent observer organisation should know that inviting ODIHR to observe the electoral process exceeds the electoral administration’s competence. Nevertheless, the electoral administration has repeatedly expressed its readiness to cooperate with the mission. We would also like to remind EPDE representatives that there has been a precedent in Georgian electoral history (2008) when the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission managed to arrive in the country and observe the electoral process in approximately the same timeframe they had for forming a mission for the October 4 elections.
Furthermore, Georgia’s electoral administration, unlike EPDE itself, does not differentiate between observer organisations on any basis. In this context, it is worth noting that it remains unclear why EPDE considers, for example, ISFED to be a ‘strong’ observer organisation, especially given that, as is widely known, it published incorrect parallel vote tabulation results for the 2020 parliamentary elections. Moreover, in 2024, when it became evident that its data matched the official figures, ISFED chose not to publish it at all.
The question arises: can ISFED be considered unconditionally trustworthy simply because it is a member of EPDE? It would be interesting to know which international observation standards are met by the manipulation of parallel vote tabulation results. Additionally, it would be pertinent to find out whether EPDE had any concerns regarding these issues, and if so, whether it has expressed them publicly.
We categorically affirm that the electoral administration registers observer organisations in accordance with the law, and all entities that meet the legally established criteria had the opportunity to observe the electoral process during the October 4 elections. Accordingly, we believe that manipulating this issue and dividing observer organisations based on various criteria, including labelling some as ‘fake observers,’ is a deliberate attempt to undermine the process.
We remind EPDE that the October 4 elections were conducted at a highly professional level and were observed by both local and international observer organisations. Most importantly, the election results were recognised by the political parties that participated in them.
The Central Electoral Commission of Georgia once again calls upon EPDE to act in accordance with its own name and declared values: to ensure objectivity, impartiality and to respect the sovereign institutions of states. We note that EPDE’s statements cannot be regarded as reliable and are viewed as an intentional attempt to undermine the electoral process, aiming to cast doubt on the integrity of the elections and to erode public confidence in Georgia’s electoral administration and the legitimacy of the voting process,” reads the CEC’s statement.
