EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Governing Party Sweeps By-Elections in Georgia

EURASIA INSIGHT

GOVERNING PARTY SWEEPS BY-ELECTIONS IN GEORGIA
Molly Corso 10/03/05

President Mikheil Saakashvili’s administration appeared to receive an endorsement for its policy course, as the governing National Movement Party swept all five seats at stake in by-elections held October 1.

Despite opposition efforts to present a unified candidate in opposition to the National Movement contender, the Saakashvili-led party swept the elections. Prior to the vote, Saakashvili had set up the elections as a referendum on his administration’s performance. "These elections will demonstrate whether the population supports the policies we have chosen," Saakashvili was quoted as saying in August by the Civil Georgia website.

The by-elections occurred at a geopolitically tense time, with Georgia and Russia again sparring over the renegade region of South Ossetia. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. On October 3, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a sharply worded statement condemning the Georgian parliament’s plan to discuss a resolution that would potentially call for the removal of Russian peacekeepers from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

"Pursuing clearly provocative goals, the Georgian parliament is preparing for a destructive discussion concerning the demolition of the negotiating framework, [including] the abolition of the Joint Control Commission for the Georgian-Ossetian settlement (JCC) and the Joint Peacekeeping Forces (JPF) in the region," the Russian Foreign Ministry statement said. "In our opinion, these bodies remain the only effective mechanism for the resolution [of the conflict]." The by-election results seem to provide the Saakashvili administration with a domestic political boost as it attempts to respond to Russia’s apparent determination to maintain a dominating presence in South Ossetia.

Four opposition groups joined together to present a united front against the National Movement in the October 1 contests. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Despite encouraging results during their primary two weeks ago, the opposition candidates could not make a dent in the ruling party’s popularity.

Voting took place in five districts, Isani in Tbilisi, Tkibuli in western Georgia, and Kobuleti, Shuakhevi and Batumi in Ajara. The closest race was in Isani, where the National Movement candidate, Bidzina Bregadze, edged out Giorgi Mosidze of the New Rights Party by less than 300 votes, according to preliminary results.

Mosidze said the results were heavily influenced by heavy National Movement spending on the campaign. Saakashvili also campaigned for Bregadze. Mosidze characterized his ability to capture 36 percent of the vote as a �huge accomplishment’ for the opposition, given that his campaign spent 10-12,000 lari (up to 6,680 US dollars) on the contest.

While celebrating the ruling party’s victory, Saakashvili expressed regret at the "catastrophic" loses suffered by the opposition. "This means that the weakness of the opposition is a fact. This is not good," he said in a televised speech. "Every government, even the most successful, needs a strong, constructive and responsible opposition."

The votes were not controversy-free. Citing fixed voter lists, the opposition-minded Conservative Party has filed complaints about the elections in Kobuleti, where its candidate, Jimsher Jincharadze, lost to Koba Khabazi of the National Movement by over 7,000 votes. Koba Davitashvili, the leader of Conservative Party, called the elections �shameful’ in an interview with Civil Georgia on October 2.

However, the Central Election Commission (CEC) is defending the election and its results. In an interview with EurasiaNet, CEC Chairman Gia Kavtaradze called the by-elections "the best ever" that Georgia has held. "We received complaints in only one district," he said. Kavtaradze added that CEC lawyers were looking into the complaints about the Kobuleti vote, and their findings could be ready as soon as October 4.

Independent observers also gave the elections high marks, although there were some violations noted, particularly with voter lists in Isani, a district within Tbilisi, and Kobuleti in Ajara. "The elections were conducted according to the law," Tamar Zhvania of the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy told EurasiaNet. "There were some violations but they will not make a difference in the results."

Zhvania added that while the ruling party followed all of the rules, they were �artistic’ in their interpretation of some points of the election code. "They know the code very well and we have some articles that are open to interpretation," she said, noting that the election code was changed a few months ago. There is a need to refine the election code before the 2006 parliamentary elections, Zhvania added. "In the first place there needs to be normal voter lists," she said. "[We also need] professionals in the voting precincts. They should have more training and permanent education."

Kavtaradze agreed that the election code needs work. He outlined three major areas that the CEC plans on addressing before the 2006 elections: certifying and training election officials, defining set procedures for the voter lists and simplifying voting procedure. "The procedure on election day is extremely complicated," he said. "[Now] a person has to go through 13 steps before he or she leaves the polling station." By 2006 Kavtaradze believes that number should be down to four. "You come in, write you name, get a ballot, drop in the box and go out," he said.

Guranda Tavartkiladze, a representative from the United Nations Association Georgia Batumi branch, indicated that the main problem with the Kobuleti vote concerned inaccurate voter lists. At the same time, she stressed that it was ultimately the responsibility of each citizen to double-check the accuracy of the lists beforehand. "People came to vote and they weren’t on the list although they had registered," she said in a telephone interview with EurasiaNet. "People should ... be more active in protecting their rights."

Kavtaradze also called on voters to take the initiative and check the lists. "The major headache for us was the voter lists," he said. "Because our voters are passive, not many people [checked the lists beforehand]." Despite the voter-list problems, Kavtaradze is confident that the results are valid; according to preliminary findings only 2 percent of eligible voters were not on the lists.

While Saakashvili is framing the by-elections as an endorsement for his administration, observers suggest that the vote in Ajara especially was determined more by individual rather than party loyalties. "People [in Batumi] really respect Jamal Inaishvili [the National Movement candidate]," Tavartkiladze said. "They were not voting for the party but for the person himself." She also noted that less than half of the registered voters went to the polls in Batumi.

Davit Losaberidze, a program director at the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development in Tbilisi, also voiced doubts that the election results served as a clear endorsement for the Saakashvili administration. "Roughly speaking, a loss would have been more beneficial for the government," he said during an interview with EurasiaNet. "It would have shown them that everything is not as well as it should be."

Editor�s Note: Molly Corso is a freelance reporter and photographer based in Tbilisi.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.