BATTLE LINES BEING DRAWN IN GEORGIA FOLLOWING DISPUTED ELECTION
A EurasiaNet Photo Story by Dan Sershen
Photos by David Trilling and Justyna Mielnikiewicz
11/04/03

Political leaders are seeking to establish new rules of engagement following Georgia’s disputed parliamentary election. Opposition politicians convened November 4 to forge a unified strategy to protest what they insist was government vote-rigging. Meanwhile, President Eduard Shevardnadze sought to minimize the vote controversy, saying Georgia was about to enter a "new phase of democracy."

The chief source of opposition-administration tension is the disparate results from the November 2 parliamentary vote. Official Central Election Commission (CEC) results showed the pro-Shevardnadze For a New Georgia bloc receiving the most votes with 24.4 percent, and Mikheil Saakashvili’s National Movement finishing second with 22.5 percent. A parallel vote count, however, showed the National Movement finishing first with 26.3 percent and For a New Georgia trailing with 18.9 percent. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

As parliamentary seats will be allotted according to the percentage of votes won, For a New Georgia would be well positioned to retain control of parliament if the CEC results are accepted. An international observer mission organized by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe found that the Georgian vote was marked by numerous irregularities.

Saying "protest action is an extension of politics," Saakashvili called a summit of opposition leaders on November 4 to coordinate post-election strategy. During the election campaign, the National Movement pursued a more radical approach than other leading opposition parties – including Labor, the Burjanadze-Democrats and New Rights. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. However, the allegations of vote-rigging appeared to enhance the willingness of opposition leaders to cooperate.

Saakashvili, who refused to recognize the CEC vote totals, insisted that opposition leaders would only approve tactics that were "peaceful and democratic," the Prime News agency reported. He also indicated that street protests were a likely option to resist the "wholesale falsification" of the election. "The Georgian people will not accept the falsification of elections," Saakashvili said at a news conference late November 3.

Parliament Speaker Nino Burjanadze, a leader of the Burjanadze-Democrats bloc, which received roughly 10 percent of the vote, denounced what she portrayed as "unimaginable" government ballot-stuffing. She said that party loyalists in Kutaisi, Georgia’s second-largest city, had reported widespread electoral violations, citing one instance in which a election precinct with only 300 registered voters produced over 1,500 marked ballots, the Rustavi-2 television channel reported.

"There was total disorder and chaos," Burjanadze said. "I can say that what was happening in Kutaisi, as well as in other cities and regions of Georgia, cannot be described as an election."

Burjanadze later appeared to give a tentative endorsement to Saakashvili’s protest plans. "I think people should express their will peacefully, but firmly," Rustavi-2 quoted the parliament speaker as saying. "Authorities should see that you will not forgive them for rigging yet another election."

Late on November 4, opposition leaders mounted a rally at Freedom Square, near Tbilisi’s municipal office. At the rally, Saakashvili adopted a confrontational tone, demanding that the election results in the autonomous republic of Ajaria and in the Kvemo Kartli region, an area inhabited by predominantly ethnic Azeris, be annulled.

Election results in Ajaria are widely believed to be manipulated by the regional leader. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Meanwhile, observers say that ethnic Azeris in Kvemo Kartli were heavily pressured to vote for the pro-government party. The official results in both regions could possibly determine whether the pro-Shevardnadze For a New Georgia bloc retains control of the next parliament.

Saakashvili set a deadline for the morning of November 5 for Shevardnadze to annul the Ajaria and Kvemo Kartli results. Otherwise, he indicated the opposition would mount new rallies. He also demanded that the president take action to punish those deemed responsible for vote-rigging. "Arrest those people or become another Ceaucescu," Saakashvili warned Shevardnadze during a speech at the opposition rally. He was referring to the former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, who was ousted and shot during a 1989 uprising.

In addition, Saakashvili accused the pro-business New Rights Party of betrayal. He alleged that New Rights cut a backroom deal with Ajarian leaders enabling the party to receive a share of the vote in the autonomous republic. New Rights just cleared the 7 percent threshold needed to win parliamentary seats. New Rights representatives did not attend the November 4 opposition rally.

Shevardnadze convened a special meeting of top security officials late November 4 to formulate a strategy to contain likely demonstrations, the RIA-Novosti news agency reported. The president and other top governement officials have vowed to maintain order in the face of demonstrations. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In sharp contrast to the opposition, Shevardnadze has sought to legitimize the vote, downplaying the controversy about contradictory voting results. In his weekly radio interview late November 3, Shevardnadze hailed the election for its "unprecedented transparency," while admitting that the vote was flawed. He went on to suggest the main problem with the election was rooted in confusion over voter lists and had little to do with instances of outright fraud. He also sought to present the CEC’s election results as a fait accompli.

"A number of inaccuracies in the electoral rolls were found. Many things were rectified later, but a fact is a fact," Shevardnadze said. The president characterized the preliminary CEC vote totals as a "picture existing realistically in the country."

Shevardnadze also appealed to the opposition to change the confrontational mood that marked the election campaign. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. "The election is undoubtedly launching a new phase in the development of Georgian democracy. We can already say that the future parliament more or less reflects Georgia’s political spectrum," Shevardnadze said.

The president, who during the campaign feuded with Burjanadze and other opposition leaders, suggested that pro-presidential and opposition forces should explore cooperation so that the next parliament can fulfill its "historic mission."

"We should use the time before the presidential election [scheduled for 2005] productively, as this is what the state and the people need," Shevardnadze said.

Opposition activists scoff at Shevardnadze’s offer of a political olive branch, believing it to be insincere and designed to deflect international criticism over vote-rigging. Opposition-organized popular protests now appear imminent. Whether they can be successful in achieving the opposition aims will, to a certain extent depend, on whether opposition leaders can agree on a cohesive action plan.

Editor’s Note: Daniel Sershen is a contributing editor for EurasiaNet who is in Tbilisi to cover the Georgian election and its aftermath.

David Trilling is a New York-based photojournalist specializing in Caucasus affairs.

Justyna Mielnikiewicz is a freelance photographer on assignment in the Caucasus.

The EurasiaNet photo coverage of the Georgian parliamentary election is being supported by Foto Care, a New York-based photo supply store that encourages photographers to promote a greater understanding of human conditions in countries around the world.

Email this article
Posted November 4, 2003 © Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org

	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.