2018 Presidential Election First Interim Report of the Pre-Election Monitoring

2018 Presidential Election First Interim Report of the Pre-Election Monitoring (August 1 - September 8) 13 September 2018 This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Views expressed in this publication belong solely to the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the United States Government or the NED. Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2 II. Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 2 III. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 4 IV. Electoral Administration ............................................................................................................. 5 Appointment of Temporary Members of DECs ................................................................................. 5 V. Media environment ........................................................................................................................ 9 VI. Intimidation/harassment on alleged political grounds ...................................................... 12 VII. Physical confrontation ............................................................................................................... 12 VIII. Attempts of possible vote buying and misuse of administrative resources ............ 13 IX. Interference with pre-election campaigning ....................................................................... 15 X. Violation of the rule of distributing printed campaign materials.................................. 15 XI. Budget amendments in municipalities .................................................................................. 16 XII. The monitoring mission and Methodology ............................................................................ 23 1 I. Introduction International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) has been conducting long-term observation of October 28, 2018 Presidential Election of Georgia since August 1, 2018. Sixty-nine long- term observers of the organization have been involved in the nationwide monitoring starting from August 10. The monitoring is supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). First interim report of the pre-election monitoring predominantly covers the period from August 1 to September 8, as well as developments that began to unfold before August 1 and continued during the monitoring period. This report also contains initial assessment of the process of composition of precinct electoral commissions (PECs) by the District Electoral Commission (DEC), which lasted until September 12. II. Key Findings On August 1, the President of Georgia set October 28 as the date for the ordinary presidential election of Georgia. The official pre-election campaign began on August 28, 60 days prior to the election, however some political parties and future candidates had already began to actively meet with voters before the pre- election campaign officially started. ISFED identified the following incidents during the reporting period: 1 case of physical confrontation, 1 instance of alleged political intimidation/harassment, 8 facts containing attempts of misuse of administrative resources and vote buying, 3 cases of interference with campaigning and 1 instance of violating the rules of printing campaign materials. Additionally, 7 various incidents in the process of composition of electoral commissions were observed. Instances of possible mobilization of budget resources in 31 municipalities were also notable. Significant challenges during this reporting period were selection competitions of temporary members of DECs and precinct commissioners. The CEC selected temporary members of DECs within the time limits prescribed by the Election Code. ISFED found that among temporary members selected for 73 DECs, 14 were related to officials of the electoral administration or other public officials, and in 7 cases supporters or activists of the Georgian Dream were elected to district commissions. Appointment of party activists as professional members of DECs jeopardizes trust towards electoral commissions and calls impartiality of the electoral administration into question. As for DEC members family ties to the electoral administration or other public officials, while this may not serve as grounds for disqualifying DEC membership candidates, frequent cases of appointment of relatives as temporary members and ambiguous process of decision-making creates suspicions about nepotism. The process of selection of PEC members was also problematic. Announcement of the competition was preceded by release of a recording of a phone conversation of Krtsanisi DEC Chair, which attracted much public attention. According to this recording, apparently the DEC Chair confirmed that he agreed PEC candidacies with the chief of the Georgian Dream local office. Following the release of the recordings, the DEC Chair resigned. ISFED found that requests to interview PEC membership candidates were made in 45 districts by DEC members appointed by the United National Movement (UNM), however none of these requests were met and none of the districts held interviews in commission as a whole. UNM-appointed members were allowed to interview candidates independently, however majority of candidates did not show up for an interview. ISFED found out that in some districts representatives of the Georgian Dream were calling candidates for PEC membership and urging them not to participate in interviews. In some districts interviews were disrupted by other commission members and verbal confrontations took place. 2 ISFED found that selection of PEC members followed the same pattern in all 73 districts. Members appointed by the UNM and the European Georgia in DECs refused to participate in meetings of their respective commissions. As a result, only 9-10 DEC members participated in voting for selection of candidates. There was a trend of professional and Georgian Dream-appointed members of DECs mostly voting for the same candidates, while DEC members appointed by the Patriots’ Alliance of Georgia voted differently. In 25 DECs commission members made decisions based on lists prepared beforehand but they explained that they had made a draft list of candidates after shortlisting applications. ISFED identified different municipal events that were allegedly organized for winning support of voters, which creates risks of vote buying and misuse of administrative resources. ISFED also detected possible involvement of charitable and religious organizations in campaigns, in violation of the Election Code that prohibits involvement of such organizations in campaigning. Similar to the pre-election campaign of the 2017 local self-government elections, significant budget amendments were made in municipalities. Under the law, beginning from August 29 initiation of new social and infrastructural projects and corresponding amendments to the State, Ajara A/R and local governance budgets is prohibited. It may be due to this fact that since May significant budget amendments were actively introduced in many municipalities, while social and infrastructural projects provided in the State and self-government budgets are planned in a way that their main activities often coincide with the campaign period. This creates impression that the scaling up and planning of such projects aims to win over the voters ahead of the election. Consequently, large-scale changes in local budgets give rise to doubts about misuse of administrative resources and it does not contribute to creation of level playing field ahead of the election. ISFED disapproves of the decision of the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) to impose a fine on Rustavi 2 TV for airing paid political advertising during non-electoral period without notifying the regulatory authority. Such obligation to broadcasters exists during the pre-election period only, 50 days prior to the election. The decision may have a chilling effect on broadcasters as they may potentially refrain from airing political/pre-election advertisement during non-electoral period. Another dangerous precedent is the instruction provided to broadcasters by the GNCC that mandates television companies to verify credibility of election-related public opinion poll results. Otherwise, they may be subjected to monetary fines. With the said decision, the GNCC calls into question its own function to ensure strengthening of media pluralism, equal media environment and access of voters to information. Regarding media pluralism, recent developments involving Iberia TV are potentially menacing. Founders of the company are accusing the authorities of offering a deal to give up Iberia TV in exchange for resolving their financial problems. ISFED also finds that the decision of the Public Broadcaster management to unilaterally terminate employment contracts of some of its employees is risky and ill-founded, since it minimizes employment guarantees for other reporters that work for this channel, which may affect their impartiality

Load more