EMAIL DETAILS

I thought you would be interested in seeing the statement by NDI's
pre-election delegation to Georgia. The statement was released at a press
conference today in Tbilisi. The delegation was led by Janusz Onyszkiewicz,
former Vice President of the European Parliament, Polish Minister of
Defence and Solidarity leader; Michael Posner, former Assistant Secretary
of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; Per Ekland, former EU
ambassador to Georgia; and former U.S. Congressman Sam Coppersmith.

The purpose of the delegation, which was invited by the government and
welcomed by the political opposition, was to examine preparations for the
important October 8 parliamentary elections and to offer any
recommendations that could promote confidence and participation in the
process. NDI will also deploy long-term observers and organize an
international observer mission for the elections themselves.

Please let me know if you have any comments, questions or want additional
information.

With best regards,

Ken


Kenneth Wollack
President
National Democratic Institute
455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
202-728-5500 (Tel)
888-875-2887 (Fax)
email: ken@ndi.org
website: www.ndi.org


STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE
PRE­ELECTION DELEGATION TO GEORGIA
Tbilisi, Georgia, June 17, 2016

This statement is offered by an international delegation organized by the
National Democratic Institute (NDI). The delegation’s purpose was to
accurately and impartially assess electoral preparations in advance of the
October 8 parliamentary elections; review the broader political
environment; examine factors that could affect the integrity of the
electoral process; and offer any recommendations that could advance
dialogue and consensus ­building toward peaceful, credible elections and
public confidence in the process.

SUMMARY

Georgia approaches the October 8 parliamentary elections equipped with a
deepening reserve of democratic assets and also facing critical but
surmountable challenges. Georgians have many achievements to their credit,
including a vibrant political landscape, and overwhelming support for a
democratic future for their country. At the same time, the country is on
the front lines of a broader struggle to defend European and Euro­Atlantic
values from an aggressive and authoritarian worldview. Moreover, many of
Georgians’ high and growing expectations of their leaders and institutions
have not been fully met. If Georgia’s democratic future is thwarted, the
impact on the broader region would be profound. The stakes in October’s
elections are thus high.

NDI’s pre­election assessment mission found that the underlying elements
for a democratic election process are largely in place in Georgia. However,
the country’s leaders will be called upon to exercise substantial political
will and partisan restraint to turn that potential into reality. The
integrity of the parliamentary elections will depend on overcoming three
primary challenges: the possibility of violence and intimidation; low
confidence that laws will be applied impartially; and the perception that
some individuals will significantly influence the process from behind the
scenes. In addition, the delegation identified concerns about some aspects
of the electoral framework and administration, parties’ campaigns, and the
overall campaign environment. In the spirit of supporting and strengthening
democratic institutions and processes in Georgia, NDI has offered
recommendations to government and electoral authorities, the parliament,
political parties and NGOs to contribute to improvements in these areas.

The election of a representative, accountable, and effective legislature
with a strong mandate for reform is central to meeting Georgians’ hopes and
aspirations. Georgia’s leaders need to set an example by placing the
integrity and peacefulness of the process above partisan interests;
embracing forward­looking, issue ­based policy agendas that respond to
Georgians’ needs; and working across party lines when Georgia’s larger
interests are at stake. Setting precedents of pre­election cooperation will
be especially constructive given the likelihood that coalition governance
will be required following the elections. All participants in these
elections should commit to accepting the results if credible observers,
both domestic and international, evaluate the process as democratic. The
European and Euro ­Atlantic community, for its part, has a responsibility
to support Georgia in these efforts through diplomacy, assistance, and
concrete progress toward integration.

POLITICAL CONTEXT

Georgia approaches October’s parliamentary elections, the eighth since
independence in 1991, equipped with a deepening reserve of democratic
assets and also facing critical but surmountable challenges. Georgians have
many achievements to their credit. Pluralism is an established feature of
the political and civic landscape. Fundamental freedoms of expression,
assembly, and association are largely respected. The media environment is
the most free and diverse in the region. Civil society organizations play
an active role in political life. Competitive multiparty elections are now
routine. Basic democratic institutions are in place and functioning.
Georgia’s success in eliminating petty corruption is held up as an
international model. Improvements in healthcare and education, high
priorities for citizens, have been well received. Georgia has signed an
Association Agreement with the European Union and is on track for a
liberalized visa regime with its Western neighbors. Critically, Georgian
citizens overwhelmingly support a democratic future for their country.

At the same time, Georgia is on the front lines of the struggle to defend
European and Euro­Atlantic values from an aggressive and authoritarian
worldview. The Russian government continues to occupy 20 percent of
Georgian territory while exerting pressure through trade relations,
propaganda, infusions of money, and threats, with the intent of obstructing
Georgia’s chosen path toward the West. Georgians have thus far held fast to
their commitments to independence, prosperity, and democracy. Yet these
principles are tested at each political crossroads. If Georgia’s democratic
future is thwarted, the impact on the broader region would be profound.

Domestically, Georgians’ high and growing expectations of their leaders and
institutions have not been fully met. NDI surveys show that most Georgians
do not think the political parties are making changes that matter to them.
Their confidence in the parliament and many government ministries and
leaders is low. They feel uninformed about, and neglected by, their
legislature. A weak economy heightens these concerns. Considerable
attention is focused on the perception that unaccountable individuals are
influencing politics from behind the scenes, to the detriment of democratic
and transparent decision ­making.

The stakes in October’s elections are thus high. A credible process would
strengthen the mandate of the new government to recommit to a path of
democratic consolidation and socioeconomic reforms. This would be a
necessary, if not sufficient, condition for bolstering the country’s
resistance to external pressures and improve its prospects for European and
Euro­Atlantic integration. It would also send a signal to the broader
region about the resilience of democratic principles, practices, and
institutions.

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

NDI’s pre­election assessment mission found that the underlying elements
for a democratic election process are largely in place in Georgia and
appreciated the government’s strong expressions of commitment to a fair and
open electoral process. At the same time, key leaders from across the
political spectrum agree that the integrity of the parliamentary elections
will depend on overcoming three fundamental challenges: the possibility of
violence and intimidation; low confidence that laws will be applied
impartially; and the perception that some individuals will significantly
influence the process from behind the scenes. Together, these concerns have
the potential to distort the process, discourage participation, and
undermine confidence in the results. There are individuals from across the
political landscape who cast the electoral campaign and the broader
political environment as battleground where the rules of the game can be
disregarded or exploited for partisan advantage or to settle old scores.
However, the delegation was deeply encouraged to hear forward ­looking
leaders from the main governing and opposition parties expressing a
consensus view that these issues require immediate attention and pledging
to work across party lines to address them.

Violence and Intimidation

Violence and intimidation were cited as top concerns in almost every
delegation meeting. At this early stage of the campaign, these claims are
based as much on fears shaped by historical patterns as documented cases.
However, in an election environment, even the perception or anticipation of
such threats can have an adverse impact on the process.

A particularly alarming incident surrounding a local council by­election in
Kortskheli on May 22 is noteworthy. Supporters of the government party beat
opposition leaders and activists, as well as journalists, near a polling
station. Victims and others who have analyzed the incident, which was well
documented on video, claim it had the hallmarks of a coordinated,
premeditated attack.1 Representatives of civil society and opposition
parties publicly condemned the confrontation, as did the President, Prime
Minister, and Speaker. Some government and ruling party officials, however,
made inflammatory public statements deflecting responsibility and
misrepresenting events. This is not conducive to reducing tensions.

Women frequently get singled out for intimidation. In the 2014 local
elections, in one of the self­governing cities, the only female mayoral
candidate withdrew from the race just a few weeks before election day,
citing pressure. In another example, over the last few months, including
during the delegation’s visit, covertly and illegally filmed videos
allegedly showing prominent government and opposition leaders in
compromising situations were released online. The videos disproportionately
target women. They seem intended to discredit politicians and the
institutions they represent as well as to discourage engagement in
politics. Journalists from some media outlets reported to NDI patterns of
verbal assaults and threats as well as allegedly politically­ motivated
dismissals and prosecutions, which have been interpreted as attempts to
promote self­censorship. Prominent journalists were among those targeted in
the surveillance videos. In October 2015, Transparency International
Georgia reported on 15 cases of pressure on regional media by government
authorities.2 Opposition parties claimed that, based on a fear of financial
repercussions, businesses are reluctant to make donations to their
campaigns. Leaders of credible nonpartisan citizen election monitoring
groups have faced personal attacks and accusations of bias from high ­level
political leaders. Violence and intimidation, whether actual or perceived,
have no place in an election. Public officials, party and civic activists,
and candidates must be allowed to carry out their electoral campaigns
without fear. The government should commit and hold itself accountable to a
zero ­tolerance policy on violence and intimidation and take firm and
visible measures to promote confidence in a peaceful campaign process. The
delegation welcomed the interest of numerous political party leaders, from
both government and opposition, in developing and enforcing a code of
conduct for party behavior that would denounce violence, intimidation,
personal attacks, and other campaign tactics that delegitimize electoral
processes. This effort is needed and could have the added benefit of
strengthening public acceptance of Georgian institutions and facilitating
more constructive cooperation following the elections.

1 Georgian Young Lawyers Association,“​ <http://bit.ly/1OrqEyy>The GYLA
calls on the Chief Prosecutor to take the investigation for the violent
acts that took place in the area adjacent to election precinct no. 53 under
his personal control. <http://bit.ly/1OrqEyy>​” May 22, 2016.

Recommendations

●Law enforcement authorities should protect the right of assembly by
providing sufficient protection to defuse tension and prevent violence.

●Political parties should follow through on their initiatives to reach
agreement on a code of conduct for the electoral campaign. Party leaders
should communicate to all activists and candidates their expectations for
compliance with the code. They should consider convening publicly to
announce their participation, which would send an important message to the
electorate.

●Political leaders should strenuously condemn any use of violence by their
supporters and cooperate with authorities to investigate incidents.

●Law enforcement personnel should be trained in electoral security best
practices and deployed to high­risk areas to deter or quickly de­escalate
disruptions and build confidence.

●Security officials and civil society organizations should consider
coordinating to monitor and map violence. The data could be used to
identify patterns, dispel rumors and help to prevent incidents.

2 Transparency International Georgia, “​Pressure on Regional Media
<http://transparency.ge/en/blog/pressure-regional-media>​,” October 13,
2015.

Law Enforcement and the Judiciary

The need for fair and consistent application of the law ranked highly among
the concerns raised with the delegation. Civil society and opposition as
well as governing political parties lack confidence that the police,
prosecutors, or courts can be relied upon to respond ­­ whether to
electoral disputes or physical confrontations ­­ in a timely, impartial,
and effective manner. There was broad consensus on the need for greater
consistency in policing and greater independence, accountability, and
transparency in the judiciary. The delegation heard frequently and
consistently of delayed investigations, selective pursuit of cases,
inconsistent uses of pretrial detention, pressure on judges, and uneven
application of sanctions. The delegation’s interlocutors repeatedly
referenced several key events from recent months to illustrate their
perceptions that police and judicial independence do not necessarily apply
to politically ­charged cases.

The Georgian courts are now considering ownership disputes of two private
television stations, Rustavi 2 and Maestro. The delegation takes no
position on the legal merits of these cases. It notes, however, that
credible NGOs monitoring the proceedings have raised concerns about
irregularities in the judicial process, which have in turn fed perceptions
of political interference with the intent of shaping editorial policy or
silencing opposition views.3

The violence that occurred in Kortskheli in May has been met with a slow
and thus far inadequate response from law enforcement authorities. Charges
have now been brought against six alleged perpetrators. Yet NGOs and
parties, including representatives from the ruling coalition, questioned
why police reinforcements were slow to arrive at the scene and why the
prosecution has been delayed. These delays were contrasted to the swift and
consequential punishments, including pre­trial detention, for opposition
activists and protesters charged in connection with allegedly less serious
events.

There was debate among political parties and NGOs about whether recent
swiftly ­adopted amendments to the constitutional court were steps in the
right direction or would hamper the court’s ability to reach a decision on
cases, including ​disputes related to the electoral framework​. Among other
provisions, the changes increase the number of judges required for a
quorum, despite a caution from the Venice Commission that this risks
enabling a minority of judges to block rulings.4 These amendments were
interpreted by many as an attempt to constrain the power of a court that
had issued rulings unfavorable to the government.

These and other relatively recent developments have eroded confidence among
the delegation’s interlocutors from across the spectrum that the law
enforcement and judicial systems can serve as checks on abuses of
authority. The delegation notes that the Ministry of Internal Affairs has
reported introducing new measures, including protocols for police on
dealing with campaign related gatherings, since the Kortskheli events. The
parliament is also considering amendments to the criminal code that would
impose stiffer mandatory sentences on specifically campaign ­related
violence. These initiatives represent potentially positive steps but should
be paired with fair but expeditious actions against perpetrators of the
Kortskheli violence.

In this context, numerous NGOs as well as pro­government and opposition
parties expressed support for the Inter­ Agency Commission on Free and Fair
Elections (IACFF) as a supplementary instrument for election ­related
crisis management, dispute resolution, and confidence building. Operating
under the Ministry of Justice, the IACFF (formerly known as the
Inter­Agency Task Force) is a standing quasi­government agency with
authority to recommend action to government offices, law enforcement
authorities, public servants, and political parties. These same
representatives also stressed that the IACFF will be most effective to the
extent it has impartial and constructive leadership, ministerial delegates
who are empowered and willing to take timely action, and adequate human
resources. Some NGO and party participants claimed that these conditions
were not met to their satisfaction in recent elections.

Overcoming the challenges of violence and political interference will
require concerted political will and good faith efforts on the part of the
government to address the valid concerns of independent and opposition
figures. This would include appropriately sanctioning recent crimes and
effectively addressing future tensions. Political parties, civil society,
and citizens have a corresponding obligation to conduct themselves
responsibly and peacefully.

3 Media Development Fund, ​
<http://mdfgeorgia.ge/eng/view_statements/235/>“Statement
regarding the Tbilisi City Court ruling on the case of Rustavi 2 rendered
on November 5,” <http://mdfgeorgia.ge/eng/view_statements/235/>​November 6,
2015.

4 European Commission for Democracy through Law, ​Georgia:​
<http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2016)017-e>Opinion
on the Amendments to the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court and to the
Law on Constitutional Legal Proceedings, endorsed by the Venice Commission
at its 107th Plenary Session (Venice, 10­11 June 2016)
<http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2016)017-e>
​.

Recommendations

●Those responsible for the May 22 Kortskheli incident should be
investigated in a transparent manner and expeditiously brought to justice.
This would send an important signal of intolerance for election ­related
violence.

●Those who violate the law should be charged and prosecuted
proportionately, consistently, and expeditiously to ensure a deterrent
effect.

●The IACFF should meet its stated goal of responding immediately to
credible reports about campaign violations. It should consider a mechanism
for rapid responses to disruptions or incidents of violence. It should
facilitate a working environment that is constructive, inclusive, and
cooperative.

Electoral Framework and Administration

Several amendments to the electoral framework were adopted in 2015 and
early 2016, the most significant of which redrew the boundaries of single
member constituencies and increased the threshold for the majoritarian
mandates from 30 to 50 percent. A constitutional court ruling paved the way
for the boundary delimitations.

The wide disparities in the number of voters among majoritarian districts
had been a subject of controversy for many years, so the redrawing
represents a positive step toward more equal suffrage. However, NGOs, some
opposition and governing parties, and international organizations have
raised concerns about the transparency, impartiality, and participatory
nature of some aspects of the boundary delimitation process.5 The task was
divided between the parliament (delimitation in mostly rural areas) and the
Central Election Commission (CEC) (delimitation in urban centers). The
question raised is whether the parliamentary part of the delimitation
process was conducted with the aim of conferring partisan advantage based
on previous election results. There were no similar complaints about the
redistricting conducted by the CEC.

The most contentious electoral framework issue relates to longstanding
proposals to transition from a mixed to a fully proportional system. Under
the existing law, 77 members of the 150­ seat legislature are elected from
closed party lists in a proportional system, and 73 members are elected
from single­ mandate constituencies. Public opinion polls show that
Georgians are disappointed in their majoritarian representatives, with whom
they have little contact and whom they perceive as failing to represent
constituent interests. In addition, the single mandate constituencies have
caused dissatisfaction due to a perception that they distort the
representativeness of the parliament.

Opposition, non­parliamentary, and most ruling party coalition party
members, along with a spectrum of NGOs, reached a historic consensus on
amending the constitution to eliminate single­mandate seats and establish a
fully proportional system in advance of the 2016 elections. However,
despite pledges by most MPs, including the campaign commitment of the
majority party, the parliament failed to deliver on promises to enact the
reforms in time for the October 2016 elections. ​While none of the systems
under consideration is inherently more democratic than the others, the
delegation notes that, according to polls, public confidence in the
single­mandate framework is low.

Georgia has seen only modest progress toward gender equity in politics over
the last decade. Twelve percent of the parliament’s seats (18) are held by
women. Georgia ranks 82 out of 145 in the World Economic Forum’s 2015
Gender Gap Index. Yet public support for women in politics is high. NDI
polls consistently show that 70 percent of Georgians believe that at least
30 percent of parliament should be women. Since enacting voluntary
financial incentives for gender representation on party lists in 2011 in
2013, however, there has been no further progress on legislative
initiatives to improve the balance. Bills calling for mandatory gender
quotas have all been rejected or tabled indefinitely.

Political parties and NGOs expressed overall confidence in the competence
and integrity of the CEC. The CEC has made commendable efforts to conduct
voter and civic education. It has also taken steps to track women’s
participation in the electoral process as both candidates and as voters.
Some NGOs and political parties, however, raised concerns about the
impartiality and qualifications of some newly appointed professional
district election commissioners, who are meant to be nonpartisan.6 Some of
those selected have party roles in their recent backgrounds.

Recommendations

5 European Commission for Democracy Through Law, OSCE Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR): “​
<http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/georgia/227496?download=true>Joint
Opinion on Amendments to the Election Code of Georgia,”
<http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/georgia/227496?download=true>​March
14, 2016

6 Statement of ISFED, “​ <http://www.isfed.ge/main/1034/eng/>Report of
monitoring a competition for selection of District Electoral Commission
members <http://www.isfed.ge/main/1034/eng/>​,” April 1, 2016.

Before the elections:

●An inclusive group of party, government, and NGO stakeholders should
convene to lay the groundwork for post­electoral reforms to the election
framework.

●The pending bill on the introduction of mandatory gender quotas should be
debated and brought to a vote.

After the elections:

●The parliament should resume an inclusive and transparent process to reach
agreement on the electoral system.

●The parliament should consider an inclusive process to revise the election
code to define the method and clarify the timeline for distributing
single­mandate constituencies. The parliament should also consider
appointing an ​ad hoc or permanent commission in charge of drawing
electoral constituency boundaries.

●The CEC should consider clarifying the qualifications and selection
procedures for professional district election commissioners staff,
including standards for impartiality.

●Parties should take full advantage of financial incentives for placing
women on party lists.

Parties

As opinion polls consistently show, Georgians care most about employment,
poverty, and the economy. Yet citizens report that the political parties
focus primarily on pursuing personal battles and airing past grievances.
Given this disconnect, it is not surprising that more than half of
Georgians are undecided about their political preferences. If people feel
disconnected from the political system it can, over time, weaken the
democratic fabric of the country and provide an opening for less democratic
forces.

It is too early in the campaign to assess the nature of the parties’ and
candidates’ campaigns, but the NDI delegation’s discussions with party
leaders suggested that policy agendas will, in many cases, hardly be
distinguishable from one another, even in cases where parties consider
themselves to be in clear contrast. Policy discussions may continue to be
overshadowed by subjects that hold little interest for voters, according to
polls. The proposal for televised debates on the public broadcaster would
be constructive to the extent the programs focus on issues. The trend of a
disconnection between citizens’ interests and the content of public
discussions is exemplified in a proposal to hold an election­day
constitutional referendum on defining marriage as a union between a man and
a woman. The measure would be duplicative of existing legislation and is
seen by some as a tactic, perhaps inspired from outside Georgia, to boost
turnout among a highly conservative and ultra­nationalistic segment of the
electorate. Regardless of the motive, it would serve as a distraction from
the issues that Georgians say they want addressed.

Political parties are one of the key gatekeepers to more equal
representation of women in the parliament. Several parties said they plan
to invoke voluntary internal gender quotas. The delegation expresses its
encouragement of these initiatives, particularly in the absence of a
mandatory quota in the election law.

Recommendations

●Political parties should outline and communicate clear platforms
explaining their positive vision for social and economic reform.

●Parties and candidates should participate in moderated public debates that
allow voters to understand substantive policy differences and refrain from
speech and conduct that denigrates public confidence in the political
process.

●Political parties should recruit, train, and support a greater number of
women for the parliamentary and subsequent elections and further develop
party infrastructure to support women and integrate issues of particular
concern to women into party policy.

Campaign Environment

Parties, NGOs, and international observers have all noted that the fairness
of the campaign environment is potentially subject to both distortions from
private and foreign resources and from abuses of state resources. Claims
about the improper use of administrative resources have been a persistent
feature of Georgian elections since independence. However, the delegation
heard fewer concerns about the prospects for such abuses than at the same
stage in previous elections.

The subject of private funding came up in almost every delegation meeting.
Many of those with whom NDI met expressed concerns about the sources,
scope, and manner in which they believe funds are flowing to campaigns, and
the extent to which this could distort the election process. Whether or not
they are based in fact, these perceptions are widespread and thus merit
attention.

NGOs expressed the view that the State Audit Organization (SAO) is well­
managed but constrained by limitations on its authority, including
deadlines and access. It was also noted that more cooperation between the
Ministry of Justice and SAO would help the SAO fulfill its responsibilities.

Media plays an essential role in ensuring that voters can make informed
decisions in elections. Freedom House reports that Georgia “continues to
have the freest and most diverse media environment in the region.”7 Voters
have access to a large portfolio of TV stations airing news and political
talk shows. All parties have access to paid air time and “qualified”
parties get allocations of free time, as well. The delegation did hear of
some concerns, though. The parliament recently took steps to redistribute a
fixed allocation of free air time among a larger number of parties, due to
the breakup of the governing coalition. This represents a reduced
allocation for some parties. Parties whose time would be reduced as well as
some NGOs claimed that this constitutes an unfair change late in the
process.8 Also, some journalists assessed the impact of Russian propaganda
in both Russian­ and Georgian­language media as significant. The propaganda
is understood as intended to confuse and distort political discourse rather
than contribute to informed debate.

Recommendations

●Party codes of conduct should call for transparency of donors and
expenditures. They should also renounce acceptance or use of private funds
that violate the letter or spirit of Georgia’s campaign finance
requirements.

●NGOs, journalists and government agencies should monitor, to the extent
possible, both reported and unreported flows of funding in the election
campaign.

7 Freedom House, “​
<https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2016>Freedom
of the Press
<https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2016>​” 2016.

8 ​Transparency International Georgia, “​
<http://www.transparency.ge/en/blog/allocation-free-political-advertising-time-remains-unjustified>Allocation
of Free Political Advertising Time Remains Unjustified,”
<http://www.transparency.ge/en/blog/allocation-free-political-advertising-time-remains-unjustified>
​June 9, 2016.

ABOUT THE DELEGATION

The delegation included Sam Coppersmith, former member of the U.S. House of
Representatives; Per Eklund, former EU ambassador to Georgia; Janusz
Onyszkiewicz, former vice president of the European Parliament and Polish
minister of defense; Michael Posner, professor at New York University’s
Stern School of Business and former assistant secretary for democracy,
human rights and labor at the U.S. State Department; Laura Jewett, NDI
regional director for Eurasia; ​and Laura Thornton, NDI senior resident
country director in Georgia.

From June 13­17, the delegation held meetings in Tbilisi with candidates,
political parties participating in the elections from across the political
spectrum; ​members of the Central Election Commission, the State Audit
Office, and the inter­party working group on electoral reform; the
President; Speaker of Parliament; Prime Minister; Minister of Foreign
Affairs, State Minister for European and Euro­Atlantic Integration,
r​epresentatives
of the ministries of justice and internal affairs; domestic and
international observer groups; members of parliament; media
representatives; and representatives of the international and diplomatic
communities​. ​The delegation conducted its activities in accordance with
the laws of Georgia and international standards presented in the ​Declaration
of Principles for International Election Observation​,9 which was launched
in 2005 at the United Nations. NDI is one of 52 intergovernmental and
international nongovernmental organizations that have adopted the
Declaration. NDI does not seek to interfere in Georgia’s election process,
nor does it intend to, nor could it, render a final assessment of the
election process. The Institute recognizes that, ultimately, it will be the
people of Georgia who will determine the credibility of their elections and
the country’s democratic development. The delegation therefore offers this
pre­election statement in the spirit of supporting and strengthening
democratic institutions and processes in Georgia.

NDI’s observations are also informed by the Institute’s ongoing work in the
country, the needs assessment mission of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(OSCE/ODIHR), and the ongoing monitoring efforts of the International
Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), the Georgian Young
Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), Transparency International ­ Georgia, Public
Movement Multinational Georgia (PMMG), the International Foundation for
Electoral Systems (IFES), and the International Republican Institute (IRI).
NDI will also deploy a team of long­term analysts, who will follow up on
the delegation’s pre­election findings and remain in Georgia through the
parliamentary election process. NDI will conduct an international observer
mission on election day.

No election can be viewed in isolation from the context in which it takes
place. An accurate assessment of any election must take into account all
aspects of the electoral process. These include: 1) conditions set up by
the legal framework for the elections; 2) the pre­election period before
and during the campaign; 3) the voting process; 4) the casting of ballots;
5) the tabulation of results; 6) the investigation and resolution of
complaints; and 7) the conditions surrounding the formation of a new
government.

The delegation wishes to express its appreciation to the United States
Agency for International Development, which has funded the work of this
delegation and, along with the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency and the National Endowment for Democracy, supports NDI
democracy assistance programs in Georgia. This delegation is also grateful
to all those who contributed valuable time to share their views freely.
Their perspectives have informed this statement and made possible the work
of the mission. NDI stands ready to continue to assist Georgian efforts to
build and sustain democratic practices, institutions and values.

9 ​The Declaration is available at ​ <https://www.ndi.org/files/DoP-ENG.pdf>
ndi.org/files/DoP­ENG.pdf <https://www.ndi.org/files/DoP-ENG.pdf>​