Georgia’s Elections and Its Pathway to the EU

January  2024

Stefano Cherubini Retamero

THRI Research Fellow

Teona Macharashvili

Human Security & ODA Specialis

Irma Pavliashvili

Chairwoman at Caucasus Open Space (COS)

Interview with Teona Macharashvili and Irma Pavliashvili – Georgia’s Elections and its pathway to EU

I understand that you have been working on cases in which protesters or members of civil society have been targeted under the Foreign Agents Law. Could you expand on how the law is being used and how you are helping the targeted individuals?

The law acted as a green light to increase threats, intimidation and pressure on the free civil society and media – numerous activists have already received anonimous calls with threats, numerous were assaulted – verbally, and some of them physically. This created a very challenging pre-election environment making it difficult for among others media and election observers to operate. Caucasus Open Space (COS) has been observing pre and post election period. On the election day, COS observed polling stations within the Wevote election observation coalition. Based on identified violations, we submitted complaints in 29 election districts, requesting annulment of the results of 246 election precincts, where the sum of registered voters is 417’305 citizens.
This election was significantly worse than previous ones in terms of violations’ gravity compared to any previous elections. While the government claimed there were fewer complaints and lawsuits, this was a manipulation of the data. Many violations were systemic and addressed collectively, through class-action lawsuits, rather than as isolated incidents. Early on and due to the volume of the violations, we shifted our focus from minor infractions to those with broader implications, aiming to address the most impactful issues. Observers faced a highly hostile and violent environment, particularly media and activists. The threats were so severe that we had to recall some observers for their safety. This environment made it nearly impossible to ensure comprehensive transparent monitoring.

What role does Georgia’s internal legislation, such as its Foreign Agents Law, play in shaping Western skepticism over its democratic commitments? Do you see a pathway for Georgia to address EU and U.S. concerns while maintaining these laws?

The law on transparency of international funding – or the Russian Law as its popularly called in Georgia, is mimicking the law that was adopted in Russia in 2012 and later litigated in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which found the law “unnecesary in a democratic society.” It not only creates disproportional administrative burden on civil society, but also includes risks of breach of vulnerable personal data and stigmatizes the civil society, both of which we have already witnessed. One of the many harmful elements of the law is that it creates obligations for civil society organizations to submit “special category of personal information”, which is later published on the publicly accessible webpage. Special category of personal information might include information on one’s health, personal life – information that has completely nothing to do with transparency, but considering attacks on LGBTQI+ groups in Georgia, this creates informational and therefore – physical safety risks for civil society.

One of the NGOs, which registered in the infamous registry had already claimed that the special category of personal information was shared publicly. What does not get discussed often is that NGO sector is among the most transparent and accountable sectors in Georgia – especially, compared with government institutions themselves. It must be highlighted that around the same period, the government adoped the law on offshores, making it easier to bring offshore funds to Georgia – by the same government that says it adopted the law for increased transparency of NGOs. When it comes to the NGO’s, however, Georgia already has a comprehensive legislation that includes among others, Law of Georgia on Facilitating the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism,3 Law of Georgia on Grants, Tax Code and many others, which creates a strict and transparent system of funding (in addition to the regulations of international donors themselves). Ironically, the government, for years, already had a website for coordinating international funding – the website itself funded through the international contributions, and it provides information about donors, projects, and recipients.4 Further to this, it is important to take into account the term “agent” is particularly harmful in the post-Soviet context, where it is synonymous with betrayal, making it socially stigmatizing. Everyone can remember the repressions of 1937 where our grandparents and their parents
were labelled as “Agents” or “Enemies of the State” and repressed – this law brings back those traumatic memories.

Therefore, we believe that the law is fundamentally against Georgia’s current Constitution as well as its legal and historic heritage, is harmful for the democracy and the human rights in Georgia, and contradicts the international principles that are reflected in the European Convention of Human Rights, as confirmed by the ECHR on the similar law in 2022. We now rely on the fast decision of the European Court of Human Rights on this law as well, while facing the risk of elimination of free civil society and media in Georgia.

How significant do you think the recent EU criticism of Georgia’s domestic policies is in shaping public opinion? Could this external pressure push Georgian citizens further toward European integration?

Georgian citizens are the ones pushing the government towards European integration – as reflected by the hundreds of thousands of people protesting systemically, to manifest their support towards European integration. This has been and is the will of the people of Georgia for many years – so much so that this culminated in adoption of the Article 78 of the Constitution of Georgia, which says that govenrment must do everything in its power for Georgia’s integration in the Euro-Atlantic structures. The recommendations provided by the EU reflect the will of the Georgian people – human rights, free and fair democratic institutions, which is reflected in our own Constitution.

Moreover, this is part of our legal heritage. The first Constitution of Georgia of 1921 directly indicates those values, while the current Constitution’s preamble indicates that it is built on the legal heritage of the first Constitution – so those values run deep. But, we cannot achieve this on our own. Lack of sufficient international response to Russian aggression in Abkhazia in the 90-ies paved the way to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Now, the ruling party manipulates the fears of the society related to security – this has been the major fear instrumentalized in this process. Overall, increased support to security and safety of the region plays direct role in safeguarding the region from backsliding into authoritarianism.

Amid escalating protests, how likely is it that Georgian Dream will reconsider its position or approach, taking into consideration that it has previously worked? I refer to the first time that the Foreign Agents Law was approved.

If you look at the bigger picture, even without the Russian Law, the government has tools to suppress NGOs and the media. However, this law adds another layer that poses imminent thrests to civil society and media. Considering ruling party’s powerful influence and lack of freedom of judiciary and other institutions, any law or regulation can eventually be weaponized against independent media or civil society. In the bigger picture, there are systemic similarities in what is happening in other post-Soviet countries – adoption of the similar laws in Kyrgyzstan and repressions of civil society, attempts of electoral interference in Moldova’s elections – there are striking similarities in the authoritarian tendencies, signalling that the issue must be addressed as a systemic, crossborder challenge. Internally, the key requirements for furthering European integration include ensuring free elections, ensuring protection of human rights, ensuring fight against disinformation, against corruption, ensuring freedom of judiciary and other critical democratic institutions – what we see is that the institutions and the human rights violations are instrumentalized for maintaining the existing regime, so there is little appetite to democratize the process.

How does the European Union’s current stance on Georgia reflect broader concerns over democratic backsliding in the region? In what ways could Georgia’s response to these EU concerns influence other Eastern Partnership countries?

Georgia has historically been viewed as a democratic beacon in the region, a safespace for human rights defenders, but this perception is shifting with the latest developments. The rise in authoritarian tendencies, including violence against activists and restrictive legislation, signals a troubling trend. This has become dangerous for civil society. This endangered not only Georgians, but also journalists, human rights defenders from neighboring countries – we are particularly troubled by the critical health condition of Afghan Sadigov, who has been on hunger strike for over two months now in preliminary detention, after Ministry of Internal Affairs reported plans to extradite the journalist to the Azerbaijani government.

What is the impact of domestic protests on international perceptions of Georgian Dream’s legitimacy?

We are protesting violation of the principles of free and fair elections, we are protesting the laws that endanger our European integration, we are protesting violation of human rights and democratic principles – everything that is against our Constitution and legal heritage of Georgia. We hope that our voices are heard internationally, as we need substantial support from international community.

What are the next steps for the opposition and civil society?

Moving forward, we are now preparing for litigation of the election results in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), considering the grave impact of the violations on the elections. We believe it is important to conduct elections all over again, particularly focusing
on the three aspects:
1. Conducting new elections with an independent election commission, possibly even by international independent organization – a possibility researched by our lawyers.
2. Ensuring that the law enforcement does not interfere with the election process.
3. Protecting voter secrecy as a fundamental democratic principle of free and fair elections.

It is impossible to have any legitimacy in the elections, where there are at the same time massive systemic violations everywhere. Even the voting stations were prepared in a way in which our observers, or any other independent observer, did not actually have the chance to properly observe the election process (the voter registration tables were placed in such a way that observers didn’t have a chance to observe whether registry entered the ID number of that particular citizen or someone else – given that the equipment didn’t have possibility to read
passports). In numerous cases, observers were directly kicked out of the polling stations, and in many cases we had to remove them from polling stations due to physical security risks and hostile environment.

As for the external factors, it is important to independently investigate the elections in Georgia via independent bodies. At the same time, the fate of Georgia’s democracy, but also of the entire region, and by extension, the wider international community, the fate of the free, rules-based order, is being decided in Ukraine right now. Unless the international community provides even more substantial support to Ukraine, even with hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Georgia, undemocratic powers will maintain its grip and expand further.

Share this on social media