04.08.2003 - Source: Freedom House

Local elections in June 2002 became the central political event of the year ("Nations in transit 2003") [#15273],  [ID 4770]

"Local elections in June 2002 became the central political event of the
year. While the powers of sakrebulos (elected local councils) are quite limited by law, political forces invested heavily in these elections, which were considered a prelude to parliamentary elections in 2003 and presidential elections in 2005. City council elections in Tbilisi became a government-bashing contest,
with the Laborist Party and the United National Movement delivering the
most radical messages and sharing the victory with 25.5 percent and 23.75
percent of the vote, respectively. The CUG scored very poorly with only 1.45
percent of the vote nationwide. Outside the capital, the New Rights Party and the Industrialists Party, two business-oriented groupings that portrayed themselves as more moderate opposition groups, were the most successful. Observers from the Council of Europe (COE) considered the elections “a step backward rather than forward for democracy in Georgia.” The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy, a local monitoring organization, accused the government of intentionally sabotaging the electoral process.
The 2002 local elections were initially scheduled for November 2001,
but the president postponed them at the request of the Central Electoral
Commission owing to a lack of funds and resulting logistical difficulties.
However, Georgia’s electoral authorities failed to use the time to prepare
properly, and the elections devolved into chaos. First, many voters could
not find their names on registration lists. Second, when campaign rallies in
the cities of Zugdidi and Poti turned violent, the government did nothing
to punish the individuals who attacked supporters of the opposition United
National Movement. Violence and other irregularities in three electoral districts and several precincts resulted in postponements of voting for one or more weeks. Despite its relatively strong showing, the United National
Movement demanded a recount of votes to the Tbilisi City Council; other
parties contested the election results in court. Although a recount did not
lead to significant changes in the election results, the Tbilisi City Council
still failed to assemble until November."

Document(s): Open document

12.2002 - Source:

Central Asia and the Caucasus, Journal for Social and Political Studies: Georgia After The Local Elections of 2 June 2002 (No 6 (18) 2002) ("Central Asia and the Caucasus, Journal for Social and Political Studies") [ID 4771]

"Nearly 11 years have passed since the day our centuries-old country recovered its independence. During those years Georgia has already lived through parliamentary elections (in 1992, 1995, and 1999) and presidential elections (in 1995 and 2000) as well as elections to the local self-administration bodies (in 1998 and 2002). The last local elections were scheduled to the fall of 2001 however the authorities exploited all procrastination methods to postpone the date several times. Finally, elections did take place on 2 June, 2002 (in Rustavi, Zugdidi and Kharagauli voting took place later because of violations). Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two unrecognized republics, to which Georgian legislation does not extend, ignored the date. The autonomous republic of Adzharia voted on 16 June: its president Aslan Abashidze wanted to emphasize its devotion to the republic’s constitution. Those who saw it (nobody in Tbilisi has even seen it) say that under the constitution Adzharia reserved the right to fix the date of local elections. (It is known that the final document contradicts, in some points, the Constitution of Georgia.)

The post-2 June, 2002 political situation can be described as a fundamentally new one and differing from the balance of forces in the parliament. Formally, the New Right won the elections across the country (544 seats, or 11.40 percent of votes), the Industry Will Save Georgia bloc (479 seats, or 10.03 percent) comes next. The election bloc of Aslan Abashidze Vozrozhdenie (Resurrection)–XXI vek (21st Century) (196 seats, or 4.11 percent) was the third followed by the Socialist Party (187 seats, or 3.92 percent), while the Labor Party took the fifth place with 148 seats (3.10 percent). Candidates nominated by initiative groups rather than parties won the absolute majority of seats—2,747 (57.54 percent)."

Document(s): Central Asia and the Caucasus, Journal for Social and Political Studies

12.2002 - Source:

Central Asia and the Caucasus, Journal for Social and Political Studies: Georgia After the Local Elections of 2 June 2002 (No. 6 (18) 2002) ("Central Asia and the Caucasus, Journal for Social and Political Studies") [ID 4772]

Over 70 percent of the voters cast their votes against the present authorities in general and against President Shevardnadze, in particular

"Nearly 11 years have passed since the day our centuries-old country recovered its independence. During those years Georgia has already lived through parliamentary elections (in 1992, 1995, and 1999) and presidential elections (in 1995 and 2000) as well as elections to the local self-administration bodies (in 1998 and 2002). The last local elections were scheduled to the fall of 2001 however the authorities exploited all procrastination methods to postpone the date several times. Finally, elections did take place on 2 June, 2002 (in Rustavi, Zugdidi and Kharagauli voting took place later because of violations). Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two unrecognized republics, to which Georgian legislation does not extend, ignored the date. The autonomous republic of Adzharia voted on 16 June: its president Aslan Abashidze wanted to emphasize its devotion to the republic’s constitution. Those who saw it (nobody in Tbilisi has even seen it) say that under the constitution Adzharia reserved the right to fix the date of local elections. (It is known that the final document contradicts, in some points, the Constitution of Georgia.)

The post-2 June, 2002 political situation can be described as a fundamentally new one and differing from the balance of forces in the parliament. Formally, the New Right won the elections across the country (544 seats, or 11.40 percent of votes), the Industry Will Save Georgia bloc (479 seats, or 10.03 percent) comes next. The election bloc of Aslan Abashidze Vozrozhdenie (Resurrection)–XXI vek (21st Century) (196 seats, or 4.11 percent) was the third followed by the Socialist Party (187 seats, or 3.92 percent), while the Labor Party took the fifth place with 148 seats (3.10 percent). Candidates nominated by initiative groups rather than parties won the absolute majority of seats—2,747 (57.54 percent).

All political parties concentrated their election efforts in Tbilisi that prompted a conclusion that the local elections in the capital were the last test before the parliamentary elections scheduled for 2003. Elections in Tbilisi were based on the party lists—the system that is applied to the entire country during parliamentary elections. (Under the 1995 Constitution 150 deputies are elected by party lists and 85, according to the majority system.)
[...]
In fact, over 70 percent of the voters cast their votes against the present authorities in general and against President Shevardnadze, in particular. [...]"

Document(s): Central Asia and the Caucasus, Journal for Social and Political Studies

07.2002 - Source: International Foundation for Election Systems

International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES): The administration of the elections was extremely poor and disorganized ("Technical Assessment of Election Day Administration - 2002 Local Government Elections of Georgia") [#10734],  [ID 4773]

"With very few exceptions, observers noted that the administration of the elections was extremely poor and disorganized. In many stations, election officials did not appear to know even the most basic procedures and struggled to maintain credibility and control of the booth in a situation where observers and party representatives often knew much more about election day procedures than the officials did.

Officials at the district and precinct levels were already managing with little or no training in basic procedures, and many found themselves trying to cope with additional challenges, including delayed delivery of critical materials and isolated incidents of violence. Most precincts in Tbilisi never received candidate lists or voting instructions. Precincts throughout the country were forced to open late because of the late receipt of materials. In Rustavi and Khashuri, polling stations were closed by late morning, at which point no ballot papers were expected to arrive. The Rustavi case was the first of reported election violence, with the delivery van for ballot papers having been hijacked en route.

Despite these administrative violations, observers reported that, with very few exceptions, Precinct Chairs did all they could to rectify problems brought to their attention by either observers or party/candidate representatives. They reported that the counting process, although complicated, appeared to be reasonably well run. PEC staff often spent time working out what the requirements of the law were before proceeding. [...]

The main problems and irregularities were technical and procedural in nature, often attributable to a lack of training and poor management of logistics at the CEC level. With better organization at the CEC level, and better training at all commission levels, many of these problems are resolvable. [...]

Virtually all observers reported that precincts struggled with late or non delivery of materials. These late deliveries were almost universally attributable to poor organization, control, and management at the DEC and (primarily) CEC levels. Critical materials that were delivered late or not at all included: voter lists, ballot papers, stamps, candidates’ lists, and voter information materials. [...]

IFES teams also observed cases of multiple voters inside of booths at the same time, as well as persons voting outside of the booths. In general, poor flow control resulted in a confused voting process, one that was chaotic, non-transparent and difficult to monitor. [...]

IFES Teams found it difficult to assess if there were unauthorized persons in the precincts, as few domestic observers, party/candidate representatives, or PEC staff wore any sort of identification badge. Police were also observed at all precincts in large numbers both inside and out. Observers reported that apparently unauthorized persons were freely allowed in the voting stations without any restrictions. [...]

The voter lists, one of the most important and fundamental aspects of the election process, still remain inaccurate and outdated. No significant improvement has been made in the system for keeping the lists current and accurate since the last election. In addition, the CEC has been unable to provide information on how the lists were compiled for these elections, especially for Tbilisi.

There was evidence of entire blocks of buildings missing from lists in several precincts. Party and candidates’ observers also identified deceased persons and children under 18 years of age on the lists. At many precincts in Tbilisi the IFES teams noted that some 50% of those voting were doing so via the supplementary lists. [...]

IFES observers noted that the counting of votes was generally in accordance with the law. PEC members often spent some time working out the correct procedures before they started counting, using the election code to determine the process to be followed. Despite this diligent consultation of the law, precincts still encountered problems with the reconciliation process and completion of the protocols. These problems often began at the opening of the polls, when PECs had not correctly counted the ballot papers received. Some also had difficulties with understanding that the figures entered for the ballot papers counted (valid and invalid) and the unused and spoiled ones had to correspond with the total number of ballot papers received at the beginning of the day. [...]

Both international and domestic observers reported the occurrence of widespread violations at the PEC level. Although these were often attributable to lack of knowledge on the part of Commissions, there were also reports of deliberate intimidation of voters and acts of violence. These acts resulted in the invalidation of elections in Rustavi, Zugdidi, and some voting stations in Bolnisi."

Document(s): ifes-geo0702-localelec.pdf
Open document

03.06.2002 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Council of Europe: Local elections in Georgia a disappointment, says Council of Europe's Congress ("Local elections in Georgia a disappointment, says Council of Europe's Congress [294a(2002)]") [#10727],  [ID 4774]

"A delegation of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe (CLRAE) observed the local elections in Georgia on 2 June 2002. Before election day the delegation met representatives of the Government, the Central Election Commission, various political parties and NGOs. On election day they visited numerous polling stations in Tbilisi and other municipalities, and observed the counting process.

As the only official international observers present, the CLRAE delegation noted with regret that the hopes for a fair electoral process were dampened by inappropriate preparations and questionable decisions by the authorities. In a rush to test the popular support for the various political forces before next year's parliamentary elections, they were unable to provide for the basic conditions for electing genuine democratic local governments.

Local authorities in Georgia continue to lack power or competencies, and are controlled by governors - "gamgebelis" in the rayons, or "mayors" in the towns of Tbilisi and Poti - appointed by the central athorities. The observers were shocked by the deplorable state of the voters' lists and the unavailability of basic election material as late as the day before elections.

Chaotic scenes inside and around polling stations, the presence of armed policemen, the theft of ballot papers by an armed group in Rustavi only added to the observers' frustration. The hard work and devotion of local election commissions is wasted if the principles of local democracy, subsidiarity and the rule of law are not respected.

"The CLRAE delegation is disappointed that the democratic process in Georgia has so far failed to match the people's aspirations. The people of Georgia deserve better" - said Louis Roppe, leader of the observer delegation."

Document(s): Open document