Eurasia Daily Monitor
January 9, 2008 — Volume 5, Issue 3
GEORGIA: OPPOSITION THREATENS TO OVERTURN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AMID
GROWING INTERNATIONAL VALIDATION OF THE RESULTS
by Vladimir Socor
On January 8 the runner-up presidential candidate Levan Gachechiladze
(with 27% of the votes cast, according to the provisional final returns)
headed a group of opposition leaders that burst into Central Electoral
Commission (CEC) offices and encircled CEC chairman Levan Tarkhnishvili.
They threatened to evict the chairman physically and — in Gachechiladze’s
words — to `punish’ him as a `criminal’ if the opposition comes to power.
Leaders of the nine groups supporting Gachechiladze joined him in the
jostling and shouting. Gachechiladze resorted to obscenities not for the
first time. The incident occurred in the presence of journalists (Civil
Georgia, EurasiaNet, Rustavi-2 TV, January 8).
Opposition leaders accuse the CEC of `rigging’ the January 5
presidential election. They are threatening to call protest demonstrations
unless the CEC and the courts invalidate or revise the election’s results.
Western observers — present in record-high numbers throughout the
country — have validated the election, the provisional final returns of
which show Mikheil Saakashvili winning re-election with close to 53% of the
votes cast. The remainder is divided among six other candidates. However,
opposition leaders reject the Western observers’ essentially positive
assessment of the election and are calling for a runoff or a rerun.
Meanwhile, many institutions and groups of international observers are
validating the election, alongside the four main observer delegations —
OSCE/ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights), OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly (PACE),
and European Parliament — which did so jointly on January 6 (see EDM,
January 7). All of these institutions and groups are urging the opposition
to recognize the legitimacy of the election just held.
The European Union’s Presidency — held by Slovenia since January 1 —
supports the Western observers’ conclusion that `the election was in essence
consistent with most of the OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and
standards for democratic elections.’ It also expects Georgia to `address the
shortcomings that were identified’ (EU Presidency press release, January 7).
The Washington-based National Democratic Institute (NDI) and
International Republican Institute (IRI) have issued basically positive
assessments of the election. Significantly, both institutes have for many
years been working with opposition parties in Georgia and continue to do so.
According to NDI’s preliminary conclusion, the election `met basic
democratic principles,’ while problems encountered in the process of
balloting were irregularities, not rigging and not affecting the expression
of people’s will (Rustavi-2 TV, January 7). The IRI, which led an
international delegation of observers, similarly concluded, `The election
broadly met international standards. However, technical problems continue to
affect the electoral process’ (IRI press release, January 6). Both
institutes are recommending to the government and opposition to work
cooperatively to resolve these issues.
Presidents Toomas Ilves of Estonia, Valdis Zatlers of Latvia, Lech
Kaczynski of Poland, Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine, Ilham Aliyev of
Azerbaijan, Robert Kocharian of Armenia, Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan,
and Nicolas Sarkozy of France as well as Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia
Tymoshenko and Moldova’s Christian-Democrat leader, parliamentary
vice-chairman Iurie Rosca have variously telephoned or written to
Saakashvili with congratulations on his reelection. Ilves also cited the
Western observers’ recommendations to Georgia to correct remaining flaws and
continually improve the quality of the electoral process. Ukraine’s Ministry
of Foreign Affairs cited Ukrainian and international observers saying that
the openness of the voting and large presence of observers made it
impossible to rig the election. Estonian observers (including 12 members of
parliament) and the Lithuanian delegation (totaling 131 members, the largest
of all delegations proportionate to the nation’s size) supported the Western
positive assessment of the election, despite `minor irregularities that do
not influence the outcome.’ The three Baltic states’ ministries of foreign
affairs released similar opinions, citing the respective delegations of
observers (BNS, UNIAN, January 6, 7, 8; Turan, Agence France Presse, January
8).
U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack and NATO spokesman
James Appathurai each issued statements endorsing the Western observers’
validation of the election (press releases, January 7, 8).
At the moment, the EU in Brussels seems rather disengaged from the
ongoing Georgian events. The EU’s High Representative for the Common
Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, issued a brief, vague statement,
recognizing at least that the Georgian election was `truly competitive.’ The
EU’s External Affairs and Neighborhood Policy Commissioner, Benita
Ferrero-Waldner, issued a belated statement on January 8 in which she cited
the international observers’ essentially positive evaluation of the
election, urged the Georgian government to address the shortcomings quickly,
and called on the opposition to use only peaceful and legal means (Council
of the European Union and European Commission press releases, January 7, 8).
Solana and Ferrero-Waldner are about to finish their terms of office. The
EU’s envoy for the South Caucasus, Peter Semneby, apparently could not take
a position on the Georgian elections in the absence of a clear message from
the top level in Brussels. Such a weak engagement by Brussels reflects the
broader inadequacies of the EU’s Neighborhood Policy generally and in this
region particularly.
Gachechiladze and the other presidential contenders cannot
realistically hope to overturn the election’s validated outcome. Their moves
seem designed at this stage simply to prolong the uncertainty and look for
new tactical openings. Some of them may also look for a face-saving
solution, after staking so heavily on toppling Saakashvili and the
government. Their main demand, before and during the election campaign, was
a Georgia without Saakashvili. Program and tactics were subordinated to that
goal.
The Gachechiladze camp’s Mephisto bargain with billionaire Badri
Patarkatsishvili showed that this camp was prepared to destabilize the
country for the sake of toppling the president. The other presidential
contenders stopped short of making that bargain for funds, but used the same
brinkmanship tactics. At the moment, they all seem to be preparing to
refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the re-elected president and possibly
boycotting him in the run-up to the April parliamentary elections.
Such a development could bring with it another political crisis,
fraught with artificially induced polarization. Unburdened by the
responsibilities of governing and untrained for such responsibilities, the
leaders of these small parties see their chance of gaining de facto
political influence in a climate of political confrontation.
–Vladimir Socor