A statement by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission (EOM) has now been released, and CNN is one of the first to include reference to it in its coverage of yesterday’s presidential election in Georgia. Interestingly, the EOM seems quite encouraged by the vote and not least because unlike the election that brought Saakashvili to power in 2004, its conduct could be considered in the context of a stronger opposition fielding several candidates this time.

TBILISI, Georgia (CNN) — Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili looked set for victory in Saturday’s snap presidential election as international observers declared that voting had been free and fair — despite protests by opposition supporters.

With 10 percent of the votes counted on Sunday afternoon, Saakashvili appeared on course to secure the 50 percent plus one vote necessary to avoid a runoff in two weeks against the second highest vote-getter.

[…]

[O]bservers with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said the vote had been “the first genuinely competitive presidential election in the country, enabling the Georgian people to express their political choice.”

In a statement released Sunday, the group said Georgia’s election commission had carried out an extensive voter education campaign in a short timeframe and operated transparently. Overall polling had been organized and relatively peaceful, it added.

But it acknowledged some cases of voter intimidation and some technical flaws such as a slow counting process and admitted that in some cases the commission’s members had acted in a partisan manner, “not always observing the neutrality required of an election administration.”

Two other groups of international observers released signed statements that the voting was free and fair. More than 2,000 election observers and 160 media organizations from around the world had converged on Georgia, a former Soviet republic on the Black Sea, to watch Saturday’s election.

The full text of the OSCE/ODIHR statement is also critical of some areas, however, and I’m sure we’ll see more mention of major problems especially in the area of the media when the final and more comprehensive report is ready. Certainly, the conduct of the vote appears to be assessed far more positively than the last presidential election in Armenia and there’s no doubt that this is now the yardstick by which next month’s vote here will be measured.

The statement of preliminary findings and conclusions doesn’t say much, but the overall tone is very positive indeed.

Georgian election in essence consistent with most commitments but challenges must be addressed urgently

TBILISI, 6 January 2008 - While the 5 January presidential election in Georgia was in essence consistent with most international standards for democratic elections, significant challenges were revealed which need to be addressed urgently, the International Election Observation Mission concluded in a joint preliminary statement today.

This was the first genuinely competitive presidential election in the country, enabling the Georgian people to express their political choice. The election campaign was conducted in a highly polarized environment, marked by a lack of trust and pervasive allegations of violations. The distinction between state activities and the former President’s campaign was sometimes blurred, contributing to an inequitable campaign environment.

[…]

“Because of the demonstrative competitiveness of this campaign, I perceive this election as a viable expression of the free choice of the Georgian people, but the future holds immense challenges,” said OSCE PA President Emeritus, Alcee L. Hastings, the Special Co-ordinator of the OSCE short-term election observers.

Matya Eorsi, the Head of the PACE delegation, said: “This election, although clearly not perfect, enabled the Georgian people to give a democratic response to the recent political crisis. Georgians should be congratulated for the commitment they showed on election day to democratic principles. Now it is up to the authorities to hear our criticisms and urgently respond to the significant shortcomings noted. For the sake of the stability of the country I call upon all actors to conclude this election process in a manner that ensures the legitimacy in they eyes of Georgian people.”

Marie Anne Isler-Beguin, who headed the EP delegation, said: “This election is another step forward in strengthening Georgia’s young and still fragile democracy. For the upcoming legislative elections, as decided by the plebiscite, the necessary lessons have to be taken immediately. The European Union will continue to assist Georgia on this path, in particular with the instruments of the Neighbourhood policy.”

[…]

Ambassador Dieter Boden, the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR long-term mission, said: “We have noted an election which has been prepared in a professional manner but we would do a disservice to Georgian democracy if we did not also speak out openly where it was not in line with OSCE commitments, such as cases of intimidation. Those are challenges which should be addressed urgently and through the appropriate channels.”

Despite the short timeframe, the Central Election Commission prepared the election in an overall professional manner, operating transparently and carrying out an extensive voter education campaign. However, on contentious issues, its members acted in a partisan manner, not always observing the neutrality required of an election administration.

The campaign was overshadowed by widespread allegations of intimidation and pressure, a number of which were substantiated. The implementation of social welfare programmes was frequently combined with campaigning for the former President.

In most polling stations visited, election day was organized and relatively peaceful but with significant regional variations and isolated cases of serious violations. In some precincts the process was chaotic and with procedural problems, in particular relating to inking, a safeguard measure against multiple voting. Some 5 per cent of voters were added to the voter list on election day. Observers evaluated the counting less positively, noting a slow process and procedural shortcomings.

However, it is also worth pointing out that pro-opposition activists such as Anna Dolidze at Resistance Georgia are detailing cases of alleged electoral fraud and and electoral code violations. It’s worth pointing out again that the OSCE/ODIHR EOM can only comment on problems they witnessed firsthand.

That said, it’s also up to the opposition to provide evidence of any violations and falsification and more than 2,000 international election monitors and 160 media organizations is a huge number and far in excess of anything we’ve had in Armenia.

Theoretically, they should have been able to monitor quite a lot indeed. Of course, just as the opposition weren’t happy with the OSCE/ODIHR assessment of the May 2007 parliamentary election in Armenia, I’m sure they’ll definitely be unhappy in Georgia.

They’ll probably allege pro-Saakashvili bias as well. Let’s see, but for now I’d conclude that the election did not meet the standards I expect from elections in the U.K. However, they were considered acceptable in the context of attempting to build a democratic state in a region such as this.

Unfortunately, the measure for democracy in the South Caucasus is very low and would not be acceptable for anyone in Europe. That will also prove to be the case next month in Armenia as well, but that’s the situation.

The main issues are firstly that the opposition can prove claims of violations if they are to be considered, and that the shortcomings are addressed by the authorities. With a parliamentary election scheduled for Georgia this year, the opposition still has the chance to limit the power of the president.

If they get their act together and even if they don’t, I would not expect to see a heavily United National Movement dominated parliament elected. The opposition in Georgia can at least take some comfort in that.