Two days after Saturday’s presidential election in Georgia, Asking Tough Questions in Tough Places takes a fresh look at the outcome. With a pre-election and an exit poll pretty much tallying with parallel vote tabulation held during the vote, Christine Quirk concludes that the opposition should realize it’s game over. Probably it should now concentrate on contesting the parliamentary election which will be here soon enough.

Instead of wasting their supporters’ energy and anger by making them stand outside in the freezing cold for no good reason, the opposition parties (such as they are) should focus their resources on organizing around Misha’s shortcomings as a leader and creating a viable alternative. They need to be thinking about the next election now (or, rather, yesterday). Continued carping about this one diminishes their own credibility both with the Georgian electorate and the international community.

Additionally, in advance of the parliamentary elections, they should talk to the Ukrainians about creating a partisan election monitoring program (starting NOW). They need to have a legal, PR and grassroots strategy in place that documents, challenges, quantifies and systematically publicizes election violations. Even the Azadaliq coalition in Azerbaijan managed to get part of a program in place in 2005 (a lot of good it did them, but like the Georgians, before they met with the Ukrainians their idea of challenging the election was running everyone out in the streets to get their heads beaten in by the authorities).

Even though all data points to a convincing win by the re-elected president, Mikhail Saakashvili, there is no doubt that there is much to be concerned about. The conduct of the pre-election campaign as noted even by the international observers who concluded the vote was “broadly democratic” makes for unpleasant reading.

Few citizens in any country would put up with some of the irregularities and illegalities reported and confirmed by international observers. The fact that they took place in Georgia, once considered a beacon of [relative] democracy in the region is the most shocking thing of all. The election should have been conducted better than this.

Christine Quirk agrees.

While I do not believe the fraud had a substantial impact on the final results, could there have been enough at the margins to push Saakashvili over the 50% threshold? Certainly. Could voters have felt too intimidated to make any other choice? Absolutely. The latter is not the kind of manipulation that can be detected by exit polls or PVTs or measured by observers, but it needs to be taken into consideration.

Secondly, if I were Saakashvili and his advisers, I’d drink my Saparavi today and start tomorrow with a cold-eyed analysis of why an incumbent President who enjoys substantial administrative advantages and an exceptionally weak opposition barely managed to get majority support. That’s embarrassing and certainly no mandate. I was amazed at how deeply Georgians were troubled by November 7th, a traumatizing event to people who thought the country was on the road to democracy. I agree. […]

Actually, the international community, especially the U.S. and Europe, should be quite vocal in condemning some of the dirty tricks Saakashvili’s team resorted to. In my opinion, they can only be described as “taking the piss,” and when it comes to building a democracy that’s no laughing matter. Hopefully the West will be more strict for the parliamentary election.

However, as Christine Quirk concludes, “with a strategic pipeline located on Georgian soil, [that] is probably wishful thinking.” The full post is here.