Georgia: Saakashvili Re-elected
The BBC reports that it’s now official. The Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili, has been re-elected with 52.8 percent of the vote. The main opposition candidate, Levan Gachechiladze, received 27 percent of the vote.
Earlier in the day, Mr Gachechiladze told thousands of supporters in the capital Tbilisi that results had been “falsified”.
In a snowbound square on Sunday, the Orthodox Christmas Eve, he told the crowd: “We will defend our vote by legal means.”
However, international observer missions applauded the conduct of the election.
US Congressman Alcee Hastings of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), said: “I perceive this election as a valid expression of the choice of the Georgian people.”
He said there had been some shortcomings - notably that Mr Saakashvili’s campaign had overlapped with state activities, and this “contributed to an inequitable campaign environment”.
[…]
The United States urged the opposition to respect the monitors’ verdict.
Russia, however, called that verdict “hasty” and “superficial”.
Well, one can only suppose that despite an extensive catalog of violations and illegalities, international observers concluded that they were not enough to change the outcome, especially as opinion polls largely predicted such a win for Saakashvili. However, the conduct of the vote does not sound anything to be proud of.
Still, unlike elections here, supporters of both the main candidates took to the streets. The opposition protested, but Saakashvili’s supporters also celebrated, perhaps indicating that there is sufficient support. In a sense, perhaps, that might mean the vote was more “democratic” than here.
For sure, today’s opposition protest in Tbilisi looked quite small. EurasiaNet puts the number at 4-5,000, rather than the 15,000 we’re used to at major opposition rallies here, perhaps indicating that Gachechiladze’s claims of victory should be treated with some skepticism.
Opposition candidate Levan Gachechiladze declared his victory in Georgia’s presidential polls on January 6, despite initial unofficial reports that incumbent Mikheil Saakashvili won the race by a healthy margin. While international observers have largely condoned the conduct of the election, opposition leaders maintain that the official results were falsified.
[…]
A parallel vote tabulation conducted by the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) shows slightly different numbers, however, with Saakashvili at 50.08 percent and Gachechiladze at 27.2 percent.
Even so, I personally have some grave concerns about what this actually all means about the level of democracy expected from countries such as Georgia by the international community. Such concerns extend to how next month’s presidential election might be conducted here.
Regardless of whether Saakashvili might have been expected to win in an election held to much higher standards is not the point. Indeed, this is one of the arguments used by Western officials about Kocharian’s controversial re-election in 2003.
The matter is, however, that we simply don’t know and I personally think that the preliminary statement from the OSCE/ODIHR EOM should have been much, much harsher. Still, I’m sure other “considerations” were also taken into account.
Regardless, it appears incorrect to conclude that this election was “free and fair.” “Free, but not fair” seems closer to the mark if you ask me and even that sounds a little too lenient, but anyway.
The 2008 presidential elections in Georgia did not satisfy the underlying criteria of democraticness. And it was clear long BEFORE the election day. Every unbiased reasonable person should agree that if the president of the country
1) forcefully suppresses peaceful anti-government demonstrations and declares the martial law (or whatever its legal formulation);
2) publicly accuses his opponents of being agents/spies/collaborators of the universally detested foreign country;
3) closes down the main media outlets critical of the government;
4) declares early presidential elections in 1.5 months while the martial law is in force (it is lifted only in about week after that), not allowing any reasonable time for in-depth coverage and deliberation, especially in the atmosphere of primitive polarization (”traitors vs. patriots”) and very unequal media exposure;
5) appoints state minister as his campaign manager (not even mentioning all other possible means of the state influence, some of which have been already documented, as of today) with all the ensuing inequities between his and the opposition’s campaigns, as if the mysterious (and ludicrously explained as an attempt not to be involved in partisanship) self-closure of the main critically-minded TV channel was not enough -
then the elections CANNOT be declared democratic (or free and fair) EVEN IF the actual casting of the votes is organized and conducted perfectly on the election day (and even that apparently was not the case on Jan 5). It’s that simple and fundamental!
[If, for example, all the points mentioned above materialized with Hugo Chavez or Alyaksandr Lukashenka, all the international observers would justifiably declare the elections NOT free and fair. Since, in Georgia’s case, they already stated that the election results were democratic and legitimate, every honest person should have nothing but contempt for them. One more time, they undermine the trust of ordinary decent people in Georgia and Armenia in the Western institutions and give additional ammunition to the EVER INCREASING number of pseudo-patriots denouncing not only these short-sighted cover-ups by the West of “our sons-of-bitches” (in words of FDR) but, by incorrect association, the very notions of democracy, legal equality and inviolability of a citizen’s rights and dignity. This pseudo-patriotsim and xenophobic nationalism is on the rise in Russia and Armenia and partly is a dangerous by-product of years of disillusionment with fairness and objectivity of the West because of its support of the “democrats” like Yeltsin, Chubais, and Ter-Petrossian. And there is no realistic hope of reversing it. Very sad and disheartening…]
http://artashes98.livejournal.com/32240.html
Comment by Artashes — January 7, 2008 @ 5:34 am
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12235472&PageNum=0
Comment by Onnik — January 7, 2008 @ 8:48 am
I agree completely with Artashes. Double standards employed by West discredited western democracy in many eastern European countries, inclined favorably toward democracy.
I was stunned by the news that Hugo Chavez could not master 50 % to approve his “dictatorship”, yet he is considered evil (well he certainly is nuts, but it has nothing to do with democracy).
The same goes for Constitutional referendum in Armenia. Although I agree that it should have been passed, but the vote was absolutely falsified and it was accepted by West! So it appears, that if in Armenia passes some pro-western candidate (preferably someone who studied in USA or married an Anglo-Saxon), then election most probably would be democratic. Otherwise they will meticulously note every instance of fraud. Curiously Armenia defies standards here too, there is no apparent champion for West, even US born RH and US educated VO hardly will get the same kind of support as Misha or Victor Yushenko.
Comment by GT — January 7, 2008 @ 10:52 am
Well, it has to be said that from reading the preliminary report on the conduct of Saturdays vote, international observers did “meticulously note every instance of fraud.” What they seem to have failed to do was base their conclusion in the preliminary statement on those observations.
At the same time, it would appear that the international media has only read the preliminary statement and based its reporting on that rather than on the much longer and far more concerning preliminary report.
The only other issue which we do not know about yet is how much argument and debate might have occurred within the EOM regarding their conclusion.
For the May parliamentary election in Armenia, for example, there was reportedly strong internal division regarding the final conclusion. As you say, other “considerations” ultimately influence such verdicts.
However, there is plenty of documented evidence of electoral violations and falsification in the OSCE/ODIHR preliminary report. It’s just a pity that few appear to actually be taking the time to read it.
Comment by Onnik — January 7, 2008 @ 11:15 am
For a moment I felt sorry for the Georgians that they still haven’t reached an acceptable point in democracy but then I remembered how the elections are conducted here (the US).
The reality, and what is trumpeted in media and in reports by organizations like OSCE, are very different things. I just hope I don’t grow to become more cynical about democracy.
Comment by nazarian — January 7, 2008 @ 11:09 pm