The Economist has also weighed in on the argument surrounding Saturday’s presidential election in Georgia by pretty much also giving it a relatively clean bill of health. One expat expert I know in Tbilisi passed on the article and said it was probably an accurate representation of the situation, especially as the opposition effectively did better than was expected.

Well, from reading the preliminary report on the pre-election campaign, I’m still shocked by its conduct and would have expected better for a country such as Georgia which has a lot to prove to the world, but it’s interesting to note one obvious conclusion that will also likely influence on the outcome of next month’s presidential election in Armenia. That is, the lack of an alternative to the candidate of the party of power at this point in time, that is.

Moreover, the opinion and exit polls which predicted a Saakashvili win were largely in line with the parallel vote tabulation. Perhaps the other similarity with Georgia and here is that the opposition and civil society activists were not prepared to accept polls which showed their candidates of choice trailing. This is most evident in continuing attacks on the reliability of opinion polls ahead of next month’s Armenian vote.

However, those criticizing the polls have so far not been able to produce any data or evidence contrary to what specialist organizations such as Gallup and ComRes are reporting. Instead, as in Georgia, opposition supporters and sympathetic journalists dislike the results because quite simply the results show their favored candidates lacking any real support in society, but I digress.

IF YOU had not known that Georgia was holding a presidential election on Saturday 5th January, but happened to be in Tbilisi, its capital, on that day, you may have thought that Georgia had just won a football match. The city’s main thoroughfare erupted with flag-waving, car-hooting celebrations as the first exit polls came in, indicating an outright victory for Mikheil Saakashvili, the sitting president.

Mr Saakashvili’s supporters also had moments of doubt. With a fifth of the votes counted, most of them in Tbilisi, Mr Saakashvili was not getting the 50% he needed to win in the first round. Results from other regions were slow in coming: few precincts had fax machines and ballots had to be carried by car through heavy snow. In the end, Mr Saakashvili won with 53%. As Sopho Bukia, a young journalist in Tbilisi said, “for the first time in Georgia, we did not know the result of the election in advance.”

[…]

The opposition does claim that the result was rigged and wants a second round. It also held a rally on Sunday. But the demonstration was orderly and opposition leaders pledged to fight in courts, not on the streets. And there was no violence: for a country where angry words can quickly become actions, this is an achievement in itself.

[…]

The outcome of the election is good news for Mr Saakashvili not only because he won it in the first round, but because the opposition did well. “It is much better to have a mainstream opposition in parliament, than a marginalised opposition on the streets,” Mr Saakashvili says. For now he remains the most effective among Georgian politicians, but this election may have a humbling effect on him. “This was very close. I am used to winning elections with percentages in high 70s,” he said. Many Georgians will feel more comfortable with him in office with reduced support.

Many of those who voted for him did so because of the lack of a viable alternative. It was also a good lesson to the country’s Western friends to be more supportive of Georgia’s democracy and less enamoured with one man. If the election were a test for democracy, the country has broadly managed to pass it, but in doing so Mr Saakashvili has committed himself to more to come.

Well, I’d agree with the fact that it’s good that Saakashvili will hopefully realize he has a lot he needs to make up for with the Georgian people, and not least addressing considerable concerns with his rule, but I am totally against the manner in which this “victory” was attained.

Whether having no real choice is a good thing for democracy, especially when even then pre-election campaigns are accompanied by illegalities and intimidation, is another matter entirely. However, it is a very real reflection on the sad state of the government, opposition and “democracy” in both Armenia and Georgia.

Therefore, don’t be surprised when — like Saakashvili — the prime minister, Serzh Sarkisian, wins next month’s election in Armenia. Of course, the radical opposition will hope for a “colored revolution” and the international community will consider the election as largely meeting international standards.

Rightly or wrongly, that’s the situation here in the South Caucasus and it’s one that the international community appears content with. That this is the situation has much to do with an impotent, discredited and unpopular opposition in both Armenia and Georgia as well as governments who come up with newer ways to influence the outcome of elections each time.

Sad, but true.