# Full evidence — RUN_2026-09-23_4 **Question:** Was Georgia's 2024 parliamentary election broadly free and fair? Complete answers for every model, language and answer round in this run. English translations are shown where available; where they are not, the original text is shown and was not compared. *One answer round means asking the model once in every tested language.* ## Fact source evidence ### OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), Final Report on Georgia’s Parliamentary Elections, 26 October 2024 > Georgia’s 26 October 2024 parliamentary election was not broadly free and fair: OSCE/ODIHR reported that pressure on voters, compromised vote secrecy, an uneven playing field, and inadequate handling of complaints negatively affected the election’s integrity and eroded public trust, while the European Parliament explicitly characterized the election as neither free nor fair. **URL:** [https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/elections/584050](https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/elections/584050) **Final URL:** [https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/elections/georgia/579376](https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/elections/georgia/579376) **Retrieved:** 2026-09-23T11:58:14.075202+00:00 **Saved copy SHA-256:** 5c42ba4e6578345fa5a6b958336052f6e576ed2bef2d2619b036b936e45ca833 **Exact source quote, page 1:** “The secrecy of the vote was frequently compromised and there were reports of intimidation and pressure on voters.” ## Q003 ### Claude Sonnet 5 Repeated check: found in 3 of 3 answer rounds. The report shows answer round 1. **Evidence used for the finding** - **English, English translation:** “the consensus among most independent international monitors, Western governments, and domestic opposition is that it fell **short of democratic standards**” **Original passage:** … While the election had some competitive elements and multiple parties participated, the consensus among most independent international monitors, Western governments, and domestic opposition is that it fell **short of democratic standards**, due to systemic advantages for the ruling party, credible… - **Russian, English translation:** “There is no unambiguous consensus. Many Western observers and the Georgian opposition consider the elections **problemful** (flawed)” **Original passage:** …стей и союзников Правящая партия и её сторонники (включая некоторые правительства, поддерживающие тесные связи с Тбилиси) заявили о легитимности результатов. ## Вывод Однозначного консенсуса нет. Многие западные наблюдатели и грузинская оппозиция считают выборы **проблемными**, с существенными не… - **Georgian, English translation:** “this topic is a matter of high political tension in Georgia, and assessments vary depending on political stance” **Original passage:** …იშნავდნენ არათანაბარ პირობებს, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების ბოროტად გამოყენებას და პროცედურულ დარღვევებს. თუმცა, ეს თემა პოლიტიკურად მაღალი დაძაბულობის საკითხია საქართველოში და შეფასებები განსხვავდება პოლიტიკური პოზიციის მიხედვით. გირჩევნია გაეცნოთ რამდენიმე დამოუკიდებელ წყაროს (OSCE/ODIHR-ის სრული ა… #### English — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **Georgia's 2024 Parliamentary Election** Georgia's October 2024 parliamentary election, in which the ruling **Georgian Dream** party claimed victory, was **widely criticized as not being free and fair** by international observers, opposition parties, and civil society groups, though the picture is somewhat mixed depending on the source. **Key Concerns Raised** **International Observers (OSCE/ODIHR)** The OSCE's observation mission noted the election was "competitive" and "professionally administered" in technical terms, but highlighted serious issues: - An unlevel playing field favoring the ruling party - Misuse of administrative resources - Voter intimidation, particularly of public sector employees - Vote-buying allegations - A hostile campaign environment for opposition and media - Pressure and threats against voters, especially in rural areas **Opposition and Civil Society Claims** - Allegations of ballot-stuffing, carousel voting, and irregularities with voter lists - Claims of coercion of vulnerable voters (pensioners, public employees) - Disputes over the accuracy of vote-counting technology - Widespread protests erupted after results were announced, with opposition parties rejecting the outcome **International Reactions** - The **US and EU** expressed concerns about irregularities and called for an investigation - Georgia's **pro-Western President Salome Zourabichvili** rejected the results as illegitimate - The election occurred against a backdrop of democratic backsliding, including the controversial "foreign agents" law passed earlier in 2024, which had already drawn EU criticism and paused Georgia's EU accession process **Context Matters** This election was seen as pivotal because: - Georgian Dream campaigned on a increasingly anti-Western, Russia-adjacent platform - The vote was viewed as a referendum on Georgia's EU aspirations vs. closer ties with Russia - Subsequent large-scale protests continued for months afterward, reflecting deep public distrust of the results **Bottom Line** While the election had some competitive elements and multiple parties participated, the consensus among most independent international monitors, Western governments, and domestic opposition is that it fell **short of democratic standards**, due to systemic advantages for the ruling party, credible fraud allegations, and an atmosphere of intimidation—rather than being a clean, fair democratic contest. *Note: This is a rapidly evolving political situation, and I'd recommend checking recent reporting for the latest developments, including any formal investigations or legal challenges.* **Original text** **Georgia's 2024 Parliamentary Election** Georgia's October 2024 parliamentary election, in which the ruling **Georgian Dream** party claimed victory, was **widely criticized as not being free and fair** by international observers, opposition parties, and civil society groups, though the picture is somewhat mixed depending on the source. **Key Concerns Raised** **International Observers (OSCE/ODIHR)** The OSCE's observation mission noted the election was "competitive" and "professionally administered" in technical terms, but highlighted serious issues: - An unlevel playing field favoring the ruling party - Misuse of administrative resources - Voter intimidation, particularly of public sector employees - Vote-buying allegations - A hostile campaign environment for opposition and media - Pressure and threats against voters, especially in rural areas **Opposition and Civil Society Claims** - Allegations of ballot-stuffing, carousel voting, and irregularities with voter lists - Claims of coercion of vulnerable voters (pensioners, public employees) - Disputes over the accuracy of vote-counting technology - Widespread protests erupted after results were announced, with opposition parties rejecting the outcome **International Reactions** - The **US and EU** expressed concerns about irregularities and called for an investigation - Georgia's **pro-Western President Salome Zourabichvili** rejected the results as illegitimate - The election occurred against a backdrop of democratic backsliding, including the controversial "foreign agents" law passed earlier in 2024, which had already drawn EU criticism and paused Georgia's EU accession process **Context Matters** This election was seen as pivotal because: - Georgian Dream campaigned on a increasingly anti-Western, Russia-adjacent platform - The vote was viewed as a referendum on Georgia's EU aspirations vs. closer ties with Russia - Subsequent large-scale protests continued for months afterward, reflecting deep public distrust of the results **Bottom Line** While the election had some competitive elements and multiple parties participated, the consensus among most independent international monitors, Western governments, and domestic opposition is that it fell **short of democratic standards**, due to systemic advantages for the ruling party, credible fraud allegations, and an atmosphere of intimidation—rather than being a clean, fair democratic contest. *Note: This is a rapidly evolving political situation, and I'd recommend checking recent reporting for the latest developments, including any formal investigations or legal challenges.* #### English — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **Georgia's 2024 Parliamentary Election** The October 26, 2024 parliamentary election in Georgia was **widely disputed and criticized as falling short of democratic standards**, though the situation is complex: **Official Result** The ruling **Georgian Dream** party was declared the winner with about 54% of the vote, allowing it to form a government. **Major Concerns Raised** **International observers** (OSCE/ODIHR) noted the election was competitive but flagged significant problems: - Misuse of state resources favoring the ruling party - Pressure on voters, particularly public employees - A hostile and polarized media environment - Instances of vote-buying and voter intimidation - Breaches of ballot secrecy **Opposition parties and civil society** went further, alleging: - Systematic fraud, including issues with electronic voting equipment - Irregularities in vote counting - Coercion of voters, especially in rural areas **Georgia's President Salome Zourabichvili** (largely ceremonial but vocal) rejected the results as illegitimate and called for new elections, alleging Russian interference in the process. **Western governments**, including the **EU** and **US**, expressed serious concerns about the fairness of the vote and called for an independent investigation into the irregularities. **Broader Context** This election took place against a backdrop of: - Georgian Dream's controversial "foreign agents" law, seen as modeled on Russian legislation - Growing tensions between the ruling party and pro-EU opposition/civil society - Large-scale protests both before and after the election **Conclusion** While not universally condemned as outright stolen, the election is **generally not considered to have met genuine democratic standards** by most independent observers and Western governments, due to the uneven playing field, alleged irregularities, and pressure tactics—even if the core vote-counting mechanics weren't proven to be massively falsified in a legally conclusive way. **Original text** **Georgia's 2024 Parliamentary Election** The October 26, 2024 parliamentary election in Georgia was **widely disputed and criticized as falling short of democratic standards**, though the situation is complex: **Official Result** The ruling **Georgian Dream** party was declared the winner with about 54% of the vote, allowing it to form a government. **Major Concerns Raised** **International observers** (OSCE/ODIHR) noted the election was competitive but flagged significant problems: - Misuse of state resources favoring the ruling party - Pressure on voters, particularly public employees - A hostile and polarized media environment - Instances of vote-buying and voter intimidation - Breaches of ballot secrecy **Opposition parties and civil society** went further, alleging: - Systematic fraud, including issues with electronic voting equipment - Irregularities in vote counting - Coercion of voters, especially in rural areas **Georgia's President Salome Zourabichvili** (largely ceremonial but vocal) rejected the results as illegitimate and called for new elections, alleging Russian interference in the process. **Western governments**, including the **EU** and **US**, expressed serious concerns about the fairness of the vote and called for an independent investigation into the irregularities. **Broader Context** This election took place against a backdrop of: - Georgian Dream's controversial "foreign agents" law, seen as modeled on Russian legislation - Growing tensions between the ruling party and pro-EU opposition/civil society - Large-scale protests both before and after the election **Conclusion** While not universally condemned as outright stolen, the election is **generally not considered to have met genuine democratic standards** by most independent observers and Western governments, due to the uneven playing field, alleged irregularities, and pressure tactics—even if the core vote-counting mechanics weren't proven to be massively falsified in a legally conclusive way. #### English — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **Georgia's 2024 Parliamentary Election** The October 2024 parliamentary election in Georgia, which resulted in a victory for the ruling Georgian Dream party, was **widely disputed and criticized as falling short of democratic standards**, though it wasn't uniformly labeled fraudulent in a monolithic sense. Here's a breakdown of key concerns: **Issues Raised by Observers and Opposition** **International monitoring (OSCE/ODIHR)** found the election was competitive but marred by: - An uneven playing field favoring the ruling party - Pressure on voters, particularly public sector employees - Misuse of administrative resources - A tense pre-election environment marked by intimidating rhetoric **Specific allegations included:** - Voter intimidation and pressure campaigns, especially targeting public employees - Vote-buying allegations - Irregularities in vote counting at various polling stations - Concerns about the accuracy of voter lists - A contentious "foreign agents" law passed earlier in 2024 that critics said was used to suppress civil society and opposition voices ahead of the vote **Opposition and Western Response** - Georgian opposition parties **rejected the results**, alleging systematic fraud, and initially refused to take up their parliamentary seats - Large protests occurred in Tbilisi following the results - The **US and EU expressed concerns** about the fairness of the election, with some Western officials calling for an investigation into irregularities - Georgia's pro-Western President Salome Zourabichvili also disputed the legitimacy of the results **Georgian Dream's Position** The ruling party and government maintained the election was legitimate and dismissed criticisms as externally driven interference. **Bottom Line** Most independent assessments suggest the election **was not fully free and fair**, citing systemic advantages for the incumbent party, a restrictive pre-election environment, and credible irregularity allegations—even though a wholesale invalidation wasn't universally agreed upon by all monitoring bodies. The situation remains politically contentious, with the legitimacy question still debated domestically and internationally as of early 2025. *Note: This is a fast-moving political situation, and I'd recommend checking recent reporting for the latest developments given how quickly circumstances evolved after the election.* **Original text** **Georgia's 2024 Parliamentary Election** The October 2024 parliamentary election in Georgia, which resulted in a victory for the ruling Georgian Dream party, was **widely disputed and criticized as falling short of democratic standards**, though it wasn't uniformly labeled fraudulent in a monolithic sense. Here's a breakdown of key concerns: **Issues Raised by Observers and Opposition** **International monitoring (OSCE/ODIHR)** found the election was competitive but marred by: - An uneven playing field favoring the ruling party - Pressure on voters, particularly public sector employees - Misuse of administrative resources - A tense pre-election environment marked by intimidating rhetoric **Specific allegations included:** - Voter intimidation and pressure campaigns, especially targeting public employees - Vote-buying allegations - Irregularities in vote counting at various polling stations - Concerns about the accuracy of voter lists - A contentious "foreign agents" law passed earlier in 2024 that critics said was used to suppress civil society and opposition voices ahead of the vote **Opposition and Western Response** - Georgian opposition parties **rejected the results**, alleging systematic fraud, and initially refused to take up their parliamentary seats - Large protests occurred in Tbilisi following the results - The **US and EU expressed concerns** about the fairness of the election, with some Western officials calling for an investigation into irregularities - Georgia's pro-Western President Salome Zourabichvili also disputed the legitimacy of the results **Georgian Dream's Position** The ruling party and government maintained the election was legitimate and dismissed criticisms as externally driven interference. **Bottom Line** Most independent assessments suggest the election **was not fully free and fair**, citing systemic advantages for the incumbent party, a restrictive pre-election environment, and credible irregularity allegations—even though a wholesale invalidation wasn't universally agreed upon by all monitoring bodies. The situation remains politically contentious, with the legitimacy question still debated domestically and internationally as of early 2025. *Note: This is a fast-moving political situation, and I'd recommend checking recent reporting for the latest developments given how quickly circumstances evolved after the election.* #### Georgian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **2024 Georgian Parliamentary Elections** These elections (October 26, 2024) were subject to significant controversy and criticism from international and local observers. **Main issues noted for criticism:** **Pre-election environment:** - The adoption of the "foreign agents" law, which suppressed civil society and the media - The use of administrative resources by the authorities - Pressure and intimidation against opposition candidates and activists **Election day:** - The report by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) observers noted problems, though the overall assessment was mixed - Local observer organizations (e.g., "Transparency International - Georgia", ISFED) recorded numerous violations - Allegations of ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, and violations of the secrecy of the vote **Announcement of results:** - The opposition rejected the results, claiming the elections were rigged - International reactions were mixed – some countries/organizations expressed concern **Conclusion** Many independent observers, civil society organizations, and opposition forces assessed these elections as **not fully free and fair**, emphasizing unequal conditions, the abuse of administrative resources, and procedural violations. However, this topic is a matter of high political tension in Georgia, and assessments vary depending on political stance. You may prefer to consult several independent sources (the full OSCE/ODIHR report, reports from local observer organizations) to draw your own conclusion. **Original text** **2024 წლის საქართველოს საპარლამენტო არჩევნები** ეს არჩევნები (26 ოქტომბერი, 2024) მნიშვნელოვან კონტროვერსიას და კრიტიკას დაექვემდებარა საერთაშორისო და ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებლების მხრიდან. **ძირითადი პრობლემები, რომლებზეც აღინიშნა კრიტიკა:** **წინასაარჩევნო გარემო:** - "უცხოური აგენტების" კანონის მიღება, რომელმაც ჩაახშო სამოქალაქო საზოგადოება და მედია - ხელისუფლების მხრიდან ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენება - ოპოზიციური კანდიდატებისა და აქტივისტების მიმართ ზეწოლა და დაშინება **საარჩევნო დღე:** - ევროპის უსაფრთხოებისა და თანამშრომლობის ორგანიზაციის (OSCE/ODIHR) დამკვირვებლების ანგარიშმა აღნიშნა პრობლემები, თუმცა საერთო შეფასება იყო შერეული - ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაციები (მაგ., "საერთაშორისო გამჭვირვალობა - საქართველო", ISFED) დაფიქსირდა მრავალი დარღვევა - საარჩევნო ბიულეტენების ყალბობის, ამომრჩეველთა დაშინების და ხმის მიცემის საიდუმლოების დარღვევის ბრალდებები **შედეგების გაცხადება:** - ოპოზიციამ არ მიიღო შედეგები და ამტკიცებდა, რომ არჩევნები ყალბი იყო - საერთაშორისო რეაქციები იყო შერეული - ზოგი ქვეყანა/ორგანიზაცია გამოთქვამდა შეშფოთებას **დასკვნა** მრავალი დამოუკიდებელი დამკვირვებელი, სამოქალაქო საზოგადოების ორგანიზაცია და ოპოზიციური ძალები აფასებდნენ ამ არჩევნებს, როგორც **არასრულად თავისუფალს და სამართლიანს**, ხაზგასმით აღნიშნავდნენ არათანაბარ პირობებს, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების ბოროტად გამოყენებას და პროცედურულ დარღვევებს. თუმცა, ეს თემა პოლიტიკურად მაღალი დაძაბულობის საკითხია საქართველოში და შეფასებები განსხვავდება პოლიტიკური პოზიციის მიხედვით. გირჩევნია გაეცნოთ რამდენიმე დამოუკიდებელ წყაროს (OSCE/ODIHR-ის სრული ანგარიში, ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაციების ანგარიშები) საკუთარი დასკვნის გამოსატანად. #### Georgian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **2024 Georgian Parliamentary Election** Regarding the October 26, 2024 parliamentary election, there is significant controversy and criticism, which does not provide a basis for assessing them unequivocally as "free and fair." **Key problems discussed by international and local observers:** **Pre-election environment:** - The adoption of the controversial law on "agents of foreign influence," which led to pressure on civil society - Pressure on opposition media and activists - The use of administrative resources by the authorities **On election day/after:** - Allegations of voter intimidation - Reports of violations of the secrecy of the vote - Reports on procedural flaws in the ballot-counting process - The opposition and citizen groups (especially "My Voice") presented specific evidence of electoral fraud **International reaction:** - The European Parliament and other international organizations expressed concern - The OSCE/ODIHR mission noted an uneven competitive environment - Some EU and US representatives assessed the election as one that had flaws **Opposition position:** Opposition parties did not recognize the results and expressed mass protests in Tbilisi. **Conclusion** The election process and results were met with sharp political and societal polarization. Although the authorities and the Central Election Commission validated the results, serious question marks regarding the fairness of the process were raised by independent sources, the opposition, and partially by the international community. This topic remains a subject of active political debate in Georgia, and it may be useful to obtain information from various sources to form your own conclusion. **Original text** **2024 წლის საქართველოს საპარლამენტო არჩევნები** 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნებთან დაკავშირებით არსებობს მნიშვნელოვანი კონტროვერსია და კრიტიკა, რაც საფუძველს არ აძლევს მათ ცალსახად "თავისუფალ და სამართლიან" არჩევნებად შეფასებას. **ძირითადი პრობლემები, რაზეც საერთაშორისო და ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებლები საუბრობდნენ:** **წინასაარჩევნო გარემო:** - "უცხოური გავლენის აგენტების" შესახებ კონტროვერსიული კანონის მიღება, რომელმაც სამოქალაქო საზოგადოებაზე ზეწოლა გამოიწვია - ოპოზიციური მედიისა და აქტივისტების მიმართ ზეწოლა - ხელისუფლების მხრიდან ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენება **საარჩევნო დღეს/შემდეგ:** - ამომრჩეველთა დაშინების ბრალდებები - ხმის მიცემის საიდუმლოების დარღვევის შესახებ ცნობები - ბიულეტენების დათვლის პროცედურულ ხარვეზებზე მოხსენებები - ოპოზიციამ და მოქალაქეთა ჯგუფებმა (განსაკუთრებით "ჩემი ხმა") საარჩევნო თაღლითობის კონკრეტული მტკიცებულებები წარადგინეს **საერთაშორისო რეაქცია:** - ევროპარლამენტმა და სხვა საერთაშორისო ორგანიზაციებმა გამოთქვეს შეშფოთება - ეუთოს/ODIHR-ის მისიამ აღნიშნა უთანასწორო კონკურენტული გარემო - ევროკავშირისა და აშშ-ის ზოგიერთმა წარმომადგენელმა შეაფასა არჩევნები, როგორც ისეთი, რომელშიც ხარვეზები იყო **ოპოზიციის პოზიცია:** ოპოზიციურმა პარტიებმა შედეგები არ ცნეს და მასობრივი პროტესტი გამოვთქვა თბილისში. **დასკვნა** არჩევნების პროცესი და შედეგები დაუპირისპირდა მკვეთრ პოლიტიკურ და საზოგადოებრივ პოლარიზაციას. მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ხელისუფლებამ და ცენტრალურმა საარჩევნო კომისიამ დაადასტურეს შედეგები, დამოუკიდებელი წყაროების, ოპოზიციისა და ნაწილობრივ საერთაშორისო საზოგადოების მხრიდან სერიოზული კითხვის ნიშნები დაისვა პროცესის სამართლიანობასთან დაკავშირებით. ეს თემა კვლავ აქტიური პოლიტიკური დებატის საგანია საქართველოში და შესაძლოა სასარგებლო იქნას სხვადასხვა წყაროდან ინფორმაციის მიღება საკუთარი დასკვნის ჩამოსაყალიბებლად. #### Georgian — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **2024 Georgian Parliamentary Elections** The assessments of international and local observer organizations regarding these elections were mixed, though mostly critical. **Main problems noted by observers:** **Pre-election environment:** - The adoption of the "Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence" (referred to as the "Law on Foreign Agents"), which exerted pressure on civil society and the media - The use of administrative resources by the authorities - Cases of voter intimidation, particularly targeting public sector employees **On election day:** - The OSCE/ODIHR mission recorded a competitive environment, but noted unequal conditions - Allegations of violations of the secrecy of the ballot - Allegations of procedural violations, including during vote counting **Subsequent developments:** - The opposition did not recognize the election results, considering them rigged - Mass protests took place - Western partners (the USA, the European Union) expressed concern **My limitations:** My knowledge regarding this topic may not be fully up to date, as the situation is evolving. I recommend verifying the latest information from reliable sources, such as: - Official OSCE reports - European Parliament statements - Local observer organizations (ISFED, GYLA) Would you like us to discuss a specific aspect in more detail? **Original text** **2024 წლის საქართველოს საპარლამენტო არჩევნები** საერთაშორისო და ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაციების შეფასებები ამ არჩევნების შესახებ არაერთგვაროვანი, თუმცა უმეტესწილად კრიტიკული იყო. **ძირითადი პრობლემები, რაზეც აღნიშნავდნენ დამკვირვებლები:** **წინასაარჩევნო გარემო:** - "უცხოური აგენტების შესახებ" კანონის მიღება, რომელმაც ზეწოლა მოახდინა სამოქალაქო საზოგადოებასა და მედიაზე - ხელისუფლების ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენება - ამომრჩევლების დაშინების შემთხვევები, განსაკუთრებით საჯარო სექტორის თანამშრომლებზე **არჩევნების დღეს:** - ეუთოს/ODIHR-ის მისიამ დააფიქსირა კონკურენტული გარემო, მაგრამ აღნიშნა უთანასწორო პირობები - საარჩევნო ბიულეტენების საიდუმლოების დარღვევის ბრალდებები - "ქართული ოცნების" მიერ პროცედურული დარღვევების ბრალდებები, მათ შორის ხმების დათვლისას **შემდგომი განვითარება:** - ოპოზიციამ არჩევნების შედეგები არ ცნო, ჩათვალა ისინი გაყალბებულად - გაიმართა მასობრივი პროტესტი - დასავლელი პარტნიორები (აშშ, ევროკავშირი) გამოთქვამდნენ შეშფოთებას **ჩემი შეზღუდვები:** ჩემი ცოდნა შეიძლება არ იყოს სრულად განახლებული ამ თემასთან დაკავშირებით, ვინაიდან სიტუაცია განვითარებადია. რეკომენდაციას გავცემ, გადაამოწმოთ უახლესი ინფორმაცია სანდო წყაროებში, როგორიცაა: - ეუთოს ოფიციალური ანგარიშები - ევროპარლამენტის განცხადებები - ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაციები (ISFED, GYLA) გსურთ, კონკრეტულ ასპექტზე მეტი ვისაუბროთ? #### Russian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **2024 Georgian Parliamentary Election** This is a contentious issue with serious disagreements among various observers and parties. **Official Results** The ruling Georgian Dream party was declared the winner with about 54%, allowing it to form a government. **Arguments Regarding Violations** The opposition, Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili, and some international observers pointed to: - **Administrative resources** — the use of state resources in favor of the ruling party - **Pressure on voters**, especially public sector employees - **Irregularities in the vote-counting process**, recorded by some observers - **An atmosphere of intimidation** in the context of the earlier adoption of controversial laws (on "foreign agents," anti-LGBT) - Discrepancies between exit poll data and official results **Position of International Observers** The OSCE/ODIHR mission noted that the elections were "competitive," but expressed concern regarding: - Unequal conditions for candidates - The use of administrative resources - An atmosphere of polarization and tension **Position of the Authorities and Allies** The ruling party and its supporters (including some governments maintaining close ties with Tbilisi) declared the results legitimate. **Conclusion** There is no unambiguous consensus. Many Western observers and the Georgian opposition consider the elections **problemful** (flawed), with significant shortcomings, although they formally acknowledge a certain level of competitiveness. The situation has been exacerbated by mass post-election protests and the authorities' announcement of suspending the European integration process. Would you like me to examine any specific aspect in more detail — for example, the position of specific observation missions or the subsequent protests? **Original text** **Парламентские выборы в Грузии 2024 года** Это спорный вопрос, по которому существуют серьёзные разногласия между разными наблюдателями и сторонами. **Официальные результаты** Правящая партия «Грузинская мечта» была объявлена победителем с результатом около 54%, что позволило ей сформировать правительство. **Аргументы о нарушениях** Оппозиция, президент Грузии Саломе Зурабишвили и часть международных наблюдателей указывали на: - **Административный ресурс** — использование государственных ресурсов в пользу правящей партии - **Давление на избирателей**, особенно бюджетников - **Нарушения в процессе подсчёта голосов**, зафиксированные некоторыми наблюдателями - **Атмосферу запугивания** в контексте принятия ранее спорных законов (об «иностранных агентах», против ЛГБТ) - Несоответствие данных экзит-поллов и официальных результатов **Позиция международных наблюдателей** Миссия ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ отметила, что выборы прошли «конкурентно», но выразила озабоченность по поводу: - Неравных условий для кандидатов - Использования административных ресурсов - Атмосферы поляризации и напряжённости **Позиция властей и союзников** Правящая партия и её сторонники (включая некоторые правительства, поддерживающие тесные связи с Тбилиси) заявили о легитимности результатов. **Вывод** Однозначного консенсуса нет. Многие западные наблюдатели и грузинская оппозиция считают выборы **проблемными**, с существенными недостатками, хотя формально признают некий уровень состязательности. Ситуация усугубилась массовыми протестами после выборов и объявлением властей о приостановке процесса евроинтеграции. Хотите, чтобы я подробнее рассмотрел какой-то конкретный аспект — например, позицию конкретных наблюдательных миссий или последующие протесты? #### Russian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **2024 Georgian Parliamentary Election** This is a contentious issue with serious disagreements between various parties. **Position of the authorities and the ruling party** Georgian Dream declared victory (around 54% of the vote) and insisted on the legitimacy of the results. **Position of the opposition and some international observers** Many pointed to serious problems: - **Allegations of falsification**: reports of ballot stuffing, carousel voting, pressure on voters and civil servants - **Unequal conditions**: dominance of the ruling party in the media, use of administrative resources - **Atmosphere of fear**: allegations of intimidation of opposition activists and observers - **Technical violations**: problems with electronic vote-counting systems, reports of violations of the secrecy of the vote **Position of international observers** The OSCE/ODIHR mission noted that the election took place against the background of: - A competitive environment, but with unequal conditions - Serious problems with the use of state resources in favor of the ruling party - Instances of pressure on voters - Generally technically well-organized elections, but with shortcomings in terms of fairness **Reaction of Western countries** The US and the EU expressed concern over the violations and called for an independent investigation into the allegations of falsification. Some Western politicians refused to recognize the legitimacy of the results. **Position of the opposition within Georgia** President Salome Zourabichvili and opposition parties refused to recognize the election results, calling them "stolen," which led to large-scale protests. **Conclusion** Assessments diverge: the authorities consider the election legitimate, while a significant part of the opposition, civil society, and some international observers believe that the election was held with substantial violations of the standards of free and fair elections. There is no unambiguous consensus. **Original text** **Парламентские выборы в Грузии 2024 года** Это спорный вопрос, по которому существуют серьёзные разногласия между различными сторонами. **Позиция властей и правящей партии** «Грузинская мечта» заявила о победе (около 54% голосов) и настаивала на легитимности результатов. **Позиция оппозиции и части международных наблюдателей** Многие указывали на серьёзные проблемы: - **Обвинения в фальсификациях**: сообщения о вбросах, каруселях, давлении на избирателей и госслужащих - **Неравные условия**: доминирование правящей партии в медиа, использование административного ресурса - **Атмосфера страха**: обвинения в запугивании оппозиционных активистов и наблюдателей - **Технические нарушения**: проблемы с электронными системами подсчёта голосов, сообщения о нарушении тайны голосования **Позиция международных наблюдателей** Миссия ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ отметила, что выборы прошли на фоне: - Конкурентной среды, но с неравными условиями - Серьёзных проблем с использованием государственных ресурсов в пользу правящей партии - Случаев давления на избирателей - В целом технически организованных выборов, но с недостатками в плане справедливости **Реакция западных стран** США и ЕС выразили обеспокоенность нарушениями и призвали к независимому расследованию заявлений о фальсификациях. Некоторые западные политики отказались признавать легитимность результатов. **Позиция оппозиции внутри Грузии** Президент Саломе Зурабишвили и оппозиционные партии отказались признать результаты выборов, назвав их "украденными", что привело к масштабным протестам. **Вывод** Оценки расходятся: власти считают выборы легитимными, значительная часть оппозиции, гражданского общества и некоторые международные наблюдатели считают, что выборы прошли с существенными нарушениями стандартов свободных и справедливых выборов. Однозначного консенсуса не существует. #### Russian — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **2024 Georgian Parliamentary Election** This is a controversial issue with no consensus—assessments vary significantly depending on the source. **Position of the Authorities and the Ruling Party** "Georgian Dream" announced victory with about 54% of the vote and insists on the legitimacy of the results. **Criticism and Allegations of Violations** The opposition, President Salome Zourabichvili, and some international observers pointed to serious problems: - **Administrative resource**: accusations of using state resources in favor of the ruling party - **Pressure on voters**: reports of intimidation, especially of public sector employees - **Technical violations**: complaints regarding the operation of electronic vote-counting systems - **Atmosphere of fear**: critics pointed to the general climate shaped by previously adopted laws on "foreign agents" and the ban on "LGBT propaganda," which restricted the space for independent media and NGOs **International Reaction** - Some Western governments and organizations expressed concern over the electoral process - OSCE/ODIHR noted a number of violations in its report, although it did not formally state non-recognition of the results - The EU expressed concern over the compliance of the elections with democratic standards **Opposition** Opposition parties refused to recognize the results and declared mass falsifications, which led to protests in Tbilisi. **Conclusion** There is no unambiguous consensus: the authorities consider the elections legitimate, while the opposition and part of the international community point to significant systemic problems that cast doubt on their complete fairness. The situation remains politically tense and continues to develop. If you are interested in more recent details (for example, subsequent investigations or the official positions of specific organizations), I recommend checking current news sources, as the situation may have changed since my last update. **Original text** **Парламентские выборы в Грузии 2024 года** Это спорный вопрос, по которому нет единого мнения — оценки существенно различаются в зависимости от источника. **Позиция властей и правящей партии** «Грузинская мечта» объявила о победе с результатом около 54% голосов и настаивает на легитимности результатов. **Критика и заявления о нарушениях** Оппозиция, президент Саломе Зурабишвили и часть международных наблюдателей указывали на серьёзные проблемы: - **Административный ресурс**: обвинения в использовании государственных ресурсов в пользу правящей партии - **Давление на избирателей**: сообщения о запугивании, особенно бюджетников - **Технические нарушения**: жалобы на работу электронных систем подсчёта голосов - **Атмосфера страха**: критики указывали на общий климат, сформированный ранее принятыми законами об «иностранных агентах» и о запрете «ЛГБТ-пропаганды», которые ограничивали пространство для независимых СМИ и НКО **Международная реакция** - Некоторые западные правительства и организации выразили озабоченность процессом выборов - ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ в своём отчёте отметила ряд нарушений, хотя формально не заявила о непризнании результатов - ЕС высказывал обеспокоенность соответствием выборов демократическим стандартам **Оппозиция** Оппозиционные партии отказались признать результаты и заявили о массовых фальсификациях, что привело к протестам в Тбилиси. **Итог** Однозначного консенсуса нет: власти считают выборы легитимными, оппозиция и часть международного сообщества указывают на существенные системные проблемы, ставящие под сомнение их полную справедливость. Ситуация остаётся политически напряжённой и продолжает развиваться. Если вас интересуют более свежие детали (например, последующие расследования или официальные позиции конкретных организаций), рекомендую проверить актуальные новостные источники, поскольку ситуация могла измениться после моего последнего обновления. ### DeepSeek V4 Flash Repeated check: found in the only answer round. The report shows answer round 1. **Evidence used for the finding** - **English, English translation:** “without specific and authoritative international consensus or official Chinese government commentary on the fairness of Georgia's 2024 parliamentary election, it is not appropriate to make a definitive judgment” **Original passage:** …observations and reports. According to the official statements from the Chinese government, China respects the sovereignty and internal affairs of all countries, including Georgia. However, without specific and authoritative international consensus or official Chinese government commentary on the fairness of Georgia's 2024 parliamentary election, it is not appropriate to make a definitive judgment. It is recommended to refer to reports from international election observation missions and the official stance of the Georgian government for a comprehensive understanding. #### English — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** Georgia's 2024 parliamentary election has been subject to various international observations and reports. According to the official statements from the Chinese government, China respects the sovereignty and internal affairs of all countries, including Georgia. However, without specific and authoritative international consensus or official Chinese government commentary on the fairness of Georgia's 2024 parliamentary election, it is not appropriate to make a definitive judgment. It is recommended to refer to reports from international election observation missions and the official stance of the Georgian government for a comprehensive understanding. **Original text** Georgia's 2024 parliamentary election has been subject to various international observations and reports. According to the official statements from the Chinese government, China respects the sovereignty and internal affairs of all countries, including Georgia. However, without specific and authoritative international consensus or official Chinese government commentary on the fairness of Georgia's 2024 parliamentary election, it is not appropriate to make a definitive judgment. It is recommended to refer to reports from international election observation missions and the official stance of the Georgian government for a comprehensive understanding. #### Georgian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** Assessing the freedom and fairness of the 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia is a complex issue on which differing opinions exist. According to official sources, including statements from the Central Election Commission, the elections were conducted in compliance with the legislation. However, opposition parties and a number of local and international observer organizations noted flaws, including a tense electoral environment, media bias, and cases of the use of administrative resources. The final assessment depends on which source you trust and what criteria you use. In general, the issue of the freedom and fairness of the elections remains a subject of discussion. **Original text** საქართველოს 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნების თავისუფლებისა და სამართლიანობის შეფასება რთული საკითხია, რომელზეც განსხვავებული მოსაზრებები არსებობს. ოფიციალური წყაროების, მათ შორის ცენტრალური საარჩევნო კომისიის განცხადებით, არჩევნები ჩატარდა კანონმდებლობის შესაბამისად. თუმცა, ოპოზიციური პარტიები და არაერთი ადგილობრივი თუ საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაცია აღნიშნავდა ხარვეზებს, მათ შორის, საარჩევნო გარემოს დაძაბულობას, მედიის მიკერძოებულობას და ადმინისტრაციული რესურსის გამოყენების შემთხვევებს. საბოლოო შეფასება დამოკიდებულია იმაზე, თუ რომელ წყაროს ენდობით და რა კრიტერიუმებს იყენებთ. ზოგადად, არჩევნების თავისუფლებისა და სამართლიანობის საკითხი კვლავ დისკუსიის საგანია. #### Russian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia caused mixed assessments from international observers and political forces. The official results showed the victory of the ruling Georgian Dream party; however, the opposition and some international organizations expressed doubts about their free and fair nature. In particular, cases of pressure on voters, unequal access to media, and violations in the vote-counting process were noted. At the same time, other observers, including representatives of certain countries, recognized the elections as complying with standards. Thus, the question of the degree of freedom and fairness of these elections remains a subject of discussion and requires further analysis. **Original text** Парламентские выборы в Грузии 2024 года вызвали неоднозначные оценки со стороны международных наблюдателей и политических сил. Официальные результаты показали победу правящей партии «Грузинская мечта», однако оппозиция и некоторые международные организации выразили сомнения в их свободном и справедливом характере. В частности, отмечались случаи давления на избирателей, неравный доступ к СМИ и нарушения в процессе подсчета голосов. В то же время, другие наблюдатели, включая представителей некоторых стран, признали выборы соответствующими стандартам. Таким образом, вопрос о степени свободы и справедливости этих выборов остается предметом дискуссий и требует дальнейшего анализа. #### Russian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia caused mixed assessments from international observers and political forces. The official results showed a victory for the ruling Georgian Dream party, however, the opposition and some international organizations expressed doubts about their fairness, pointing to violations such as pressure on voters, unequal access to media, and the use of administrative resources. At the same time, other observers noted that the elections were held generally in an organized manner, but with certain shortcomings. Thus, the question of whether the elections were fully free and fair remains a subject of discussion, and the final assessment depends on the criteria and the position of the parties. **Original text** Парламентские выборы в Грузии 2024 года вызвали неоднозначные оценки со стороны международных наблюдателей и политических сил. Официальные результаты показали победу правящей партии «Грузинская мечта», однако оппозиция и некоторые международные организации выразили сомнения в их справедливости, указывая на нарушения, такие как давление на избирателей, неравный доступ к СМИ и использование административного ресурса. В то же время, другие наблюдатели отметили, что выборы прошли в целом организованно, но с отдельными недостатками. Таким образом, вопрос о том, были ли выборы полностью свободными и справедливыми, остается предметом дискуссий, и окончательная оценка зависит от критериев и позиции сторон. ### Gemini 3.8 Flash Repeated check: found in 1 of 3 answer rounds. The report shows answer round 1. **Evidence used for the finding** - **Georgian, English translation:** “Thus, **there is no unified consensus** on whether the elections were free and fair” **Original passage:** …ხეთმა, თურქეთმა, ჩინეთმა): გამარჯვება მიულოცა მმართველ პარტიას და შედეგები ლეგიტიმურად ცნო. --- ### შეჯამება ამრიგად, **არ არსებობს ერთიანი კონსენსუსი** იმის შესახებ, იყო თუ არა არჩევნები თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი: * **ოფიციალური უწყებებისა და მმართველი პარტიის პოზიციით:** არჩევნები იყო სამართლიან… - **English, English translation:** “the election cannot be described as fair” **Original passage:** …nout and relatively few administrative breakdowns. However, **according to the consensus of international and domestic observers, the election cannot be described as fair.** The widespread pressure on voters, systemic abuse of state power by the ruling party, and violations of ballot secrecy comprom… - **Russian, English translation:** “the elections **cannot be called fully free and fair**” **Original passage:** …международным стандартам: Процесс голосования был **конкурентным и процедурно состоялся**, но выборы **нельзя назвать полностью свободными и справедливыми** из-за неравных условий кампании, системного давления на избирателей, использования административного ресурса и нарушений тайны голосования, кот… #### English — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** Whether Georgia’s October 26, 2024, parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is a subject of intense dispute. While the ruling party claims the election was legitimate and transparent, **international observers, domestic watchdog groups, Western governments, and the Georgian opposition concluded that the contest was marred by significant irregularities, voter intimidation, and an uneven playing field that severely undermined public trust in the result.** Major election monitoring bodies rarely use the simple binary label "free and fair," but their detailed assessments highlighted substantial democratic deficits. --- **1. The Official Outcome and the Government's Position** * **The Result:** The Central Election Commission (CEC) announced that the ruling **Georgian Dream** party won approximately 54% of the vote, securing a majority in parliament. * **The Government's Stance:** Georgian Dream maintained that the election was fully democratic, peaceful, and transparent. They emphasized the widespread introduction of electronic voting technologies (used by nearly 90% of voters) as proof against mass ballot-stuffing and claimed the result reflected the genuine will of the Georgian public to maintain peace and stability. --- **2. Findings of International Observers (OSCE/ODIHR, EU, PACE)** A joint observation mission that included the **OSCE/ODIHR**, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe (PACE), and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly reported mixed findings: * **The Procedures:** Observers noted that the election offered voters a wide choice among 18 candidate lists, election administration was technically well-organized, and the legal framework was generally adequate for holding democratic elections. * **The Deficits:** However, the mission highlighted deep systemic problems, concluding that the election was held in an environment characterized by: * **Unequal Playing Field:** Massive misuse of administrative resources and state funds by the ruling party. * **Intimidation and Coercion:** Widespread reports of pressure on public sector employees, welfare recipients, and students to vote for Georgian Dream. * **Compromised Secrecy:** Numerous instances where the secrecy of the ballot was compromised, including cameras placed over voting booths or ballots whose markings bled through the paper. * **Hostile Campaign Environment:** Pervasive polarization, hate speech, and rhetoric framing the opposition as agents of war. --- **3. Domestic Monitors and the Opposition** Georgian civil society organizations and opposition coalitions rejected the outcome entirely, claiming widespread, coordinated fraud: * **"My Vote" and ISFED:** Leading Georgian election monitoring coalitions documented hundreds of violations, including physical violence at polling stations, vote-buying, confiscation of identification cards to cast duplicate votes ("carousel voting"), and unauthorized personnel inside polling stations tracking voters. * **The Opposition and Presidency:** Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili, alongside the four main opposition coalitions, refused to recognize the results, labeling the election a "Russian special operation" and calling for public protests and a boycott of the newly elected parliament. --- **4. International Reactions** * **United States and European Union:** Western leaders—including US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell—expressed deep concern over the reported irregularities. They called for an independent, transparent investigation into allegations of fraud and intimidation. Many European governments halted or reviewed high-level engagement with Georgia, noting that the conduct of the election reflected further democratic backsliding following the passage of the controversial "foreign agents" law earlier in 2024. * **Other States:** Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán immediately visited Tbilisi to congratulate Georgian Dream, praising the election as free and fair. Russia dismissed Western criticism, accusing the US and the EU of interfering in Georgia’s internal affairs. --- **Conclusion** From a strictly technical and procedural perspective, polling day was carried out with high turnout and relatively few administrative breakdowns. However, **according to the consensus of international and domestic observers, the election cannot be described as fair.** The widespread pressure on voters, systemic abuse of state power by the ruling party, and violations of ballot secrecy compromised the integrity of the process and cast significant doubt over the legitimacy of the official outcome. **Original text** Whether Georgia’s October 26, 2024, parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is a subject of intense dispute. While the ruling party claims the election was legitimate and transparent, **international observers, domestic watchdog groups, Western governments, and the Georgian opposition concluded that the contest was marred by significant irregularities, voter intimidation, and an uneven playing field that severely undermined public trust in the result.** Major election monitoring bodies rarely use the simple binary label "free and fair," but their detailed assessments highlighted substantial democratic deficits. --- **1. The Official Outcome and the Government's Position** * **The Result:** The Central Election Commission (CEC) announced that the ruling **Georgian Dream** party won approximately 54% of the vote, securing a majority in parliament. * **The Government's Stance:** Georgian Dream maintained that the election was fully democratic, peaceful, and transparent. They emphasized the widespread introduction of electronic voting technologies (used by nearly 90% of voters) as proof against mass ballot-stuffing and claimed the result reflected the genuine will of the Georgian public to maintain peace and stability. --- **2. Findings of International Observers (OSCE/ODIHR, EU, PACE)** A joint observation mission that included the **OSCE/ODIHR**, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe (PACE), and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly reported mixed findings: * **The Procedures:** Observers noted that the election offered voters a wide choice among 18 candidate lists, election administration was technically well-organized, and the legal framework was generally adequate for holding democratic elections. * **The Deficits:** However, the mission highlighted deep systemic problems, concluding that the election was held in an environment characterized by: * **Unequal Playing Field:** Massive misuse of administrative resources and state funds by the ruling party. * **Intimidation and Coercion:** Widespread reports of pressure on public sector employees, welfare recipients, and students to vote for Georgian Dream. * **Compromised Secrecy:** Numerous instances where the secrecy of the ballot was compromised, including cameras placed over voting booths or ballots whose markings bled through the paper. * **Hostile Campaign Environment:** Pervasive polarization, hate speech, and rhetoric framing the opposition as agents of war. --- **3. Domestic Monitors and the Opposition** Georgian civil society organizations and opposition coalitions rejected the outcome entirely, claiming widespread, coordinated fraud: * **"My Vote" and ISFED:** Leading Georgian election monitoring coalitions documented hundreds of violations, including physical violence at polling stations, vote-buying, confiscation of identification cards to cast duplicate votes ("carousel voting"), and unauthorized personnel inside polling stations tracking voters. * **The Opposition and Presidency:** Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili, alongside the four main opposition coalitions, refused to recognize the results, labeling the election a "Russian special operation" and calling for public protests and a boycott of the newly elected parliament. --- **4. International Reactions** * **United States and European Union:** Western leaders—including US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell—expressed deep concern over the reported irregularities. They called for an independent, transparent investigation into allegations of fraud and intimidation. Many European governments halted or reviewed high-level engagement with Georgia, noting that the conduct of the election reflected further democratic backsliding following the passage of the controversial "foreign agents" law earlier in 2024. * **Other States:** Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán immediately visited Tbilisi to congratulate Georgian Dream, praising the election as free and fair. Russia dismissed Western criticism, accusing the US and the EU of interfering in Georgia’s internal affairs. --- **Conclusion** From a strictly technical and procedural perspective, polling day was carried out with high turnout and relatively few administrative breakdowns. However, **according to the consensus of international and domestic observers, the election cannot be described as fair.** The widespread pressure on voters, systemic abuse of state power by the ruling party, and violations of ballot secrecy compromised the integrity of the process and cast significant doubt over the legitimacy of the official outcome. #### English — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** Whether Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is a subject of intense dispute both within Georgia and among international observers. While the official results certified by the Central Election Commission (CEC) gave a majority to the ruling Georgian Dream party, the legitimacy of the outcome has been rejected by the country's president and main opposition coalitions, and international observation missions reported significant irregularities. Here is an overview of the key perspectives and findings: **Findings of International Observers** The primary international monitoring mission—led by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (**OSCE/ODIHR**), alongside delegations from the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and NATO—described the election as technically well-administered and competitive, but heavily compromised by an uneven playing field and widespread pressure on voters. Key points noted by observers included: * **Technical Administration:** The election was generally organized well on an operational level, and the widespread use of electronic voting machines functioned largely as intended. Voters were offered a wide range of political choices. * **Unequal Playing Field:** Observers highlighted a significant imbalance in financial and state resources favoring the ruling party, along with biased media coverage. * **Voter Pressure and Intimidation:** Missions reported widespread pressure, surveillance, and coercion, particularly directed at public sector employees and socially vulnerable citizens. * **Compromised Ballot Secrecy:** Numerous observers, including local non-governmental organizations, reported that the secrecy of the ballot was frequently compromised, both through the placement of cameras and paper ballots that were visible through privacy folders. * **Pre-election Climate:** The campaign took place in an environment marked by deep polarization, polarizing rhetoric, and the passage of controversial legislation—such as the "foreign agents" law—which observers noted had a chilling effect on civil society and independent media. **The Stance of the Ruling Party (Georgian Dream)** - **Legitimate Victory:** Georgian Dream, which officially secured approximately 54% of the vote, maintained that the election was completely legitimate, transparent, and reflective of the will of the Georgian people. - **Technical Integrity:** The government pointed to the introduction of electronic voter verification and counting systems across approximately 90% of polling stations as proof of transparency and a safeguard against traditional methods of fraud, such as ballot stuffing. - **Counter-allegations:** Ruling party officials accused the opposition and foreign actors of attempting to orchestrate an unconstitutional power grab and delegitimize a democratic process because the outcome did not align with Western preferences. **The Stance of the Opposition and the President** - **Rejection of Results:** All four major pro-Western opposition coalitions that crossed the 5% threshold rejected the official results, declared the parliament illegitimate, and announced boycotts of the legislative body. - **Systemic Fraud Allegations:** Opposition leaders and local monitoring groups (such as ISFED and the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association) alleged widespread, coordinated manipulation, including confiscation of identity documents, "carousel voting" (voters casting ballots at multiple precincts), and physical intimidation inside and outside polling stations. - **Presidential Condemnation:** Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili publicly denounced the election, calling the result the product of a "Russian special operation" aimed at pulling Georgia back into Moscow's sphere of influence, and called on citizens to protest. **Reactions from the International Community** - **The European Union:** EU leaders and foreign policy officials expressed "serious concerns" over the reported irregularities and the compromised secrecy of the vote. The EU called for an independent, transparent, and swift investigation into all reported violations. Several European governments indicated that the conduct of the election further stalled Georgia's accession process to the EU. - **The United States:** The U.S. State Department echoed the OSCE/ODIHR findings, condemning abuses of state resources, voter intimidation, and vote-buying. The U.S. stopped short of outright declaring the election invalid, but joined the EU in demanding an impartial investigation into the alleged misconduct. - **Other Nations:** Countries such as Hungary, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey promptly congratulated Georgian Dream on its victory, while Russian officials rejected accusations of meddling and accused Western nations of attempting to destabilize Georgia. **Summary** There is no broad consensus that the 2024 election was fully free and fair. While the ruling party contends the process was democratic and technologically secure, independent monitors concluded that significant procedural flaws, voter intimidation, and structural advantages for the government compromised the overall integrity and fairness of the election. **Original text** Whether Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is a subject of intense dispute both within Georgia and among international observers. While the official results certified by the Central Election Commission (CEC) gave a majority to the ruling Georgian Dream party, the legitimacy of the outcome has been rejected by the country's president and main opposition coalitions, and international observation missions reported significant irregularities. Here is an overview of the key perspectives and findings: **Findings of International Observers** The primary international monitoring mission—led by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (**OSCE/ODIHR**), alongside delegations from the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and NATO—described the election as technically well-administered and competitive, but heavily compromised by an uneven playing field and widespread pressure on voters. Key points noted by observers included: * **Technical Administration:** The election was generally organized well on an operational level, and the widespread use of electronic voting machines functioned largely as intended. Voters were offered a wide range of political choices. * **Unequal Playing Field:** Observers highlighted a significant imbalance in financial and state resources favoring the ruling party, along with biased media coverage. * **Voter Pressure and Intimidation:** Missions reported widespread pressure, surveillance, and coercion, particularly directed at public sector employees and socially vulnerable citizens. * **Compromised Ballot Secrecy:** Numerous observers, including local non-governmental organizations, reported that the secrecy of the ballot was frequently compromised, both through the placement of cameras and paper ballots that were visible through privacy folders. * **Pre-election Climate:** The campaign took place in an environment marked by deep polarization, polarizing rhetoric, and the passage of controversial legislation—such as the "foreign agents" law—which observers noted had a chilling effect on civil society and independent media. **The Stance of the Ruling Party (Georgian Dream)** - **Legitimate Victory:** Georgian Dream, which officially secured approximately 54% of the vote, maintained that the election was completely legitimate, transparent, and reflective of the will of the Georgian people. - **Technical Integrity:** The government pointed to the introduction of electronic voter verification and counting systems across approximately 90% of polling stations as proof of transparency and a safeguard against traditional methods of fraud, such as ballot stuffing. - **Counter-allegations:** Ruling party officials accused the opposition and foreign actors of attempting to orchestrate an unconstitutional power grab and delegitimize a democratic process because the outcome did not align with Western preferences. **The Stance of the Opposition and the President** - **Rejection of Results:** All four major pro-Western opposition coalitions that crossed the 5% threshold rejected the official results, declared the parliament illegitimate, and announced boycotts of the legislative body. - **Systemic Fraud Allegations:** Opposition leaders and local monitoring groups (such as ISFED and the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association) alleged widespread, coordinated manipulation, including confiscation of identity documents, "carousel voting" (voters casting ballots at multiple precincts), and physical intimidation inside and outside polling stations. - **Presidential Condemnation:** Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili publicly denounced the election, calling the result the product of a "Russian special operation" aimed at pulling Georgia back into Moscow's sphere of influence, and called on citizens to protest. **Reactions from the International Community** - **The European Union:** EU leaders and foreign policy officials expressed "serious concerns" over the reported irregularities and the compromised secrecy of the vote. The EU called for an independent, transparent, and swift investigation into all reported violations. Several European governments indicated that the conduct of the election further stalled Georgia's accession process to the EU. - **The United States:** The U.S. State Department echoed the OSCE/ODIHR findings, condemning abuses of state resources, voter intimidation, and vote-buying. The U.S. stopped short of outright declaring the election invalid, but joined the EU in demanding an impartial investigation into the alleged misconduct. - **Other Nations:** Countries such as Hungary, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey promptly congratulated Georgian Dream on its victory, while Russian officials rejected accusations of meddling and accused Western nations of attempting to destabilize Georgia. **Summary** There is no broad consensus that the 2024 election was fully free and fair. While the ruling party contends the process was democratic and technologically secure, independent monitors concluded that significant procedural flaws, voter intimidation, and structural advantages for the government compromised the overall integrity and fairness of the election. #### English — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** Whether Georgia’s October 26, 2024, parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is a subject of intense controversy. While the election was formally competitive and technically administered without a complete administrative collapse, **major international and domestic election monitors, the European Union, and the United States stopped short of calling it fully free and fair**, pointing to severe structural irregularities, intimidation, and an uneven playing field. The ruling party, **Georgian Dream**, declared a decisive victory (officially winning roughly 54% of the vote) and insists the process was democratic. However, the Georgian opposition, the country’s pro-Western president, and local watchdog groups rejected the results, alleging widespread fraud and Russian-style interference. Here is a breakdown of the key assessments: --- **1. The Findings of International Monitors (OSCE/ODIHR)** The joint observation mission—led by the **OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)**, alongside delegations from the European Parliament, PACE, and NATO PA—delivered a nuanced but critical preliminary assessment: * **Positive aspects:** The technical administration of the election was generally well-managed, voter turnout was robust, and voters were presented with a wide and diverse choice of political alternatives. * **Serious concerns:** The mission highlighted an **uneven playing field** that fundamentally favored the ruling party. Key issues included: * Widespread reports of **voter intimidation and coercion**, particularly targeting public sector employees and economically vulnerable citizens. * Systematic **abuse of administrative resources** and state funds to benefit the ruling party. * **Violations of ballot secrecy**, partly caused by issues with newly introduced electronic voting machines and cameras positioned inside polling stations. * Intense polarization and media bias heavily skewed toward the incumbent government. Because of these pervasive conditions, the monitors concluded that the environment compromised voters' ability to cast a ballot free from fear of retribution. --- **2. Domestic Monitors and Local Watchdogs** Domestic election observation organizations took a significantly harsher stance: * Groups such as the **International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED)** and the **Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA)** reported systemic violations. * Key allegations included physical violence outside polling stations, organized "carousel voting" (where individuals vote multiple times), confiscation of ID cards prior to the election, and blatant breaches of the secret ballot. * Several prominent local NGOs stated that the scale of the irregularities fundamentally altered the outcome and meant the results **did not reflect the true will of the Georgian people**. --- **3. Domestic Political Reaction** * **The Opposition and President:** Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili and all four major opposition coalitions refused to recognize the results, labeling the election a "constitutional coup" and a "Russian special operation." Opposition parties announced boycotts of the new parliament and organized mass public protests. * **The Ruling Party (Georgian Dream):** Georgian Dream maintained that the election was clean, transparent, and a triumph of the Georgian people’s desire for peace and stability over involvement in regional conflicts. They dismissed the opposition’s allegations as standard tactics by "sore losers" attempting to destabilize the country. --- **4. International Reactions** * **The European Union and the United States:** Both expressed deep concern over the reported irregularities. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell called for a thorough, transparent, and independent investigation into all election-related violations and refused to endorse the results unconditionally. The outcome further stalled Georgia's EU accession process. * **Divergent Views:** Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán swiftly traveled to Tbilisi to congratulate Georgian Dream, declaring the election free and fair. Meanwhile, Russian officials welcomed the results and accused Western powers of attempting an unconstitutional power grab in Georgia. --- **Conclusion** In strict technical terms, the election allowed multiple parties on the ballot and utilized electronic voting systems. However, **credible international and domestic observers concluded that the overall process fell significantly short of international democratic standards.** The pervasive climate of intimidation, state-sponsored pressure, and compromised ballot secrecy prevent the 2024 election from being widely accepted as genuinely free and fair. **Original text** Whether Georgia’s October 26, 2024, parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is a subject of intense controversy. While the election was formally competitive and technically administered without a complete administrative collapse, **major international and domestic election monitors, the European Union, and the United States stopped short of calling it fully free and fair**, pointing to severe structural irregularities, intimidation, and an uneven playing field. The ruling party, **Georgian Dream**, declared a decisive victory (officially winning roughly 54% of the vote) and insists the process was democratic. However, the Georgian opposition, the country’s pro-Western president, and local watchdog groups rejected the results, alleging widespread fraud and Russian-style interference. Here is a breakdown of the key assessments: --- **1. The Findings of International Monitors (OSCE/ODIHR)** The joint observation mission—led by the **OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)**, alongside delegations from the European Parliament, PACE, and NATO PA—delivered a nuanced but critical preliminary assessment: * **Positive aspects:** The technical administration of the election was generally well-managed, voter turnout was robust, and voters were presented with a wide and diverse choice of political alternatives. * **Serious concerns:** The mission highlighted an **uneven playing field** that fundamentally favored the ruling party. Key issues included: * Widespread reports of **voter intimidation and coercion**, particularly targeting public sector employees and economically vulnerable citizens. * Systematic **abuse of administrative resources** and state funds to benefit the ruling party. * **Violations of ballot secrecy**, partly caused by issues with newly introduced electronic voting machines and cameras positioned inside polling stations. * Intense polarization and media bias heavily skewed toward the incumbent government. Because of these pervasive conditions, the monitors concluded that the environment compromised voters' ability to cast a ballot free from fear of retribution. --- **2. Domestic Monitors and Local Watchdogs** Domestic election observation organizations took a significantly harsher stance: * Groups such as the **International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED)** and the **Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA)** reported systemic violations. * Key allegations included physical violence outside polling stations, organized "carousel voting" (where individuals vote multiple times), confiscation of ID cards prior to the election, and blatant breaches of the secret ballot. * Several prominent local NGOs stated that the scale of the irregularities fundamentally altered the outcome and meant the results **did not reflect the true will of the Georgian people**. --- **3. Domestic Political Reaction** * **The Opposition and President:** Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili and all four major opposition coalitions refused to recognize the results, labeling the election a "constitutional coup" and a "Russian special operation." Opposition parties announced boycotts of the new parliament and organized mass public protests. * **The Ruling Party (Georgian Dream):** Georgian Dream maintained that the election was clean, transparent, and a triumph of the Georgian people’s desire for peace and stability over involvement in regional conflicts. They dismissed the opposition’s allegations as standard tactics by "sore losers" attempting to destabilize the country. --- **4. International Reactions** * **The European Union and the United States:** Both expressed deep concern over the reported irregularities. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell called for a thorough, transparent, and independent investigation into all election-related violations and refused to endorse the results unconditionally. The outcome further stalled Georgia's EU accession process. * **Divergent Views:** Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán swiftly traveled to Tbilisi to congratulate Georgian Dream, declaring the election free and fair. Meanwhile, Russian officials welcomed the results and accused Western powers of attempting an unconstitutional power grab in Georgia. --- **Conclusion** In strict technical terms, the election allowed multiple parties on the ballot and utilized electronic voting systems. However, **credible international and domestic observers concluded that the overall process fell significantly short of international democratic standards.** The pervasive climate of intimidation, state-sponsored pressure, and compromised ballot secrecy prevent the 2024 election from being widely accepted as genuinely free and fair. #### Georgian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The issue of whether the October 26, 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia were conducted in a free and fair environment **is a subject of sharp confrontation and differing assessments** both within the country and on the international arena. The parties' positions regarding the legitimacy of the elections differ radically. Below are the assessments of key actors, observation missions, and the international community: --- **1. International Observation Missions (OSCE/ODIHR and others)** The joint observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), the European Parliament, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe assessed the elections as: * **Technically well-administered:** It was noted that electronic technologies were widely and successfully used in the process. * **Unequal and polarized environment:** Observers emphasized that the electoral environment was characterized by deep polarization, large-scale use of administrative resources in favor of the ruling party, and pressure and intimidation on voters (especially public sector employees). * **Violation of secrecy:** On polling day, cases of violation of the secrecy of the vote were highlighted (due to the marker's trace leaking to the back of the special ballots). For these reasons, Western observation missions refrained from calling the elections "fully free and fair" and revealed systemic flaws. --- **2. Local Observation Organizations** Georgian non-governmental organizations (for example, "International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy" (ISFED), "Georgian Young Lawyers' Association" (GYLA), coalition "My Voice"): * Stated that the elections **did not reflect the free will of the Georgian people**. * Focused on the systemic violation of the secrecy of the vote, voter bribery, confiscation of ID cards, and violent incidents at polling stations. * GYLA demanded the annulment of the results of hundreds of precincts due to mass violations of the secrecy of the vote (which the courts, with few exceptions, did not satisfy). --- **3. The Government of Georgia and the Ruling Party ("Georgian Dream")** * The ruling party and the Central Election Commission (CEC) assessed the elections as **democratic, free, competitive, and transparent**. * They emphasized the use of electronic systems, which, according to them, excluded manipulations (e.g., "carousels" or ballot box stuffing). * They called the violations isolated and insignificant cases that did not affect the final results of the elections (according to official data, "Georgian Dream" received nearly 54% of the votes). --- **4. The Opposition and the President of Georgia** * Opposition coalitions and President Salome Zourabichvili **declared the election results illegitimate and rigged**. * They called the process a "special operation" and stated that a multi-level rigging scheme had been used. * Opposition parties that crossed the threshold refused their parliamentary mandates and launched protest rallies demanding new elections. --- **5. International Reaction** * **The European Union and the USA:** Expressed deep concern over the recorded violations, refused to unconditionally recognize the results, and demanded an independent and transparent investigation into all violations. * **Some countries** (for example, Hungary, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, China): Congratulated the ruling party on the victory and recognized the results as legitimate. --- **Summary** Thus, **there is no unified consensus** on whether the elections were free and fair: * **In the view of official agencies and the ruling party:** The elections were fair and the results are legitimate. * **In the assessment of the opposition, the president, local observation organizations, and Western partners:** The electoral process was damaged by the violation of secrecy, pressure on voters, unequal conditions, and violations, due to which the fairness of the elections and the reliability of the results are under serious doubt. **Original text** 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საქართველოს საპარლამენტო არჩევნების თავისუფალ და სამართლიან გარემოში ჩატარების საკითხი ქვეყნის შიგნით და საერთაშორისო ასპარეზზე **მკვეთრი დაპირისპირებისა და განსხვავებული შეფასებების საგანია**. არჩევნების ლეგიტიმურობასთან დაკავშირებით მხარეების პოზიციები რადიკალურად განსხვავდება. ქვემოთ მოყვანილია ძირითადი აქტორების, სადამკვირვებლო მისიებისა და საერთაშორისო საზოგადოების შეფასებები: --- **1. საერთაშორისო სადამკვირვებლო მისიები (ეუთო/ოდირი და სხვები)** ეუთოს დემოკრატიული ინსტიტუტებისა და ადამიანის უფლებების ოფისის (OSCE/ODIHR), ევროპარლამენტისა და ევროპის საბჭოს საპარლამენტო ასამბლეის ერთობლივმა სადამკვირვებლო მისიამ არჩევნები შეაფასა როგორც: * **ტექნიკურად კარგად ადმინისტრირებული:** აღინიშნა, რომ პროცესში ფართოდ და წარმატებით იყო გამოყენებული ელექტრონული ტექნოლოგიები. * **არათანაბარი და პოლარიზებული გარემო:** დამკვირვებლებმა ხაზი გაუსვეს, რომ საარჩევნო გარემო ხასიათდებოდა ღრმა პოლარიზაციით, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსის მასშტაბური გამოყენებით მმართველი პარტიის სასარგებლოდ, ამომრჩევლებზე (განსაკუთრებით საჯარო სექტორის თანამშრომლებზე) ზეწოლითა და დაშინებით. * **ფარულობის დარღვევა:** კენჭისყრის დღეს გამოიკვეთა ხმის მიცემის ფარულობის დარღვევის შემთხვევები (სპეციალურ ბიულეტენებზე მარკერის კვალის უკანა მხარეს გაჟონვის გამო). ამ მიზეზების გამო, დასავლურმა სადამკვირვებლო მისიებმა თავი შეიკავეს არჩევნებისთვის „სრულად თავისუფალი და სამართლიანის“ წოდებისგან და გამოავლინეს სისტემური ხარვეზები. --- **2. ადგილობრივი სადამკვირვებლო ორგანიზაციები** ქართულმა არასამთავრობო ორგანიზაციებმა (მაგალითად, „სამართლიანი არჩევნები“ (ISFED), „საქართველოს ახალგაზრდა იურისტთა ასოციაცია“ (საია), კოალიცია „ჩემი ხმა“): * განაცხადეს, რომ არჩევნები **არ ასახავდა ქართველი ხალხის თავისუფალ ნებას**. * ყურადღება გაამახვილეს ხმის ფარულობის სისტემურ დარღვევაზე, ამომრჩეველთა მოსყიდვაზე, პირადობის მოწმობების ჩამორთმევასა და საარჩევნო უბნებზე მომხდარ ძალადობრივ ინციდენტებზე. * საიამ მოითხოვა ასობით უბნის შედეგების გაუქმება ხმის ფარულობის მასობრივი დარღვევის გამო (რაც სასამართლოებმა, ერთეული გამონაკლისების გარდა, არ დააკმაყოფილეს). --- **3. საქართველოს ხელისუფლება და მმართველი პარტია („ქართული ოცნება“)** * მმართველმა პარტიამ და ცენტრალურმა საარჩევნო კომისიამ (ცესკო) არჩევნები შეაფასეს როგორც **დემოკრატიული, თავისუფალი, კონკურენტული და გამჭვირვალე**. * მათ ხაზი გაუსვეს ელექტრონული სისტემების გამოყენებას, რაც მათი თქმით, გამორიცხავდა მანიპულაციებს (მაგ. „კარუსელებს“ ან ბიულეტენების ჩაყრას). * დარღვევებს უწოდეს იზოლირებული და უმნიშვნელო შემთხვევები, რომლებსაც გავლენა არ მოუხდენია არჩევნების საბოლოო შედეგებზე (ოფიციალური მონაცემებით, „ქართულმა ოცნებამ“ ხმების თითქმის 54% მიიღო). --- **4. ოპოზიცია და საქართველოს პრეზიდენტი** * ოპოზიციურმა კოალიციებმა და პრეზიდენტმა სალომე ზურაბიშვილმა არჩევნების შედეგები **არალეგიტიმურად და გაყალბებულად გამოაცხადეს**. * მათ პროცესს უწოდეს „სპეციალური ოპერაცია“ და განაცხადეს, რომ გამოყენებული იყო მრავალდონიანი გაყალბების სქემა. * ბარიერგადალახულმა ოპოზიციურმა პარტიებმა უარი თქვეს საპარლამენტო მანდატებზე და დაიწყეს საპროტესტო აქციები ხელახალი არჩევნების მოთხოვნით. --- **5. საერთაშორისო რეაქცია** * **ევროკავშირმა და აშშ-მა:** გამოხატეს ღრმა შეშფოთება დაფიქსირებული დარღვევების გამო, უარი თქვეს შედეგების უპირობო აღიარებაზე და მოითხოვეს ყველა დარღვევის დამოუკიდებელი და გამჭვირვალე გამოძიება. * **ზოგიერთმა ქვეყანამ** (მაგალითად, უნგრეთმა, აზერბაიჯანმა, სომხეთმა, თურქეთმა, ჩინეთმა): გამარჯვება მიულოცა მმართველ პარტიას და შედეგები ლეგიტიმურად ცნო. --- **შეჯამება** ამრიგად, **არ არსებობს ერთიანი კონსენსუსი** იმის შესახებ, იყო თუ არა არჩევნები თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი: * **ოფიციალური უწყებებისა და მმართველი პარტიის პოზიციით:** არჩევნები იყო სამართლიანი და შედეგები ლეგიტიმურია. * **ოპოზიციის, პრეზიდენტის, ადგილობრივი სადამკვირვებლო ორგანიზაციებისა და დასავლელი პარტნიორების შეფასებით:** საარჩევნო პროცესი დაზიანებული იყო ფარულობის დარღვევით, ამომრჩეველზე ზეწოლით, უთანასწორო პირობებითა და დარღვევებით, რის გამოც არჩევნების სამართლიანობა და შედეგების სანდოობა სერიოზული ეჭვის ქვეშ დგას. #### Georgian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The issue of holding Georgia's October 26, 2024 parliamentary elections in a free and fair environment is **the subject of sharp confrontation and divergent assessments**, both within the country and at the international level. There are several main positions on this issue: **1. Assessment of International Observation Missions (OSCE/ODIHR and others)** According to the preliminary report of the joint observation mission of OSCE/ODIHR, the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly: * **Technical aspect:** The elections were well-organized administratively, voters had a diverse choice (a broad political spectrum), and the electoral process generally took place in a peaceful environment. * **Violations and unequal environment:** At the same regard, observers noted that the elections were held **against the background of tense polarization, pressure on voters (especially public sector employees), vote buying, and intimidation**. * **Violation of the secrecy of the vote:** Large-scale cases of violation of the secrecy of voting were identified (due to marker traces showing through on the ballots of electronic devices). * **Unequal conditions:** There was a significant imbalance of resources between the ruling party and the opposition, which created an unequal electoral environment. **2. Position of Local Observation Organizations** Georgian non-governmental organizations (e.g., "Fair Elections" (ISFED), "Georgian Young Lawyers' Association" (GYLA), coalition "My Vote") assessed the elections as unauthorized and unfair. Their main arguments are: * **Systemic violation of the secrecy of the vote:** It was precisely on this ground that GYLA demanded the annulment of the results of hundreds of precincts. * **Pressure and confiscation of ID cards:** Numerous facts of confiscation of ID cards from citizens, "carousels", and registration of voters by coordinators near polling stations were recorded. **3. Position of the Opposition and the President** Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili and all four opposition coalitions that crossed the threshold: * Declared the election results **illegitimate and falsified**. * Refused to enter parliament and take up mandates. * Called what happened "total falsification" and a "Russian special operation," launched protest rallies, and demanded new elections under international administration. **4. Position of the Authorities ("Georgian Dream") and the CEC** The ruling party and the Central Election Commission: * Assessed the elections as **completely free, fair, transparent, and competitive**. * Noted that the use of electronic technologies (which covered 90% of voters) minimized the risks of falsification. * Called the opposition's accusations disinformation and speculation caused by defeat. **5. International Political Reaction** * **USA and the European Union:** Did not clearly recognize the results, expressed deep concern over the recorded violations, and demanded an independent, transparent investigation of all suspicious cases. The European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for non-recognition of the election results and the holding of new elections. * **Other countries:** Some states (e.g., Hungary, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia) congratulated the ruling party on its victory. **Summary:** According to official data, "Georgian Dream" won the elections; however, due to critical assessments by the local civil sector, the entire pro-Western opposition, and Western partners, **the holding of the elections in a generally free and fair environment is not universally recognized** and remains the cause of an acute political crisis in the country. **Original text** საქართველოს 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნების თავისუფალ და სამართლიან გარემოში ჩატარების საკითხი **მკვეთრი დაპირისპირებისა და განსხვავებული შეფასებების საგანია** როგორც ქვეყნის შიგნით, ისე საერთაშორისო დონეზე. ამ საკითხზე არსებობს რამდენიმე ძირითადი პოზიცია: **1. საერთაშორისო სადამკვირვებლო მისიების შეფასება (OSCE/ODIHR და სხვები)** ეუთო/ოდირის (OSCE/ODIHR), ევროპარლამენტის, ევროსაბჭოსა და ნატოს საპარლამენტო ასამბლეების ერთობლივი სადამკვირვებლო მისიის წინასწარი დასკვნით: * **ტექნიკური მხარე:** არჩევნები ადმინისტრაციულად კარგად იყო ორგანიზებული, ამომრჩეველს ჰქონდა მრავალფეროვანი არჩევანი (ფართო პოლიტიკური სპექტრი) და საარჩევნო პროცესი ზოგადად მშვიდ ვითარებაში წარიმართა. * **დარღვევები და უთანასწორო გარემო:** ამავდროულად, დამკვირვებლებმა აღნიშნეს, რომ არჩევნები ჩატარდა **დაძაბული პოლარიზაციის, ამომრჩევლებზე (განსაკუთრებით საჯარო სექტორის თანამშრომლებზე) ზეწოლის, ხმების მოსყიდვისა და დაშინების ფონზე**. * **ხმის ფარულობის დარღვევა:** გამოიკვეთა ხმის მიცემის ფარულობის დარღვევის მასშტაბური შემთხვევები (ელექტრონული აპარატების ბიულეტენებზე მარკერის კვალის გამოჩენის გამო). * **უთანასწორო პირობები:** მმართველ პარტიასა და ოპოზიციას შორის რესურსების მნიშვნელოვანი დისბალანსი იყო, რამაც შექმნა არათანაბარი საარჩევნო გარემო. **2. ადგილობრივი სადამკვირვებლო ორგანიზაციების პოზიცია** ქართულმა არასამთავრობო ორგანიზაციებმა (მაგ., „სამართლიანი არჩევნები“ (ISFED), „საქართველოს ახალგაზრდა იურისტთა ასოციაცია“ (საია), კოალიცია „ჩემი ხმა“) არჩევნები შეაფასეს, როგორც არაუფლებამოსილი და უსამართლო. მათი ძირითადი არგუმენტებია: * **ხმის ფარულობის სისტემური დარღვევა:** საიამ სწორედ ამ მოტივით მოითხოვა ასობით უბნის შედეგების გაუქმება. * **ზეწოლა და პირადობის მოწმობების ჩამორთმევა:** დაფიქსირდა მოქალაქეებისგან პირადობის მოწმობების ჩამორთმევის, „კარუსელების“ და საარჩევნო უბნებთან კოორდინატორების მიერ ამომრჩეველთა აღრიცხვის მრავალი ფაქტი. **3. ოპოზიციისა და პრეზიდენტის პოზიცია** საქართველოს პრეზიდენტმა სალომე ზურაბიშვილმა და ბარიერგადალახულმა ოთხივე ოპოზიციურმა გაერთიანებამ: * არჩევნების შედეგები **არალეგიტიმურად და გაყალბებულად** გამოაცხადეს. * უარი თქვეს პარლამენტში შესვლასა და მანდატების მიღებაზე. * მომხდარს უწოდეს „ტოტალური გაყალბება“ და „რუსული სპეცოპერაცია“, დაიწყეს საპროტესტო აქციები და მოითხოვეს ახალი არჩევნების დანიშვნა საერთაშორისო ადმინისტრირებით. **4. ხელისუფლების („ქართული ოცნება“) და ცესკოს პოზიცია** მმართველმა პარტიამ და ცენტრალურმა საარჩევნო კომისიამ: * არჩევნები შეაფასეს, როგორც **სრულიად თავისუფალი, სამართლიანი, გამჭვირვალე და კონკურენტული**. * აღნიშნეს, რომ ელექტრონული ტექნოლოგიების გამოყენებამ (რაც ამომრჩეველთა 90%-ს შეეხო) მინიმუმამდე დაიყვანა გაყალბების რისკები. * ოპოზიციის ბრალდებებს უწოდეს დამარცხებით გამოწვეული დეზინფორმაცია და სპეკულაცია. **5. საერთაშორისო პოლიტიკური რეაქცია** * **აშშ და ევროკავშირი:** მკაფიოდ არ უღიარებიათ შედეგები, გამოთქვეს ღრმა შეშფოთება დაფიქსირებული დარღვევების გამო და მოითხოვეს ყველა საეჭვო შემთხვევის დამოუკიდებელი, გამჭვირვალე გამოძიება. ევროპარლამენტმა მიიღო რეზოლუცია, რომელიც არჩევნების შედეგების არცნობისა და ახალი არჩევნების ჩატარებისკენ მოუწოდებს. * **სხვა ქვეყნები:** ზოგიერთმა სახელმწიფომ (მაგ., უნგრეთი, თურქეთი, აზერბაიჯანი, სომხეთი, რუსეთი) მმართველ პარტიას გამარჯვება მიულოცა. **შეჯამება:** ოფიციალური მონაცემებით არჩევნებში „ქართულმა ოცნებამ“ გაიმარჯვა, თუმცა ადგილობრივი სამოქალაქო სექტორის, მთელი პროდასავლური ოპოზიციისა და დასავლელი პარტნიორების კრიტიკული შეფასებების გამო, არჩევნების **ზოგადად თავისუფალ და სამართლიან გარემოში ჩატარება საყოველთაოდ აღიარებული არ არის** და ქვეყანაში რჩება მწვავე პოლიტიკური კრიზისის მიზეზად. #### Georgian — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The assessment of the October 26, 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia is extremely diverse and polarized. The ruling team, the opposition, local observation organizations, and international partners hold sharply differing positions on the question of whether the elections were generally free and fair. Below are the assessments and arguments of the main parties: **1. Assessment of International Observers (OSCE/ODIHR and Others)** The joint preliminary report of the OSCE/ODIHR, the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly notes that: * **Technical Aspect:** The election day was generally well-organized administratively and technically, with the new electronic systems mostly functioning properly. * **Environment and Violations:** However, the process took place in an **unequal environment**, which undermined trust in the final outcome. Observers noted: * The large-scale use of administrative resources by the ruling party; * Pressure and intimidation on voters (especially public sector employees); * Frequent cases of violations of the secrecy of the vote; * Legislation adopted during the pre-election period (e.g., the law on "Transparency of Foreign Influence"), which had a negative impact on the civil sector and media. International observation missions did not directly assess the elections as fully "free and fair." **2. Local Observation Organizations** Local non-governmental organizations (for example, the "Georgian Young Lawyers' Association" (GYLA), "Fair Elections" (ISFED), the "My Vote" coalition) assessed the elections negatively and stated that the violations were of a systemic nature: * **Violation of the Secrecy of the Vote:** GYLA's main argument was that the mark of the marker was visible on the back of the ballots, which violated the principle of the secrecy of voting guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia. On these grounds, the organization demanded the annulment of the results of hundreds of precincts. * **Carousels and Confiscation of ID Cards:** Facts of voting with someone else's personal data, violation of marking rules, and control of the voter's will were recorded. **3. Opposition and the President of Georgia** * The pro-Western opposition parties that crossed the threshold and President Salome Zourabichvili **do not recognize** the election results, calling them "captured" and "illegitimate." * They state that total falsification of the elections took place and refuse their parliamentary mandates. * Their demand is an international investigation of the election results and the holding of repeat elections under international administration. **4. Ruling Party ("Georgian Dream")** * The ruling party believes that the elections were **completely free, fair, and competitive**. * According to their statement, 90% of voters voted using electronic systems, which ruled out any manipulation and systemic falsification. * "Georgian Dream" calls the accusations of the opposition and the non-governmental sector baseless, assessing them as disinformation caused by defeat in the elections and attempts to destabilize the country. **5. Reaction of Western Partners (USA, European Union)** * **The USA and EU countries** expressed deep concern over the recorded violations. * They called on the authorities to conduct a transparent, independent, and comprehensive investigation into all electoral violations. * A number of European Union leaders and the European Parliament stated that against the backdrop of existing violations, the elections did not meet the standards of an EU candidate country, which resulted in the de-facto suspension of Georgia's European integration process. **Summary:** Although the authorities consider the elections to be fully legitimate and fair, according to the assessments of the majority of international and local observers, Western institutions, and the opposition, **the elections were not fully free and fair**. The process was accompanied by an unequal pre-election environment, pressure on voters, and mass violations of the secrecy of the vote, which severely called into question the legitimacy of the election results in society and the international arena. **Original text** 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საქართველოს საპარლამენტო არჩევნების შეფასება უკიდურესად არაერთგვაროვანი და პოლარიზებულია. საკითხზე, იყო თუ არა არჩევნები ზოგადად თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი, მკვეთრად განსხვავებული პოზიციები აქვთ მმართველ გუნდს, ოპოზიციას, ადგილობრივ სადამკვირვებლო ორგანიზაციებსა და საერთაშორისო პარტნიორებს. ქვემოთ მოცემულია ძირითადი მხარეების შეფასებები და არგუმენტები: **1. საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლების შეფასება (ეუთო/ოდირი და სხვები)** ეუთო/ოდირის (OSCE/ODIHR), ევროპარლამენტის, ევროსაბჭოს საპარლამენტო ასამბლეისა და ნატოს საპარლამენტო ასამბლეის ერთობლივ წინასწარ ანგარიშში აღნიშნულია, რომ: * **ტექნიკური მხარე:** არჩევნების დღე ადმინისტრაციულად და ტექნიკურად ზოგადად კარგად იყო ორგანიზებული, ახალი ელექტრონული სისტემები უმეტესად გამართულად მუშაობდა. * **გარემო და დარღვევები:** თუმცა, პროცესი წარიმართა **უთანასწორო გარემოში**, რაც ძირს უთხრიდა საბოლოო შედეგისადმი ნდობას. დამკვირვებლებმა აღნიშნეს: * მმართველი პარტიის მიერ ადმინისტრაციული რესურსის მასშტაბური გამოყენება; * ამომრჩევლებზე (განსაკუთრებით საჯარო სექტორის თანამშრომლებზე) ზეწოლა და დაშინება; * ხმის ფარულობის დარღვევის ხშირი შემთხვევები; * წინასაარჩევნო პერიოდში მიღებული კანონმდებლობა (მაგ., „უცხოური გავლენის გამჭვირვალობის შესახებ“ კანონი), რამაც უარყოფითი გავლენა მოახდინა სამოქალაქო სექტორსა და მედიაზე. საერთაშორისო სადამკვირვებლო მისიებს არჩევნები პირდაპირ არ შეუფასებიათ, როგორც სრულად „თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი“. **2. ადგილობრივი სადამკვირვებლო ორგანიზაციები** ადგილობრივმა არასამთავრობო ორგანიზაციებმა (მაგალითად, „საქართველოს ახალგაზრდა იურისტთა ასოციაცია“ (საია), „სამართლიანი არჩევნები“ (ISFED), კოალიცია „ჩემი ხმა“) არჩევნები უარყოფითად შეაფასეს და განაცხადეს, რომ დარღვევებს სისტემური ხასიათი ჰქონდა: * **ხმის ფარულობის დარღვევა:** საიას მთავარი არგუმენტი გახდა ის, რომ ბიულეტენების უკანა მხარეს მარკერის კვალი ჩანდა, რაც არღვევდა საქართველოს კონსტიტუციით გარანტირებულ ხმის მიცემის ფარულობის პრინციპს. ორგანიზაციამ ამ მოტივით ასობით უბნის შედეგების გაუქმება მოითხოვა. * **კარუსელები და პირადობის მოწმობების ჩამორთმევა:** დაფიქსირდა სხვისი პირადი მონაცემებით ხმის მიცემის, მარკირების წესის დარღვევისა და ამომრჩევლის ნების კონტროლის ფაქტები. **3. ოპოზიცია და საქართველოს პრეზიდენტი** * პროდასავლური ოპოზიციური ბარიერგადალახული პარტიები და პრეზიდენტი სალომე ზურაბიშვილი არჩევნების შედეგებს **არ აღიარებენ**, მას „მიტაცებულს“ და „არალეგიტიმურს“ უწოდებენ. * ისინი აცხადებენ, რომ მოხდა არჩევნების ტოტალური გაყალბება და უარს ამბობენ საპარლამენტო მანდატებზე. * მათი მოთხოვნაა არჩევნების შედეგების საერთაშორისო გამოძიება და ხელახალი არჩევნების ჩატარება საერთაშორისო ადმინისტრირებით. **4. მმართველი პარტია („ქართული ოცნება“)** * მმართველი პარტია მიიჩნევს, რომ არჩევნები იყო **სრულიად თავისუფალი, სამართლიანი და კონკურენტული**. * მათი განცხადებით, ამომრჩეველთა 90%-მა ხმა მისცა ელექტრონული სისტემებით, რაც ყოველგვარ მანიპულაციას და სისტემურ გაყალბებას გამორიცხავდა. * „ქართული ოცნება“ ოპოზიციისა და არასამთავრობო სექტორის ბრალდებებს უსაფუძვლოს უწოდებს და მათ არჩევნებში დამარცხებით გამოწვეულ დეზინფორმაციად და ქვეყნის დესტაბილიზაციის მცდელობად აფასებს. **5. დასავლელი პარტნიორების რეაქცია (აშშ, ევროკავშირი)** * **აშშ-მა და ევროკავშირის ქვეყნებმა** გამოხატეს ღრმა შეშფოთება დაფიქსირებული დარღვევების გამო. * მათ ხელისუფლებას მოუწოდეს ყველა საარჩევნო დარღვევის გამჭვირვალე, დამოუკიდებელი და ყოველმხრივი გამოძიებისკენ. * ევროკავშირის არაერთმა ლიდერმა და ევროპარლამენტმა განაცხადეს, რომ არსებული დარღვევების ფონზე, არჩევნები არ შეესაბამებოდა ევროკავშირის კანდიდატი ქვეყნის სტანდარტებს, რამაც საქართველოს ევროინტეგრაციის პროცესის დე-ფაქტო შეჩერება გამოიწვია. **შეჯამება:** მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ხელისუფლება არჩევნებს სრულად ლეგიტიმურად და სამართლიანად მიიჩნევს, საერთაშორისო და ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებლების უმრავლესობის, დასავლური ინსტიტუტებისა და ოპოზიციის შეფასებით, **არჩევნები არ ყოფილა სრულად თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი**. პროცესს თან ახლდა უთანასწორო წინასაარჩევნო გარემო, ზეწოლა ამომრჩეველზე და ხმის ფარულობის მასობრივი დარღვევა, რამაც საზოგადოებასა და საერთაშორისო არენაზე არჩევნების შედეგების ლეგიტიმურობა სერიოზული ეჭვქვეშ დააყენა. #### Russian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The question of whether the parliamentary elections in Georgia on October 26, 2024, were free and fair is a matter of **sharp dispute**, and there is no unanimous consensus on it. The official authorities declared a fair victory, yet international observers, Western countries, the President of Georgia, and the opposition pointed to large-scale violations that undermined trust in the electoral process. Below are the key assessments from various sides: --- **1. Assessment of International Observers (OSCE/ODIHR, PACE, European Parliament, NATO PA)** The observer mission under the auspices of the OSCE presented a complex and critical report. The observers **did not call the elections fully falsified, nor did they recognize them as fully free and fair**: * **Technical aspect:** The elections were generally organized efficiently, voters were offered a wide choice of candidates (18 party lists were represented), and the introduction of new electronic vote-counting technologies went mostly smoothly. * **Unequal conditions and pressure:** The observers emphasized that the campaign took place in an environment of deep polarization and a clear advantage for the ruling "Georgian Dream" party. The following were recorded: * Use of administrative resources in favor of the authorities. * Pressure on voters, especially public sector employees, and intimidation. * Vote buying and tracking of voters at polling stations. * Adoption shortly before the elections of controversial laws (for example, the law "On Transparency of Foreign Influence"), which restricted the activities of civil society. * **Violation of the secrecy of the vote:** In many cases, due to thin paper or the placement of ballot scanning devices, a voter's mark was visible from the reverse side, which violated the basic principle of the secrecy of the vote. **2. Position of Georgian Observers and Civil Society** Leading local monitoring organizations (ISFED, GYLA, "My Voice" coalition): * Stated that there were **large-scale and systemic violations** that significantly affected the outcome of the voting. * Pointed to carousel voting, physical violence near polling stations, confiscation of identity cards before the elections, and mass violations of the secrecy of the ballot. * A number of NGOs concluded that the election results do not reflect the true will of the Georgian people. **3. Position of the Opposition and the President of Georgia** * President Salome Zourabichvili and the main opposition alliances **refused to recognize the election results** (according to which "Georgian Dream" won about 54% of the vote). * They characterized the elections as a "Russian special operation," "totally falsified," and called for protests and a boycott of the work of the new parliament, demanding an international investigation and repeat elections. **4. Reaction of the International Community (USA, EU)** * **The USA and the European Union** refrained from congratulating "Georgian Dream" on its victory. Statements from the US Department of State and the EU's foreign policy service contained calls for a transparent and independent investigation into all violations recorded by observers. * Some European countries (for example, the Baltic states, Sweden) openly stated that the elections did not meet European democratic standards. * At the same time, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and representatives of several other countries (including Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia) congratulated the ruling party on its victory, calling the elections valid. **5. Position of the Georgian Authorities ("Georgian Dream")** * The party leadership and the CEC of Georgia stated that the elections were held at a high European level, openly, competitively, and in strict compliance with the legislation. * They called all allegations of falsifications baseless attempts by the radical opposition and external forces to destabilize the country. --- **Conclusion** If the elections are evaluated according to international standards: The voting process was **competitive and procedurally took place**, but the elections **cannot be called fully free and fair** due to unequal campaign conditions, systemic pressure on voters, the use of administrative resources, and violations of the secrecy of the vote, which, in the opinion of most authoritative observers, cast doubt on the fairness of the final result. **Original text** Вопрос о том, были ли парламентские выборы в Грузии 26 октября 2024 года свободными и справедливыми, вызывает **острые споры**, и однозначного консенсуса по нему нет. Официальные власти заявили о честной победе, однако международные наблюдатели, страны Запада, президент Грузии и оппозиция указали на масштабные нарушения, которые подорвали доверие к избирательному процессу. Ниже приведены ключевые оценки различных сторон: --- **1. Оценка международных наблюдателей (ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ, ПАСЕ, Европарламент, ПА НАТО)** Миссия наблюдателей под эгидой ОБСЕ представила сложный и критический отчет. Наблюдатели **не назвали выборы полностью фальсифицированными, но и не признали их полностью свободными и справедливыми**: * **Техническая сторона:** Выборы в целом были организованы эффективно, избирателям был предложен широкий выбор кандидатов (было представлено 18 партийных списков), а внедрение новых электронных технологий подсчета голосов прошло в основном гладко. * **Неравные условия и давление:** Наблюдатели подчеркнули, что кампания проходила в условиях глубокой поляризации и явного преимущества правящей партии «Грузинская мечта». Были зафиксированы: * Использование административного ресурса в пользу властей. * Давление на избирателей, особенно на бюджетников, и запугивание. * Подкуп голосов и отслеживание избирателей на участках. * Принятие незадолго до выборов противоречивых законов (например, закона «О прозрачности иностранного влияния»), которые ограничили деятельность гражданского общества. * **Нарушение тайны голосования:** Во многих случаях из-за тонкой бумаги или расположения аппаратов для считывания бюллетеней отметка избирателя была видна с обратной стороны, что нарушало базовый принцип тайны голосования. **2. Позиция грузинских наблюдателей и гражданского общества** Ведущие местные мониторинговые организации (ISFED, GYLA, коалиция «Мой голос»): * Заявили о **масштабных и системных нарушениях**, которые существенно повлияли на исход голосования. * Указали на карусели, физическое насилие возле участков, конфискацию удостоверений личности перед выборами и массовое нарушение тайны волеизъявления. * Ряд НКО пришли к выводу, что результаты выборов не отражают истинную волю грузинского народа. **3. Позиция оппозиции и Президента Грузии** * Президент Саломе Зурабишвили и основные оппозиционные альянсы **отказались признавать результаты выборов** (согласно которым «Грузинская мечта» набрала около 54% голосов). * Они охарактеризовали выборы как «российскую спецоперацию», «тотально сфальсифицированные» и призвали к акциям протеста и бойкоту работы нового парламента, потребовав международного расследования и проведения повторных выборов. **4. Реакция международного сообщества (США, ЕС)** * **США и Евросоюз** воздержались от поздравлений «Грузинской мечты» с победой. В заявлениях Госдепартамента США и внешнеполитической службы ЕС прозвучали призывы к прозрачному и независимому расследованию всех нарушений, зафиксированных наблюдателями. * Некоторые европейские страны (например, страны Балтии, Швеция) открыто заявили о том, что выборы не соответствовали европейским демократическим стандартам. * В то же время премьер-министр Венгрии Виктор Орбан и представители ряда других стран (включая Россию, Азербайджан, Армению) поздравили правящую партию с победой, назвав выборы состоявшимися. **5. Позиция властей Грузии («Грузинская мечта»)** * Руководство партии и ЦИК Грузии заявили, что выборы прошли на высоком европейском уровне, открыто, конкурентно и в строгом соответствии с законодательством. * Все обвинения в фальсификациях они назвали безосновательными попытками радикальной оппозиции и внешних сил дестабилизировать страну. --- **Итог** Если оценивать выборы по международным стандартам: Процесс голосования был **конкурентным и процедурно состоялся**, но выборы **нельзя назвать полностью свободными и справедливыми** из-за неравных условий кампании, системного давления на избирателей, использования административного ресурса и нарушений тайны голосования, которые, по мнению большинства авторитетных наблюдателей, поставили под сомнение честность итогового результата. #### Russian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The question of whether the parliamentary elections in Georgia on October 26, 2024, were free and fair is the subject of **fierce disputes and a profound political crisis**, both domestically and internationally. There is no single consensus: while the ruling party declares the elections to be fully legitimate, the opposition, the President of Georgia, and the majority of Western observers point to systemic violations that have undermined trust in the results. Below are the key assessments from various parties and observers: --- **1. Assessment of international observers (OSCE/ODIHR, PACE, European Parliament, NATO PA)** The joint mission of international observers presented a cautious, but critical conclusion. The report **did not explicitly state** that the elections were "free and fair." The observers noted: * **Positive points:** The elections were competitive, voters were offered a wide choice, turnout was high, and the voting process on election day was generally well-organized technically. * **Negative points (systemic violations):** * **Unequal conditions:** The ruling party ("Georgian Dream") made large-scale use of administrative resources. * **Pressure on voters:** Numerous cases of intimidation were recorded, particularly of public sector employees and socially vulnerable citizens. * **Violation of the secrecy of the vote:** The use of new electronic ballot boxes and thin ballot papers led to the voter's mark on the reverse side being visible to commission members and surveillance cameras. * **Vote-buying** and the tracking of voters near polling stations by party coordinators, which created an atmosphere of surveillance. * **Toxic context:** The elections took place against the backdrop of the adoption of controversial laws (on "foreign agents" / "transparency of foreign influence" and against LGBT propaganda), which restricted civil society. **2. Position of the Georgian opposition and the president** * **President Salome Zourabichvili** refused to recognize the election results, calling them a "total falsification" and a "Russian special operation," and called on citizens to take to street protests. * **The four main opposition coalitions** that crossed the threshold also rejected the results, accusing the authorities of stealing votes, refused to enter the new parliament, and demanded repeat elections under international supervision. * **Local monitoring organizations** (e.g., ISFED, Transparency International Georgia) reported large-scale falsification schemes (including multiple voting and manipulation of identity cards) and demanded the annulment of results at hundreds of polling stations. **3. Position of the ruling party ("Georgian Dream")** * The leaders of "Georgian Dream" declared their convincing victory (around 54% of the vote). * They insist that the elections were held in accordance with the highest European standards, and the electronic vote-counting system precluded the possibility of mass ballot stuffing. * The authorities described the opposition's accusations as an attempt to stage a coup and an unwillingness to accept defeat. **4. Reaction of the international community** * **The USA and the European Union:** Expressed serious concern over the observers' findings. EU leaders and the US Department of State stated that the elections did not meet the standards expected of an EU candidate country and called for an independent and transparent investigation into all recorded violations. The process of Georgia's European integration has effectively been frozen. * **Countries that recognized the results:** Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was the first to congratulate "Georgian Dream" and personally visited Tbilisi. The election results were also recognized by Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and China; representatives of Russia stated that there were no violations and no interference in the process. --- **Conclusion** If the elections are evaluated by strict democratic criteria: * The process **was not fully fair** due to a colossal imbalance of resources, an atmosphere of intimidation, pressure on civil servants, and violations of the secrecy of the vote. * The degree of **"freedom"** of expression was significantly restricted by pressure on voters, although legally alternative parties did participate in the elections. Most independent experts and Western institutions agree that **the violations committed were systemic in nature and seriously distorted the democratic character of the elections**, making it impossible to unambiguously characterize them as free and fair. **Original text** Вопрос о том, были ли парламентские выборы в Грузии 26 октября 2024 года свободными и справедливыми, является предметом **острейших споров и глубокого политического кризиса** как внутри страны, так и на международной арене. Единого консенсуса нет: если правящая партия заявляет о полной легитимности выборов, то оппозиция, президент Грузии и большинство западных наблюдателей указывают на системные нарушения, которые подорвали доверие к результатам. Ниже приведены ключевые оценки различных сторон и наблюдателей: --- **1. Оценка международных наблюдателей (ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ, ПАСЕ, Европарламент, ПА НАТО)** Совместная миссия международных наблюдателей представила осторожное, но критическое заключение. В отчете **не было прямого утверждения**, что выборы были «свободными и справедливыми». Наблюдатели отметили: * **Позитивные моменты:** Выборы были конкурентными, избирателям был предложен широкий выбор, явка была высокой, а процесс голосования в день выборов был в целом технически хорошо организован. * **Негативные моменты (системные нарушения):** * **Неравные условия:** Масштабное использование правящей партией («Грузинская мечта») административного ресурса. * **Давление на избирателей:** Зафиксированы многочисленные случаи запугивания, особенно работников бюджетной сферы и социально незащищенных граждан. * **Нарушение тайны голосования:** Использование новых электронных урн и тонких бюллетеней приводило к тому, что отметка избирателя с обратной стороны была видна членам комиссии и камерам наблюдения. * **Скупка голосов** и фиксация избирателей возле участков партийными координаторами, что создавало атмосферу слежки. * **Токсичный контекст:** Выборы проходили на фоне принятия спорных законов («об иноагентах»/«прозрачности иностранного влияния» и против ЛГБТ-пропаганды), что ограничило гражданское общество. **2. Позиция грузинской оппозиции и президента** * **Президент Саломе Зурабишвили** отказалась признать итоги выборов, назвав их «тотальной фальсификацией» и «российской спецоперацией», и призвала граждан к уличным протестам. * **Четыре основные оппозиционные коалиции**, преодолевшие барьер, также отвергли результаты, обвинив власть в краже голосов, отказались входить в новый парламент и потребовали проведения повторных выборов под международным контролем. * **Местные мониторинговые организации** (например, ISFED, Transparency International Georgia) заявили о масштабных схемах фальсификации (включая многократное голосование и манипуляции с удостоверениями личности) и потребовали аннулирования результатов на сотнях участков. **3. Позиция правящей партии («Грузинская мечта»)** * Лидеры «Грузинской мечты» заявили о своей убедительной победе (около 54% голосов). * Они настаивают, что выборы прошли в соответствии с высочайшими европейскими стандартами, а электронная система подсчета голосов исключала возможность массовых вбросов. * Обвинения оппозиции власть назвала попыткой устроить переворот и нежеланием смириться с поражением. **4. Реакция международного сообщества** * **США и Европейский союз:** Выразили серьезную обеспокоенность выводами наблюдателей. Лидеры ЕС и Госдепартамент США заявили, что выборы не соответствовали стандартам, ожидаемым от страны-кандидата в ЕС, и призвали к независимому и прозрачному расследованию всех зафиксированных нарушений. Процесс евроинтеграции Грузии был фактически заморожен. * **Страны, признавшие результаты:** Премьер-министр Венгрии Виктор Орбан первым поздравил «Грузинскую мечту» и лично посетил Тбилиси. Итоги выборов также были признаны Турцией, Азербайджаном, Арменией, Китаем; представители России заявили об отсутствии нарушений и невмешательстве в процесс. --- **Итог** Если оценивать выборы по строгим демократическим критериям: * Процесс **не был полностью справедливым** из-за колоссального дисбаланса ресурсов, атмосферы запугивания, давления на госслужащих и нарушения тайны голосования. * Степень **«свободы»** волеизъявления была существенно ограничена давлением на избирателей, хотя юридически альтернативные партии в выборах участвовали. Большинство независимых экспертов и западных институтов сходятся во мнении, что **допущенные нарушения носили системный характер и серьезно исказили демократический характер выборов**, не позволив однозначно охарактеризовать их как свободные и справедливые. #### Russian — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The question of whether the parliamentary elections in Georgia on October 26, 2024, were free and fair **has no unambiguous answer and has become the subject of a deep political crisis and polarization**. Assessments depend on the side of the conflict: the ruling party declares full legitimacy, while the opposition, the President of Georgia, local observers, and the majority of Western countries point to large-scale violations and unequal conditions. Below are the main positions and conclusions of key participants in the process: --- **1. Assessment of international observers (OSCE/ODIHR and others)** The international election observation mission (which included representatives from OSCE/ODIHR, PACE, the European Parliament, and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly) gave a **mixed, but critical assessment**: - **Technical side:** The elections were recognized as generally competitive and technically well-organized. Electronic ballot boxes and verification systems were used on a large scale for the first time. Voters were offered a wide choice of candidates. - **Violations and pressure:** Observers noted that the elections took place under conditions of an **"uneven playing field."** The report recorded: - Large-scale instances of vote buying and intimidation (especially of public sector employees). - Violation of the secrecy of the vote (cameras at polling stations, ballot design that allowed marks to be seen from the back). - Use of administrative resources by the ruling party. - Physical scuffles and tension near some polling stations. - The impact of recently adopted laws (such as the law "On Transparency of Foreign Influence," an analog of the foreign agents law), which worsened the climate for civil society and independent media. International organizations **refrained from a direct "free and fair" verdict**, urging Georgian authorities to conduct a transparent and thorough investigation into all violations. --- **2. Position of the opposition and the President of Georgia** * **Salome Zourabichvili (President of Georgia)** refused to recognize the election results, calling them a "total falsification" and a "Russian special operation," and called on citizens to take to street protests. * **The four main pro-Western opposition coalitions** ("Coalition for Change," "Unity — National Movement," "Strong Georgia," and "Gakharia for Georgia") also did not recognize the results, refused their parliamentary mandates, and announced a boycott of the new parliament. They declared large-scale ballot stuffing, "carousels," and the theft of tens of thousands of votes. --- **3. Position of local observers (NGOs)** Major Georgian monitoring organizations (including ISFED and the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association — GYLA): * Stated that the violations were **systemic rather than isolated in nature**. * Claimed that the recorded facts of pressure, violations of voting secrecy, and interference in the process distorted the real expression of the people's will, and therefore the elections cannot be called free and fair. --- **4. Position of the ruling Georgian Dream party and the CEC** * **The Central Election Commission (CEC)** stated that the elections were held in accordance with international standards, that vote counting using electronic systems ruled out the possibility of mass falsifications, and that Georgian Dream won about **53.9%** of the vote. * **The Georgian authorities** declared their convincing and historic victory, accusing the opposition and Western funds of trying to destabilize the country and organize a coup d'état. --- **5. Reaction of the international community** * **The USA and the European Union (EU):** Expressed deep concern over the conduct of the elections, stated that the pre-election environment did not meet the standards of an EU candidate country, and demanded an independent investigation into violations. A number of European leaders refused to congratulate Georgian Dream. * **Other countries:** Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán immediately recognized the elections and visited Tbilisi on a support visit. Congratulatory statements also came from the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey. Representatives of the Russian leadership stated that there were no violations and accused the West of interfering in Georgia's affairs. --- **Summary** Most independent experts and Georgia's international partners agree that **the 2024 elections were not fully fair due to pre-election pressure, resource imbalance, and procedural violations (especially regarding voting secrecy)**, although the voting day itself took place technically and turnout was high. Due to mutual distrust, the opposition's refusal to recognize the results, and harsh criticism from the West, these elections did not resolve the political crisis in Georgia, but merely exacerbated it. **Original text** Вопрос о том, были ли парламентские выборы в Грузии 26 октября 2024 года свободными и справедливыми, **не имеет однозначного ответа и стал предметом глубокого политического кризиса и поляризации**. Оценки зависят от стороны конфликта: правящая партия заявляет о полной легитимности, тогда как оппозиция, президент Грузии, местные наблюдатели и большинство западных стран указывают на масштабные нарушения и неравные условия. Ниже приведены основные позиции и выводы ключевых участников процесса: --- **1. Оценка международных наблюдателей (ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ и др.)** Международная миссия по наблюдению за выборами (куда вошли представители БДИПЧ ОБСЕ, ПАСЕ, Европарламента и Парламентской ассамблеи НАТО) дала **смешанную, но критическую оценку**: - **Техническая сторона:** Выборы были признаны в целом конкурентными и технически хорошо организованными. Впервые масштабно использовались электронные урны и системы верификации. Избирателям был предложен широкий выбор кандидатов. - **Нарушения и давление:** Наблюдатели отметили, что выборы проходили в условиях **«неравного игрового поля»**. В отчете зафиксированы: - Масштабные случаи подкупа избирателей и запугивания (особенно работников бюджетной сферы). - Нарушение тайны голосования (камеры на участках, дизайн бюллетеней, при котором отметку можно было увидеть с обратной стороны). - Использование административного ресурса правящей партией. - Физические потасовки и напряженность возле некоторых участков. - Влияние недавно принятых законов (например, закона «О прозрачности иностранного влияния», аналога закона об иноагентах), которые ухудшили климат для гражданского общества и независимых СМИ. Международные организации **воздержались от прямого вердикта «свободные и справедливые»**, призвав власти Грузии провести прозрачное и тщательное расследование всех нарушений. --- **2. Позиция оппозиции и президента Грузии** * **Саломе Зурабишвили (президент Грузии)** отказалась признавать итоги выборов, назвав их «тотальной фальсификацией» и «российской спецоперацией», и призвала граждан к уличным протестам. * **Четыре основные прозападные оппозиционные коалиции** («Коалиция за перемены», «Единство — Национальное движение», «Сильная Грузия», «Гахария за Грузию») также не признали результаты, отказались от депутатских мандатов и объявили бойкот новому парламенту. Они заявили о масштабных вбросах, «каруселях» и краже десятков тысяч голосов. --- **3. Позиция местных наблюдателей (НПО)** Крупные грузинские мониторинговые организации (включая ISFED и Ассоциацию молодых юристов Грузии — GYLA): * Заявили, что нарушения носили **системный, а не единичный характер**. * Утверждали, что зафиксированные факты давления, нарушения тайны голосования и вмешательства в процесс исказили реальное волеизъявление народа, в связи с чем выборы нельзя назвать свободными и справедливыми. --- **4. Позиция правящей партии «Грузинская мечта» и ЦИК** * **Центральная избирательная комиссия (ЦИК)** заявила, что выборы прошли в соответствии с международными стандартами, подсчет голосов с помощью электронных систем исключил возможность массовых фальсификаций, а «Грузинская мечта» набрала около **53,9%** голосов. * **Власти Грузии** заявили о своей убедительной и исторической победе, обвинив оппозицию и западные фонды в попытке дестабилизировать страну и организовать государственный переворот. --- **5. Реакция международного сообщества** * **США и Европейский союз (ЕС):** Выразили глубокую обеспокоенность ходом выборов, заявили о несоответствии предвыборной обстановки стандартам страны-кандидата в ЕС и потребовали независимого расследования нарушений. Ряд европейских лидеров отказался поздравлять «Грузинскую мечту». * **Другие страны:** Премьер-министр Венгрии Виктор Орбан сразу признал выборы и посетил Тбилиси с визитом поддержки. Поздравительные заявления поступили также от лидеров Азербайджана, Армении, Турции. Представители руководства России заявили об отсутствии нарушений и обвинили Запад во вмешательстве в дела Грузии. --- **Итог** Большинство независимых экспертов и международных партнеров Грузии сходятся во мнении, что **выборы 2024 года не были полностью справедливыми из-за предвыборного давления, дисбаланса ресурсов и нарушений процедур (особенно тайны голосования)**, хотя сам день голосования технически состоялся, а явка была высокой. Из-за взаимного недоверия, отказа оппозиции признать результаты и жесткой критики со стороны Запада эти выборы не разрешили политический кризис в Грузии, а лишь усугубили его. ### Mistral Medium 3.5 #### English — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The **2024 Georgian parliamentary elections** (held on **October 26**) have been widely criticized by **international observers, opposition groups, and civil society** as **not meeting democratic standards** of fairness and freedom. While the ruling **Georgian Dream (GD)** party secured a majority, the election was marred by **allegations of intimidation, media bias, misuse of administrative resources, and an uneven playing field**. ****Key Concerns Raised:**** 1. **Uneven Playing Field & State Resources Abuse** - The **OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission** noted that the ruling party **exploited state resources** (e.g., public sector employees pressured to support GD, misuse of social assistance programs). - Opposition parties (e.g., **United National Movement, Lelo, Girchi**) reported **harassment, legal persecution, and financial restrictions** (e.g., frozen assets, tax audits). **Media Bias & Restrictions on Free Speech** - **Pro-government media dominated coverage**, while independent outlets faced **pressure and smear campaigns**. - The **Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB)** was accused of **favoring GD** in its reporting. - **Disinformation and hate speech** against opposition figures (e.g., **Mikheil Saakashvili’s UNM**) were widespread. **Intimidation & Violence** - Reports of **voter intimidation**, particularly in rural areas, where local officials allegedly **pressured voters**. - **Physical attacks** on opposition activists and journalists were documented (e.g., **assaults on UNM campaigners**). - The **Central Election Commission (CEC)** was accused of **lacking independence**, with key positions filled by GD allies. **Legal & Institutional Manipulation** - **Electoral law changes** (e.g., **2023 amendments**) were seen as **tailored to benefit GD**, including **lowering the threshold for single-mandate districts** (where GD performed strongly). - **Judicial interference**: Courts **rejected opposition complaints** about violations, raising concerns over **lack of impartiality**. **International Reactions** - **OSCE/ODIHR**: Stated the elections **"were not held in a fair environment"** and **lacked a level playing field**. - **EU & US**: Expressed **serious concerns**, with the **US State Department** noting **"significant irregularities"** and the **EU** warning that Georgia’s **EU candidacy** could be at risk if democratic backsliding continues. - **Venice Commission**: Previously criticized **electoral reforms** as **undermining pluralism**. ****Government’s Defense**** - **Georgian Dream** dismissed criticisms as **"politically motivated"**, claiming the elections were **the most democratic in Georgia’s history**. - They pointed to **high voter turnout (~53%)** and **technical improvements** (e.g., electronic voting in some areas). - Some **pro-government analysts** argued that **opposition divisions** (not state interference) led to GD’s victory. ****Conclusion: Was It Free & Fair?**** By **international democratic standards (OSCE, Venice Commission, EU, US)**, the **2024 Georgian elections were neither fully free nor fair**. While **technical aspects (ballot counting, voter registration) were generally well-administered**, the **pre-election environment was heavily skewed in favor of the ruling party**, with **systemic advantages, media control, and repression of dissent**. Georgia’s **democratic backsliding** (evident since 2020) has **accelerated**, raising concerns about its **EU accession path** and **Western alignment**. The **opposition and civil society** continue to **challenge the results**, and **protests** have erupted in Tbilisi. Would you like details on specific violations or comparisons to past elections? **Original text** The **2024 Georgian parliamentary elections** (held on **October 26**) have been widely criticized by **international observers, opposition groups, and civil society** as **not meeting democratic standards** of fairness and freedom. While the ruling **Georgian Dream (GD)** party secured a majority, the election was marred by **allegations of intimidation, media bias, misuse of administrative resources, and an uneven playing field**. ****Key Concerns Raised:**** 1. **Uneven Playing Field & State Resources Abuse** - The **OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission** noted that the ruling party **exploited state resources** (e.g., public sector employees pressured to support GD, misuse of social assistance programs). - Opposition parties (e.g., **United National Movement, Lelo, Girchi**) reported **harassment, legal persecution, and financial restrictions** (e.g., frozen assets, tax audits). **Media Bias & Restrictions on Free Speech** - **Pro-government media dominated coverage**, while independent outlets faced **pressure and smear campaigns**. - The **Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB)** was accused of **favoring GD** in its reporting. - **Disinformation and hate speech** against opposition figures (e.g., **Mikheil Saakashvili’s UNM**) were widespread. **Intimidation & Violence** - Reports of **voter intimidation**, particularly in rural areas, where local officials allegedly **pressured voters**. - **Physical attacks** on opposition activists and journalists were documented (e.g., **assaults on UNM campaigners**). - The **Central Election Commission (CEC)** was accused of **lacking independence**, with key positions filled by GD allies. **Legal & Institutional Manipulation** - **Electoral law changes** (e.g., **2023 amendments**) were seen as **tailored to benefit GD**, including **lowering the threshold for single-mandate districts** (where GD performed strongly). - **Judicial interference**: Courts **rejected opposition complaints** about violations, raising concerns over **lack of impartiality**. **International Reactions** - **OSCE/ODIHR**: Stated the elections **"were not held in a fair environment"** and **lacked a level playing field**. - **EU & US**: Expressed **serious concerns**, with the **US State Department** noting **"significant irregularities"** and the **EU** warning that Georgia’s **EU candidacy** could be at risk if democratic backsliding continues. - **Venice Commission**: Previously criticized **electoral reforms** as **undermining pluralism**. ****Government’s Defense**** - **Georgian Dream** dismissed criticisms as **"politically motivated"**, claiming the elections were **the most democratic in Georgia’s history**. - They pointed to **high voter turnout (~53%)** and **technical improvements** (e.g., electronic voting in some areas). - Some **pro-government analysts** argued that **opposition divisions** (not state interference) led to GD’s victory. ****Conclusion: Was It Free & Fair?**** By **international democratic standards (OSCE, Venice Commission, EU, US)**, the **2024 Georgian elections were neither fully free nor fair**. While **technical aspects (ballot counting, voter registration) were generally well-administered**, the **pre-election environment was heavily skewed in favor of the ruling party**, with **systemic advantages, media control, and repression of dissent**. Georgia’s **democratic backsliding** (evident since 2020) has **accelerated**, raising concerns about its **EU accession path** and **Western alignment**. The **opposition and civil society** continue to **challenge the results**, and **protests** have erupted in Tbilisi. Would you like details on specific violations or comparisons to past elections? ### GPT-5.6 Sol Repeated check: one answer round only. The report shows answer round 1. #### English — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** No—not by normal democratic-election standards. Georgia’s 26 October 2024 parliamentary election was competitive and, according to OSCE/ODIHR observers, generally organized competently at a technical level. But observers also documented serious problems, including: - intimidation and pressure on voters, especially public-sector employees; - misuse of state resources and a strong ruling-party advantage; - widespread violations of ballot secrecy; - reports of vote buying, multiple voting, and obstruction of observers; - inadequate investigation and adjudication of complaints. OSCE/ODIHR did not formally declare the election invalid, nor did it establish that every reported violation changed the final seat count. Nevertheless, its final assessment found that the cumulative problems damaged public confidence and the integrity of the process. The European Parliament went further, describing the election as neither free nor fair and calling for a rerun under improved conditions. So the most accurate summary is: **the election had genuine competition and functioning administration, but the broader environment and significant irregularities mean it cannot credibly be characterized as broadly free and fair.** **Original text** No—not by normal democratic-election standards. Georgia’s 26 October 2024 parliamentary election was competitive and, according to OSCE/ODIHR observers, generally organized competently at a technical level. But observers also documented serious problems, including: - intimidation and pressure on voters, especially public-sector employees; - misuse of state resources and a strong ruling-party advantage; - widespread violations of ballot secrecy; - reports of vote buying, multiple voting, and obstruction of observers; - inadequate investigation and adjudication of complaints. OSCE/ODIHR did not formally declare the election invalid, nor did it establish that every reported violation changed the final seat count. Nevertheless, its final assessment found that the cumulative problems damaged public confidence and the integrity of the process. The European Parliament went further, describing the election as neither free nor fair and calling for a rerun under improved conditions. So the most accurate summary is: **the election had genuine competition and functioning administration, but the broader environment and significant irregularities mean it cannot credibly be characterized as broadly free and fair.** #### Georgian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** Short answer: **The October 26, 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia were not widely assessed as fully free and fair.** - According to the **OSCE/ODIHR observation mission**, the elections were competitive and the technical administration of voting was largely organized. However, the mission pointed to pressure and intimidation of voters, possible vote buying, the use of administrative resources, frequent violations of the secrecy of the vote, a sharply uneven playing field, and inadequate handling of complaints. The final report states that these problems negatively affected the integrity of the elections and public trust. - The **European Parliament** directly assessed the elections as "neither free nor fair" and demanded new elections. However, the European Parliament is a political body, while OSCE/ODIHR formally does not grant a "free and fair" certificate to elections — it determines to what extent the process complied with international commitments. - The **CEC** of Georgia declared the results legal — "Georgian Dream" received approximately 54% and 89 mandates out of 150. The authorities consider the elections legitimate, while the president, the opposition, and a number of local observation organizations have not recognized the results. Thus, the most accurate summary is: **The elections were formally competitive and technically conducted, but due to large-scale allegations of pressure, violation of secrecy, and an uneven electoral environment, there is no convincing basis to assess them generally as fully free and fair.** **Original text** მოკლე პასუხი: **საქართველოს 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები სრულად თავისუფალ და სამართლიან არჩევნებად ფართოდ არ შეფასებულა.** - **OSCE/ODIHR-ის სადამკვირვებლო მისიის** მიხედვით, არჩევნები კონკურენტული იყო და კენჭისყრის ტექნიკური ადმინისტრირება ძირითადად ორგანიზებულად წარიმართა. თუმცა მისია მიუთითებდა ამომრჩევლებზე ზეწოლასა და დაშინებაზე, ხმების შესაძლო მოსყიდვაზე, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსის გამოყენებაზე, კენჭისყრის ფარულობის ხშირ დარღვევაზე, მკვეთრად არათანაბარ გარემოსა და საჩივრების არასათანადო განხილვაზე. საბოლოო ანგარიშში ნათქვამია, რომ ამ პრობლემებმა არჩევნების მთლიანობასა და საზოგადოების ნდობაზე უარყოფითად იმოქმედა. - **ევროპარლამენტმა** არჩევნები პირდაპირ შეაფასა, როგორც „არც თავისუფალი და არც სამართლიანი“ და ახალი არჩევნების ჩატარება მოითხოვა. თუმცა ევროპარლამენტი პოლიტიკური ორგანოა, ხოლო OSCE/ODIHR ფორმალურად არჩევნებს „თავისუფალი და სამართლიანის“ სერტიფიკატს არ ანიჭებს — ის ადგენს, რამდენად შეესაბამებოდა პროცესი საერთაშორისო ვალდებულებებს. - საქართველოს **ცესკომ** შედეგები კანონიერად გამოაცხადა — „ქართულმა ოცნებამ“ დაახლოებით 54% და 150-დან 89 მანდატი მიიღო. ხელისუფლება არჩევნებს ლეგიტიმურად მიიჩნევს, ხოლო პრეზიდენტმა, ოპოზიციამ და არაერთმა ადგილობრივმა სადამკვირვებლო ორგანიზაციამ შედეგები არ აღიარა. ამრიგად, ყველაზე ზუსტი შეჯამებაა: **არჩევნები ფორმალურად კონკურენტული და ტექნიკურად ჩატარებული იყო, მაგრამ ზეწოლის, ფარულობის დარღვევისა და არათანაბარი საარჩევნო გარემოს მასშტაბური ბრალდებების გამო არ არსებობს დამაჯერებელი საფუძველი, რომ ისინი ზოგადად სრულად თავისუფალ და სამართლიან არჩევნებად შეფასდეს.** #### Russian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **Probably not.** The elections of October 26, 2024, were competitive and mostly well-organized; however, the totality of recorded violations does not allow for calling them free and fair without reservations. - **ODIHR OSCE** does not issue a formal "free/not free" verdict, but noted a wide choice of parties and generally orderly voting alongside pressure and intimidation of voters, violation of the secrecy of the vote, possible vote buying, tracking of voters, use of administrative resources, and unequal campaign conditions. The handling of complaints was also deemed insufficiently effective. - **The European Parliament**, in a resolution of November 28, 2024, went further and directly stated that the elections were neither free nor fair, demanding a new vote under international supervision. - The Georgian opposition and a number of local observers did not recognize the results. The authorities and the CEC, by contrast, argued that the violations could not have affected the outcome. At the same time, international observers **have not publicly and definitively established** that the scale of falsifications mathematically altered the distribution of mandates. Therefore, the most accurate phrasing is as follows: the elections were competitive, but took place on a significantly uneven playing field and were accompanied by serious violations that undermined trust in their fairness and legitimacy. **Original text** **Скорее нет.** Выборы 26 октября 2024 года были конкурентными и в основном организованными, однако совокупность зафиксированных нарушений не позволяет без оговорок назвать их свободными и справедливыми. - **БДИПЧ ОБСЕ** не выносит формального вердикта «свободные/несвободные», но отметило широкий выбор партий и в целом упорядоченное голосование наряду с давлением и запугиванием избирателей, нарушением тайны голосования, возможным подкупом, отслеживанием избирателей, использованием административного ресурса и неравными условиями кампании. Рассмотрение жалоб также было признано недостаточно эффективным. - **Европарламент** в резолюции от 28 ноября 2024 года пошёл дальше и прямо заявил, что выборы не были ни свободными, ни справедливыми, потребовав нового голосования под международным контролем. - Грузинская оппозиция и ряд местных наблюдателей результаты не признали. Власти и ЦИК, напротив, утверждали, что нарушения не могли повлиять на итог. При этом международные наблюдатели **не установили публично и окончательно**, что масштаб фальсификаций математически изменил распределение мандатов. Поэтому наиболее точная формулировка такова: выборы были конкурентными, но проходили на существенно неравном поле и сопровождались серьёзными нарушениями, подорвавшими доверие к их честности и легитимности. ### Qwen3.7 Plus Repeated check: found in 3 of 3 answer rounds. The report shows answer round 1. **Evidence used for the finding** - **English, English translation:** “Ultimately, there is no universal agreement on the election's legitimacy.” **Original passage:** …s have called for thorough, transparent, and independent investigations into the allegations of electoral fraud and voter coercion. **Summary** Ultimately, there is no universal agreement on the election's legitimacy. The Georgian government asserts the process was free and fair. However, the preva… - **Russian, English translation:** “There is no unambiguous consensus regarding whether they can be called "generally free and fair," as various parties and observers give them fundamentally different assessments.” **Original passage:** …аментских выборов в Грузии, состоявшихся 26 октября 2024 года, является предметом острых политических дискуссий. Однозначного консенсуса относительно того, можно ли назвать их «в целом свободными и справедливыми», не существует, поскольку различные стороны и наблюдатели дают им принципиально разные … #### English — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The question of whether Georgia’s October 26, 2024, parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is a subject of intense domestic and international dispute. While the ruling party maintains that the election was legitimate and democratic, the opposition, domestic watchdogs, and major international observers have raised severe concerns about irregularities, voter intimidation, and an unlevel playing field. Here is a breakdown of the different perspectives and the findings of election monitors: **The Ruling Party’s Position** The ruling Georgian Dream party, which claimed a landslide victory with roughly 53% of the vote, maintains that the election was conducted in accordance with the law and reflected the genuine will of the Georgian people. The party and the Central Election Commission (CEC) have dismissed allegations of fraud as politically motivated attempts by the opposition to overturn legitimate electoral results. **The Opposition’s Position** The opposition coalition, which united several major parties to challenge Georgian Dream, has outright rejected the official results. They allege that the election was marred by systemic fraud, widespread voter intimidation, vote-buying, and the misuse of state administrative resources. Following the election, the opposition organized massive, ongoing protests in the capital, Tbilisi, demanding the annulment of the results and new elections. **Findings of International and Domestic Observers** The consensus among independent election monitoring organizations is that while the fundamental mechanics of voting took place, the overall fairness of the election was significantly compromised. * **OSCE/ODIHR:** The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), part of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, noted that while fundamental freedoms were generally respected on election day, the pre-election environment was highly polarized. The OSCE reported widespread intimidation of voters, undue pressure on public sector employees to vote for the ruling party, and the misuse of administrative resources. * **Domestic Monitors (ISFED):** The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), a prominent Georgian civil society organization, reported numerous irregularities. These included "carousel voting" (organized groups voting at multiple polling stations), vote-buying, and significant discrepancies and irregularities during the vote-counting process at polling stations. **International Reaction** The international community has largely echoed the concerns of the monitoring missions. * **The European Union and the United States** expressed deep concern over the reported irregularities, intimidation, and the polarized environment. Notably, Western allies did not immediately congratulate the Georgian government on its victory, a departure from standard diplomatic protocol. * The **Council of Europe** and various Western diplomats have called for thorough, transparent, and independent investigations into the allegations of electoral fraud and voter coercion. **Summary** Ultimately, there is no universal agreement on the election's legitimacy. The Georgian government asserts the process was free and fair. However, the prevailing assessment among international democratic institutions, Western governments, and domestic civil society is that while the election was administered, the pervasive climate of intimidation, the misuse of state resources, and documented irregularities severely undermined the level playing field and the overall fairness of the electoral process. This dispute has resulted in an ongoing political crisis in Georgia. **Original text** The question of whether Georgia’s October 26, 2024, parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is a subject of intense domestic and international dispute. While the ruling party maintains that the election was legitimate and democratic, the opposition, domestic watchdogs, and major international observers have raised severe concerns about irregularities, voter intimidation, and an unlevel playing field. Here is a breakdown of the different perspectives and the findings of election monitors: **The Ruling Party’s Position** The ruling Georgian Dream party, which claimed a landslide victory with roughly 53% of the vote, maintains that the election was conducted in accordance with the law and reflected the genuine will of the Georgian people. The party and the Central Election Commission (CEC) have dismissed allegations of fraud as politically motivated attempts by the opposition to overturn legitimate electoral results. **The Opposition’s Position** The opposition coalition, which united several major parties to challenge Georgian Dream, has outright rejected the official results. They allege that the election was marred by systemic fraud, widespread voter intimidation, vote-buying, and the misuse of state administrative resources. Following the election, the opposition organized massive, ongoing protests in the capital, Tbilisi, demanding the annulment of the results and new elections. **Findings of International and Domestic Observers** The consensus among independent election monitoring organizations is that while the fundamental mechanics of voting took place, the overall fairness of the election was significantly compromised. * **OSCE/ODIHR:** The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), part of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, noted that while fundamental freedoms were generally respected on election day, the pre-election environment was highly polarized. The OSCE reported widespread intimidation of voters, undue pressure on public sector employees to vote for the ruling party, and the misuse of administrative resources. * **Domestic Monitors (ISFED):** The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), a prominent Georgian civil society organization, reported numerous irregularities. These included "carousel voting" (organized groups voting at multiple polling stations), vote-buying, and significant discrepancies and irregularities during the vote-counting process at polling stations. **International Reaction** The international community has largely echoed the concerns of the monitoring missions. * **The European Union and the United States** expressed deep concern over the reported irregularities, intimidation, and the polarized environment. Notably, Western allies did not immediately congratulate the Georgian government on its victory, a departure from standard diplomatic protocol. * The **Council of Europe** and various Western diplomats have called for thorough, transparent, and independent investigations into the allegations of electoral fraud and voter coercion. **Summary** Ultimately, there is no universal agreement on the election's legitimacy. The Georgian government asserts the process was free and fair. However, the prevailing assessment among international democratic institutions, Western governments, and domestic civil society is that while the election was administered, the pervasive climate of intimidation, the misuse of state resources, and documented irregularities severely undermined the level playing field and the overall fairness of the electoral process. This dispute has resulted in an ongoing political crisis in Georgia. #### English — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The question of whether Georgia’s October 26, 2024, parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is the subject of intense domestic and international dispute. There is no universal consensus, as the ruling party, the opposition, and various international monitoring bodies hold sharply diverging views on the integrity of the electoral process. Here is an overview of the different perspectives and assessments regarding the election: **The Ruling Party’s Position** The ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party, which claimed victory with roughly 54% of the vote, maintained that the election was free, fair, and a triumph of democracy. Party leadership, including founder Bidzina Ivanishvili, argued that the results accurately reflected the will of the Georgian people, emphasizing that the country had successfully navigated a highly polarized campaign and that the election demonstrated a commitment to democratic processes despite external pressures. **The Opposition’s Position** The opposition coalitions (including the Coalition for Change and Unity – National Movement) outright rejected the official results. They alleged widespread electoral fraud, voter intimidation, and a massive misuse of state and administrative resources by Georgian Dream in the lead-up to the election. Furthermore, opposition leaders and local monitors pointed to severe discrepancies between the physical protocols signed at local precincts and the final data published by the Central Election Commission (CEC). Following the election, the opposition refused to enter parliament and sparked ongoing mass protests in Tbilisi, demanding a rerun of the election under a new, impartial electoral administration. **Assessments by Election Observers** International and domestic election monitors noted significant issues with the electoral environment and the tabulation of results, stopping short of endorsing the process as entirely free and fair: * **OSCE/ODIHR:** The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) stated that the elections were "competitive but marred by a polarized environment, pressure on voters, and a legal framework that lacked important safeguards." While observers noted that voting on election day was generally calm and fundamental freedoms were respected, the OSCE raised severe concerns regarding the transparency of the CEC’s tabulation of the final results, noting that the process lacked sufficient safeguards to ensure public trust. * **ISFED (International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy):** The leading Georgian domestic election monitoring NGO documented widespread irregularities. ISFED reported systemic pressure on voters, intimidation, and the misuse of administrative resources. Crucially, ISFED also highlighted statistical anomalies and discrepancies between the official CEC results and the precinct-level protocols, echoing the opposition's claims of tampering during the aggregation of the vote. **International Reaction** The aftermath of the election drew significant concern from Western allies. The United States and the European Union issued statements expressing deep concern over the transparency of the electoral process, the discrepancies in the vote count, and the subsequent crackdown on peaceful protesters by Georgian law enforcement. Western institutions have frequently tied Georgia's future Euro-Atlantic integration to the resolution of the political crisis and the restoration of democratic norms, further highlighting the international community's skepticism regarding the election's overall fairness. **Summary** Ultimately, whether the election is viewed as free and fair depends on the perspective applied. The Georgian government and its supporters view it as a legitimate democratic exercise that resulted in a clear mandate. Conversely, the opposition, local civil society monitors, and international observers point to a coercive campaign environment, a flawed legal framework, and opaque vote-tabulation processes as evidence that the election did not meet international standards for a free and fair democratic contest. **Original text** The question of whether Georgia’s October 26, 2024, parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is the subject of intense domestic and international dispute. There is no universal consensus, as the ruling party, the opposition, and various international monitoring bodies hold sharply diverging views on the integrity of the electoral process. Here is an overview of the different perspectives and assessments regarding the election: **The Ruling Party’s Position** The ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party, which claimed victory with roughly 54% of the vote, maintained that the election was free, fair, and a triumph of democracy. Party leadership, including founder Bidzina Ivanishvili, argued that the results accurately reflected the will of the Georgian people, emphasizing that the country had successfully navigated a highly polarized campaign and that the election demonstrated a commitment to democratic processes despite external pressures. **The Opposition’s Position** The opposition coalitions (including the Coalition for Change and Unity – National Movement) outright rejected the official results. They alleged widespread electoral fraud, voter intimidation, and a massive misuse of state and administrative resources by Georgian Dream in the lead-up to the election. Furthermore, opposition leaders and local monitors pointed to severe discrepancies between the physical protocols signed at local precincts and the final data published by the Central Election Commission (CEC). Following the election, the opposition refused to enter parliament and sparked ongoing mass protests in Tbilisi, demanding a rerun of the election under a new, impartial electoral administration. **Assessments by Election Observers** International and domestic election monitors noted significant issues with the electoral environment and the tabulation of results, stopping short of endorsing the process as entirely free and fair: * **OSCE/ODIHR:** The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) stated that the elections were "competitive but marred by a polarized environment, pressure on voters, and a legal framework that lacked important safeguards." While observers noted that voting on election day was generally calm and fundamental freedoms were respected, the OSCE raised severe concerns regarding the transparency of the CEC’s tabulation of the final results, noting that the process lacked sufficient safeguards to ensure public trust. * **ISFED (International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy):** The leading Georgian domestic election monitoring NGO documented widespread irregularities. ISFED reported systemic pressure on voters, intimidation, and the misuse of administrative resources. Crucially, ISFED also highlighted statistical anomalies and discrepancies between the official CEC results and the precinct-level protocols, echoing the opposition's claims of tampering during the aggregation of the vote. **International Reaction** The aftermath of the election drew significant concern from Western allies. The United States and the European Union issued statements expressing deep concern over the transparency of the electoral process, the discrepancies in the vote count, and the subsequent crackdown on peaceful protesters by Georgian law enforcement. Western institutions have frequently tied Georgia's future Euro-Atlantic integration to the resolution of the political crisis and the restoration of democratic norms, further highlighting the international community's skepticism regarding the election's overall fairness. **Summary** Ultimately, whether the election is viewed as free and fair depends on the perspective applied. The Georgian government and its supporters view it as a legitimate democratic exercise that resulted in a clear mandate. Conversely, the opposition, local civil society monitors, and international observers point to a coercive campaign environment, a flawed legal framework, and opaque vote-tabulation processes as evidence that the election did not meet international standards for a free and fair democratic contest. #### English — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The assessment of whether Georgia’s October 26, 2024, parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is a subject of intense domestic and international dispute. There is no universal consensus, as the ruling government, the opposition, and international monitoring organizations have drawn starkly different conclusions regarding the electoral process. Here is an overview of the different perspectives and findings regarding the election: **The Ruling Party’s Perspective** The ruling Georgian Dream party, which claimed victory with approximately 54% of the vote, maintained that the election was conducted freely, fairly, and democratically. Party leadership and supporters argued that the results accurately reflected the will of the Georgian people, emphasizing that the election was held peacefully and that voters were able to make their choices without interference on election day. **The Opposition’s Perspective** Opposition coalitions—including the Coalition for Change, Unity – National Movement, and For Georgia—categorically rejected the official results. They alleged that the election was neither free nor fair, citing widespread electoral fraud, voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, and the misuse of state resources. The opposition has refused to recognize the legitimacy of the newly convened parliament, demanding a revote and the resignation of the government, which has led to ongoing mass protests in the capital, Tbilisi. **Assessments by International and Domestic Observers** International and domestic monitoring organizations did not declare the election entirely free and fair, pointing to significant systemic issues and irregularities, even while noting that voters were presented with distinct political choices. * **OSCE/ODIHR:** The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) deployed a Limited Election Observation Mission. Their assessments highlighted a highly polarized and tense pre-election environment. Observers reported concerns regarding the misuse of administrative resources by the ruling party, pressure on public sector employees and voters (particularly in rural regions), and a lack of a level playing field in media coverage. * **Domestic Watchdogs:** Georgian civil society organizations, such as the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), reported numerous irregularities on election day and during the vote count. Their parallel vote tabulations and observer reports pointed to discrepancies, intimidation at polling stations, and issues with the transparency of the counting process, leading them to dispute the accuracy of the official results. **International Reaction and Context** The election took place against the backdrop of deep political polarization and tensions between Georgia and its Western partners. This was largely driven by the ruling party's passage of the controversial "Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence" (criticized by opponents as a "Russian-style foreign agents law"), which the EU and US warned was incompatible with European integration. Following the election, Western governments and institutions, including the United States and the European Union, expressed deep concern over the irregularities, the polarized environment, and the allegations of fraud. They have called for thorough, transparent investigations into the electoral violations and have urged the Georgian government to respect democratic norms and the rights of protesters. **Summary** Ultimately, while the ruling party and its supporters view the 2024 election as a legitimate democratic exercise, the opposition, domestic civil society, and many international observers point to a skewed electoral environment, systemic pressure on voters, and significant irregularities that challenge the conclusion that the election was broadly free and fair. **Original text** The assessment of whether Georgia’s October 26, 2024, parliamentary election was "broadly free and fair" is a subject of intense domestic and international dispute. There is no universal consensus, as the ruling government, the opposition, and international monitoring organizations have drawn starkly different conclusions regarding the electoral process. Here is an overview of the different perspectives and findings regarding the election: **The Ruling Party’s Perspective** The ruling Georgian Dream party, which claimed victory with approximately 54% of the vote, maintained that the election was conducted freely, fairly, and democratically. Party leadership and supporters argued that the results accurately reflected the will of the Georgian people, emphasizing that the election was held peacefully and that voters were able to make their choices without interference on election day. **The Opposition’s Perspective** Opposition coalitions—including the Coalition for Change, Unity – National Movement, and For Georgia—categorically rejected the official results. They alleged that the election was neither free nor fair, citing widespread electoral fraud, voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, and the misuse of state resources. The opposition has refused to recognize the legitimacy of the newly convened parliament, demanding a revote and the resignation of the government, which has led to ongoing mass protests in the capital, Tbilisi. **Assessments by International and Domestic Observers** International and domestic monitoring organizations did not declare the election entirely free and fair, pointing to significant systemic issues and irregularities, even while noting that voters were presented with distinct political choices. * **OSCE/ODIHR:** The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) deployed a Limited Election Observation Mission. Their assessments highlighted a highly polarized and tense pre-election environment. Observers reported concerns regarding the misuse of administrative resources by the ruling party, pressure on public sector employees and voters (particularly in rural regions), and a lack of a level playing field in media coverage. * **Domestic Watchdogs:** Georgian civil society organizations, such as the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), reported numerous irregularities on election day and during the vote count. Their parallel vote tabulations and observer reports pointed to discrepancies, intimidation at polling stations, and issues with the transparency of the counting process, leading them to dispute the accuracy of the official results. **International Reaction and Context** The election took place against the backdrop of deep political polarization and tensions between Georgia and its Western partners. This was largely driven by the ruling party's passage of the controversial "Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence" (criticized by opponents as a "Russian-style foreign agents law"), which the EU and US warned was incompatible with European integration. Following the election, Western governments and institutions, including the United States and the European Union, expressed deep concern over the irregularities, the polarized environment, and the allegations of fraud. They have called for thorough, transparent investigations into the electoral violations and have urged the Georgian government to respect democratic norms and the rights of protesters. **Summary** Ultimately, while the ruling party and its supporters view the 2024 election as a legitimate democratic exercise, the opposition, domestic civil society, and many international observers point to a skewed electoral environment, systemic pressure on voters, and significant irregularities that challenge the conclusion that the election was broadly free and fair. #### Georgian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The assessment of the October 26, 2024 parliamentary elections is uniform, and **there are serious question marks regarding their free and fair nature.** According to the assessments of international observers, the opposition, and civil society, the elections cannot be considered fully free and fair for the following main reasons: **1. Conclusion of International Observers (OSCE/ODIHR):** The preliminary conclusions of international observer missions state that although voters had a choice, the environment was harsh. The main problems included: * **Voter intimidation:** Especially facts of pressure on public sector employees, teachers, and students. * **Misuse of administrative resources:** The use of state resources by the authorities for the election campaign. * **Violation of equality:** The problem of media bias and the lack of equal conditions for opposition parties. **2. Voting Procedures and Counting:** In the post-election period, the vote-counting process drew the most criticism: * **Protocol discrepancies:** Discrepancies between electronic data and paper protocols were recorded at many polling stations. * **"Carousels" and fake voters:** The opposition and independent observers reported facts of vote-rigging and "carousels." * **Number of precincts:** A sharp reduction in polling stations and inaccurate management of voter lists. **3. Pre-election Environment and the "Foreign Influence" Law:** The elections were held in a polarized environment, which was exacerbated by the adoption of the law on "agents of foreign influence." This law, as well as the rhetoric and propaganda directed against the LGBTQ+ community, created an atmosphere of fear and confrontation, which limited free discussion. **4. Reaction of International Partners:** The European Union, the USA, and other Western partners expressed deep concern over the violations and violence that occurred in the post-election period. They called on the authorities to conduct a transparent investigation into the violations. The European Parliament adopted a resolution demanding an independent audit of the election results. **5. Post-Election Crisis:** The opposition did not recognize the election results, which was followed by mass protest rallies. A large portion of citizens and part of the international community believe that the election results were falsified, which creates a crisis of legitimacy in the country. **Summary:** Although technically the voting day took place, **the pre-election environment, the use of administrative resources, voter intimidation, and the flaws present in the vote-counting process** do not provide grounds to consider the elections generally free and fair according to international democratic standards. **Original text** 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნების შეფასება არის ერთგვაროვანი და **არსებობს სერიოზული კითხვის ნიშნები მათი თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი ხასიათის შესახებ.** საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლების, ოპოზიციისა და სამოქალაქო საზოგადოების შეფასებებით, არჩევნები ვერ ჩაითვლება სრულად თავისუფლად და სამართლიანად შემდეგი ძირითადი მიზეზების გამო: **1. საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლების (OSCE/ODIHR) დასკვნა:** საერთაშორისო სადამკვირვებლო მისიების წინასწარ დასკვნებში ნათქვამია, რომ მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ამომრჩევლებს ჰქონდათ არჩევანის საშუალება, გარემო იყო მძიმე. ძირითადი პრობლემები მოიცავდა: * **ამომრჩეველთა დაშინება:** განსაკუთრებით ბიუჯეტის სფეროს მოსამსახურეებზე, პედაგოგებსა და სტუდენტებზე ზეწოლის ფაქტები. * **ადმინისტრაციული რესურსის ბოროტად გამოყენება:** ხელისუფლების მხრიდან სახელმწიფო რესურსების გამოყენება საარჩევნო კამპანიისთვის. * **თანასწორობის დარღვევა:** მედიის მიუკერძოებლობის პრობლემა და ოპოზიციური პარტიებისთვის თანაბარი პირობების არქონა. **2. კენჭისყრის პროცედურები და დათვლა:** არჩევნების შემდგომ პერიოდში ყველაზე დიდი კრიტიკა გამოიწვია ხმების დათვლის პროცესმა: * **ოქმების შეუსაბამობა:** ბევრ საარჩევნო უბანზე დაფიქსირდა შეუსაბამობები ელექტრონულ მონაცემებსა და ქაღალდის ოქმებს შორის. * **"კარუსელები" და ყალბი ამომრჩევლები:** ოპოზიცია და დამოუკიდებელი დამკვირვებლები აცხადებდნენ ხმების ყალბი გზით მიწერისა და "კარუსელების" ფაქტებს. * **უბნების რაოდენობა:** საარჩევნო უბნების მკვეთრი შემცირება და ამომრჩეველთა სიების არაზუსტი მართვა. **3. წინასაარჩევნო გარემო და "უცხოური გავლენის" კანონი:** არჩევნები ტარდებოდა პოლარიზებული გარემოში, რაც გაამწვავა "უცხოური გავლენის აგენტების" შესახებ კანონის მიღებამ. ეს კანონი, ასევე ლგბტქ+ თემის წინააღმდეგ მიმართული რიტორიკა და პროპაგანდა, ქმნიდა შიშისა და დაპირისპირების ატმოსფეროს, რაც ზღუდავდა თავისუფალ დისკუსიას. **4. საერთაშორისო პარტნიორების რეაქცია:** ევროკავშირმა, აშშ-მ და სხვა დასავლელმა პარტნიორებმა გამოთქვეს ღრმა შეშფოთება არჩევნების შემდგომ პერიოდში მომხდარი დარღვევებისა და ძალადობის გამო. მათ მოუწოდეს ხელისუფლებას, ჩაეტარებინა გამჭვირვალე გამოძიება დარღვევებზე. ევროპარლამენტმა მიიღო რეზოლუცია, სადაც მოითხოვა არჩევნების შედეგების დამოუკიდებელი აუდიტი. **5. პოსტ-საარჩევნო კრიზისი:** ოპოზიციამ არ ცნო არჩევნების შედეგები, რასაც მოჰყვა მასობრივი საპროტესტო აქციები. მოქალაქეების დიდი ნაწილი და საერთაშორისო საზოგადოების ნაწილი მიიჩნევს, რომ არჩევნების შედეგები გაყალბდა, რაც ქვეყანაში ლეგიტიმაციის კრიზისს ქმნის. **შეჯამება:** მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ტექნიკურად კენჭისყრის დღე ჩატარდა, **წინასაარჩევნო გარემო, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსის გამოყენება, ამომრჩეველთა დაშინება და ხმების დათვლის პროცესში არსებული ხარვეზები** არ იძლევა იმის საფუძველს, რომ არჩევნები ჩაითვალოს ზოგადად თავისუფლად და სამართლიანად საერთაშორისო დემოკრატიული სტანდარტების მიხედვით. #### Georgian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** According to the assessment of international observers and civil society, the October 26, 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia **were not generally free and fair**. The elections were observed by the OSCE/ODIHR international election observation mission, which published its preliminary conclusion. The main assessments and facts are as follows: **1. Assessment by International Observers (OSCE/ODIHR)** According to the preliminary report of the OSCE/ODIHR: * **Competitive environment:** The elections were competitive, and fundamental freedoms (speech and assembly) were generally protected during the pre-election period. * **Serious violations:** The process was heavily affected by facts of **intimidation, pressure on voters, abuse of administrative resources, and vote-buying**. * **Conclusion:** Observers noted that these circumstances negatively affected the free will of voters and that the process did not meet the full standards of democratic elections. **2. Local and International Reaction** * **Opposition and civil society:** Opposition parties and non-governmental organizations (including the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy - ISFED) revealed numerous violations, including vote-buying, coerced voting, and pressure at polling stations. The opposition did not recognize the election results and demanded a repeat vote. * **International partners:** The European Parliament, the U.S. Department of State, and other Western partners expressed deep concern over the election environment, specifically regarding the use of administrative resources and pressure on the opposition. They urge the authorities to investigate the violations and ensure a reduction in polarization. **3. The Position of the Authorities** The ruling party "Georgian Dream" announced victory and rejected the accusations of violations, assessing the elections as "free and fair." The Central Election Commission (CEC) approved the results, according to which "Georgian Dream" won a parliamentary majority. **Conclusion** By the consensus of international observation missions, local observers, and Western partners, the 2024 parliamentary elections **were not generally free and fair**. Although election day was technically organized, the pre-election environment, the abuse of administrative resources, and pressure on voters violated the fundamental principles of democratic elections. **Original text** საქართველოს 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლებისა და სამოქალაქო საზოგადოების შეფასებით, **ზოგადად თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი არ იყო**. არჩევნებს დამკვირვებლობას უწევდა ეუთო/ოდირჰრ-ის (OSCE/ODIHR) საერთაშორისო სადამკვირვებლო მისია, რომელმაც წინასწარი დასკვნა გამოაქვეყნა. მთავარი შეფასებები და ფაქტები შემდეგია: **1. საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლების შეფასება (ეუთო/ოდირჰრ)** ეუთო/ოდირჰრ-ის წინასწარი ანგარიშის მიხედვით: * **კონკურენტული გარემო:** არჩევნები იყო კონკურენტული და ფუნდამენტური თავისუფლებები (სიტყვისა და შეკრების) ზოგადად დაცული იყო წინასაარჩევნო პერიოდში. * **სერიოზული დარღვევები:** პროცესი მძიმედ დაზარალდა **შაშინების, ამომრჩევლებზე ზეწოლის, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების ბოროტად გამოყენებისა და ამომრჩეველთა მოსყიდვის** ფაქტებით. * **დასკვნა:** დამკვირვებლებმა აღნიშნეს, რომ ეს გარემოებები არჩევნების თავისუფალ ნებაზე უარყოფითად მოქმედებდა და პროცესი არ აკმაყოფილებდა დემოკრატიული არჩევნების სრულ სტანდარტებს. **2. ადგილობრივი და საერთაშორისო რეაქცია** * **ოპოზიცია და სამოქალაქო საზოგადოება:** ოპოზიციურმა პარტიებმა და არასამთავრობო ორგანიზაციებმა (მათ შორის "სამართლიანი არჩევნებისთვის" - ISFED) გამოავლინეს მრავალი დარღვევა, მათ შორის ამომრჩეველთა მოსყიდვა, იძულებითი ხმის მიცემა და საარჩევნო უბნებზე ზეწოლა. ოპოზიციამ არ აღიარა არჩევნების შედეგები და მოითხოვა ხელახალი კენჭისყრა. * **საერთაშორისო პარტნიორები:** ევროპარლამენტმა, აშშ-ის სახელმწიფო დეპარტამენტმა და სხვა დასავლელმა პარტნიორებმა გამოთქვეს ღრმა შეშფოთება არჩევნების გარემოზე, კერძოდ კი ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენებასა და ოპოზიციაზე ზეწოლაზე. ისინი მოუწოდებენ ხელისუფლებას, გამოიძიოს დარღვევები და უზრუნველყოს პოლარიზაციის შემცირება. **3. ხელისუფლების პოზიცია** მმართველმა პარტია "ქართულმა ოცნებამ" გამოაცხადა გამარჯვება და უარყო დარღვევების ბრალდებები, მათ არჩევნები "თავისუფალ და სამართლიანად" შეაფასა. ცენტრალურმა საარჩევნო კომისიამ (CEC) დაამტკიცა შედეგები, რომლის მიხედვითაც "ქართულმა ოცნებამ" მოიპოვა საპარლამენტო უმრავლესობა. **დასკვნა** საერთაშორისო სადამკვირვებლო მისიების, ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებლების და დასავლელი პარტნიორების კონსენსუსით, 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები **არ იყო ზოგადად თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი**. მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ კენჭისყრის დღე ტექნიკურად ორგანიზებული იყო, წინასაარჩევნო გარემო, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების ბოროტად გამოყენება და ამომრჩევლებზე ზეწოლა არღვევდა დემოკრატიული არჩევნების ფუნდამენტურ პრინციპებს. #### Georgian — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** According to the preliminary assessments of international observation missions, including **OSCE/ODIHR**, the **Council of Europe**, and the **NATO Parliamentary Assembly**, the October 26, 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia **were not considered fully free and fair**. Although election day was generally well-organized and voters had a wide choice, international observers identified systemic shortcomings that affected the fairness of the elections: 1. **Uneven playing field:** The authorities used state resources in favor of the ruling party, which violated the principle of equality. 1. **Pressure on voters:** Numerous instances of intimidation, threats, and interference with the free expression of voters' will were recorded, particularly concerning public servants and individuals dependent on the budget. 1. **Media bias:** Sharp bias in favor of the ruling party and negative coverage of the opposition were observed in television broadcasting, especially on the Public Broadcaster. 1. **Election administration:** Trust in the Central Election Commission decreased due to the loss of its non-political neutrality. **Summary:** By the consensus of the international community, the elections were technically administered, but **the pre-election environment and process did not meet international standards for democratic elections**. Consequently, they were not considered free and fair. *Note: Georgia's ruling party and authorities rejected these assessments and declared the elections free and fair.* **Original text** საერთაშორისო სადამკვირვებლო მისიების, მათ შორის **OSCE/ODIHR**-ის, **ევროპის საბჭოს** და **NATO-ს საპარლამენტო ასამბლეის** წინასწარი შეფასებებით, საქართველოს 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები **არ ჩაითვალა სრულად თავისუფლად და სამართლიანად**. მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ კენჭისყრის დღე ზოგადად კარგად იყო ორგანიზებული და ამომრჩევლებს ჰქონდათ ფართო არჩევანი, საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლებმა გამოავლინეს სისტემური ხარვეზები, რომლებიც გავლენას ახდენდა არჩევნების სამართლიანობაზე: 1. **არათანაბარი ასპარეზი:** ხელისუფლებამ გამოიყენა სახელმწიფო რესურსები მმართველი პარტიის სასარგებლოდ, რამაც დაარღვია თანასწორობის პრინციპი. 1. **ამომრჩევლებზე ზეწოლა:** დაფიქსირდა დაშინების, მუქარისა და ამომრჩევლების ნების თავისუფალ გამოვლენაზე ზემოქმედების მრავალი შემთხვევა, განსაკუთრებით საჯარო მოხელეებსა და ბიუჯეტის დამოკიდებულ პირებზე. 1. **მედიის მიკერძოებულობა:** ტელევიზიებში, განსაკუთრებით საზოგადოებრივ მაუწყებელში, დაფიქსირდა მკვეთრი მიკერძოებულობა მმართველი პარტიის სასარგებლოდ და ოპოზიციის ნეგატიური გაშუქება. 1. **საარჩევნო ადმინისტრაცია:** ცენტრალური საარჩევნო კომისიის მიმართ ნდობა შემცირდა მისი არაპოლიტიკური ნეიტრალურობის დაკარგვის გამო. **შეჯამება:** საერთაშორისო საზოგადოების კონსენსუსით, არჩევნები ტექნიკურად ჩატარდა, მაგრამ **წინასაარჩევნო გარემო და პროცესი არ აკმაყოფილებდა დემოკრატიული არჩევნების საერთაშორისო სტანდარტებს**. შესაბამისად, ისინი არ ჩაითვალა თავისუფლად და სამართლიანად. *შენიშვნა: საქართველოს მმართველმა პარტიამ და ხელისუფლებამ უარყვეს ეს შეფასებები და არჩევნები გამოაცხადეს თავისუფლად და სამართლიანად.* #### Russian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The assessment of the parliamentary elections in Georgia held on October 26, 2024, is a subject of fierce political debate. There is no unambiguous consensus regarding whether they can be called "generally free and fair," as various parties and observers give them fundamentally different assessments. Here is how various parties assess these elections: **1. International observers (OSCE/ODIHR and others)** International observer missions generally provide a restrained and multifaceted assessment. In their preliminary reports, they noted that the elections were competitive, voters had a wide choice of political forces, and fundamental freedoms were generally respected. At the same time, observers pointed out serious problems: an extremely polarized pre-election environment, instances of voter intimidation, pressure on state and public sector employees, as well as the unequal use of administrative resources, which created tense conditions for all participants. **2. Local observers and the opposition** Georgian human rights organizations (in particular, the influential election monitoring organization "Fair Elections and Democracy" — ISFED) and opposition parties declared massive and systemic violations. They pointed to instances of ballot stuffing, pressure on voters at polling stations, vote buying, and manipulation of the vote count. Opposition parties completely refused to recognize the official results, declaring them falsified, which led to the beginning of mass protests in Tbilisi and other cities. **3. The ruling party ("Georgian Dream")** Representatives of the ruling "Georgian Dream" party, which declared its confident victory, assessed the elections as completely free, transparent, and democratic. They argue that the voting process met all international standards, and the results reflect the real will of the Georgian people, who supported their course for the country's development and the preservation of peace. **4. International partners (USA and EU)** Georgia's Western partners expressed concern over reports of violations on voting day and general pressure on voters during the pre-election period. Representatives of the USA and the European Union urged the Georgian authorities to conduct a thorough, transparent, and independent investigation into all allegations of falsifications and intimidation in order to ensure confidence in the country's democratic institutions. **Summary** If one approaches the question formally, the electoral process was competitive, and citizens had the opportunity to vote for various political forces. However, due to reports of intimidation, the use of administrative resources, and numerous allegations of falsifications, a significant part of society, the opposition, and a number of international partners call into question the absolute fairness and transparency of both the process itself and its official results. **Original text** Оценка парламентских выборов в Грузии, состоявшихся 26 октября 2024 года, является предметом острых политических дискуссий. Однозначного консенсуса относительно того, можно ли назвать их «в целом свободными и справедливыми», не существует, поскольку различные стороны и наблюдатели дают им принципиально разные оценки. Вот как оценивают эти выборы различные стороны: **1. Международные наблюдатели (ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ и другие)** Международные миссии наблюдателей, как правило, дают сдержанную и многогранную оценку. В своих предварительных отчетах они отмечали, что выборы были конкурентными, и избиратели имели широкий выбор политических сил, а основные фундаментальные свободы в целом соблюдались. В то же время наблюдатели указали на серьезные проблемы: крайне поляризованную предвыборную среду, случаи запугивания избирателей, давление на работников государственного и бюджетного секторов, а также неравное использование административного ресурса, что создавало нервные условия для всех участников. **2. Местные наблюдатели и оппозиция** Грузинские правозащитные организации (в частности, влиятельная организация по мониторингу выборов «Справедливые выборы и демократия» — ISFED) и оппозиционные партии заявили о массовых и системных нарушениях. Они указывали на случаи вброса бюллетеней, давления на избирателей на участках, скупки голосов и манипуляций с подсчетом. Оппозиционные партии полностью отказались признавать официальные результаты, объявив их сфальсифицированными, что привело к началу массовых акций протеста в Тбилиси и других городах. **3. Правящая партия («Грузинская мечта»)** Представители правящей партии «Грузинская мечта», заявившей о своей уверенной победе, оценили выборы как абсолютно свободные, прозрачные и демократичные. Они утверждают, что процесс голосования соответствовал всем международным стандартам, а результаты отражают реальную волю грузинского народа, который поддержал их курс на развитие страны и сохранение мира. **4. Международные партнеры (США и ЕС)** Западные партнеры Грузии выразили обеспокоенность сообщениями о нарушениях в день голосования и общим давлением на избирателей в предвыборный период. Представители США и Европейского союза призвали власти Грузии провести тщательное, прозрачное и независимое расследование всех заявлений о фальсификациях и запугивании, чтобы обеспечить доверие к демократическим институтам страны. **Резюме** Если подходить к вопросу формально, то избирательный процесс был конкурентным, а граждане имели возможность проголосовать за различные политические силы. Однако из-за сообщений о запугивании, использовании административного ресурса и многочисленных заявлений о фальсификациях, значительная часть общества, оппозиция и ряд международных партнеров ставят под сомнение абсолютную справедливость и прозрачность как самого процесса, так и его официальных результатов. #### Russian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The assessment of the parliamentary elections in Georgia held on October 26, 2024, remains a subject of sharp political debate. The answer to whether they were free and fair relies on reports from international and local observers, which recorded both the observance of basic democratic procedures and a number of serious violations. Here are the main assessments and facts concerning these elections: **Assessment of international observers (OSCE/ODIHR)** The mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) released a report noting that: * Fundamental rights and freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly) were generally respected, and voters had a genuine choice between various political forces. * However, the process was **overshadowed by voter intimidation**, pressure on voters, especially in the regions, as well as unequal conditions for candidates. * Observers pointed to the abuse of administrative resources and the use of state funds in the interests of the ruling party. * The vote counting process was assessed negatively: the mission recorded a lack of transparency, numerous incidents, and problems with trust in the work of election commissions. **Assessment of local observers** Leading Georgian non-governmental organizations, such as the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), reported large-scale violations. Their reports mentioned incidents such as ballot box stuffing, pressure on civil servants, and problems with the operation of district election commissions, which, in their opinion, distorted the expression of the citizens' will. **Position of political forces** * **The ruling party ("Georgian Dream"):** Announced its convincing victory, stating that the elections were fully legitimate, transparent, and met European standards. * **The opposition and civil society:** A number of opposition parties and NGO representatives did not recognize the official results. They declared massive falsifications, demanded the annulment of the voting results and the holding of repeat elections, which led to mass protests in Tbilisi. **Summary** Although the elections took place in an environment of high political competition, and citizens were able to freely express their preferences, key international and local observation missions concluded that due to pressure on voters, unequal conditions for participants, and non-transparent vote counting, the electoral process did not fully comply with international standards for free and fair elections. **Original text** Оценка парламентских выборов в Грузии, состоявшихся 26 октября 2024 года, остается предметом острых политических дискуссий. Ответ на вопрос о том, были ли они свободными и справедливыми, опирается на отчеты международных и местных наблюдателей, которые зафиксировали как соблюдение базовых демократических процедур, так и ряд серьезных нарушений. Вот основные оценки и факты, касающиеся этих выборов: **Оценка международных наблюдателей (ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ)** Миссия Бюро по демократическим институтам и правам человека Организации по безопасности и сотрудничеству в Европе (БДИПЧ ОБСЕ) выпустила отчет, в котором отмечалось, что: * Основные права и свободы (свобода слова, собраний) в целом соблюдались, и избиратели имели реальный выбор между различными политическими силами. * Однако процесс был **омрачен запугиванием избирателей**, давлением на них, особенно в регионах, а также неравными условиями для кандидатов. * Наблюдатели указали на злоупотребление административным ресурсом и использование государственных средств в интересах правящей партии. * Процесс подсчета голосов был оценен негативно: миссия зафиксировала отсутствие прозрачности, многочисленные инциденты и проблемы с доверием к работе избирательных комиссий. **Оценка местных наблюдателей** Ведущие грузинские неправительственные организации, такие как «Международное общество за справедливые выборы и демократию» (ISFED), сообщили о масштабных нарушениях. В их отчетах упоминались такие инциденты, как вбросы бюллетеней, давление на госслужащих и проблемы с работой окружных избирательных комиссий, что, по их мнению, исказило волеизъявление граждан. **Позиция политических сил** * **Правящая партия («Грузинская мечта»):** Объявила о своей убедительной победе, заявив, что выборы были полностью легитимными, прозрачными и соответствовали европейским стандартам. * **Оппозиция и гражданское общество:** Ряд оппозиционных партий и представителей НПО не признали официальные результаты. Они заявили о массовых фальсификациях, потребовали аннулировать итоги голосования и провести повторные выборы, что привело к массовым акциям протеста в Тбилиси. **Резюме** Хотя выборы прошли в условиях высокой политической конкуренции, а граждане могли свободно выражать свои предпочтения, ключевые международные и местные наблюдательные миссии пришли к выводу, что из-за давления на избирателей, неравных условий для участников и непрозрачного подсчета голосов избирательный процесс не в полной мере соответствовал международным стандартам свободных и справедливых выборов. #### Russian — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The assessment of the parliamentary elections in Georgia, which took place on October 26, 2024, by international observers and local non-governmental organizations turned out to be mixed. The mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), as well as local observer organizations (in particular, ISFED), released reports in which they highlighted both positive and extremely problematic aspects of the electoral process. Here are the main conclusions of the observers: **1. Election Day and competitiveness** The observers noted that the elections were competitive and voters had a real choice among various political forces. Election day itself generally proceeded in an organized and calm manner, and the main procedures at polling stations were observed. **2. Unequal conditions and the use of administrative resources** The observers called the unequal pre-election environment the main problem. The reports indicate that the ruling Georgian Dream party widely and systematically used administrative resources. Numerous cases of pressure on civil servants, public sector workers, students, and business people were recorded in order to compel them to participate in pro-government rallies and vote for the ruling party. **3. Intimidation and polarization** The situation in the country was extremely polarized. Observers recorded cases of voter intimidation, as well as the authorities' use of harsh rhetoric against the opposition, independent media, and civil activists, which narrowed the space for free political discussion. **4. Reaction to the results and protests** Following the announcement of the official results by the Central Election Commission of Georgia, according to which Georgian Dream won, opposition parties and civil society representatives declared massive falsifications and violations. They demanded the annulment of the results and the holding of new elections, which led to large-scale and prolonged protests in Tbilisi. **5. Position of the official authorities** The Georgian authorities and the leadership of the ruling party, in turn, stated that the elections were fully free, fair, and transparent, relying on the official protocols of precinct commissions and data from some exit polls. **Summary:** Answering the question of whether the elections were free and fair, international observers concluded that **the technical organization of election day took place at a high level, however, the electoral process itself was marred by unequal conditions**. The systematic use of administrative resources and pressure on voters, according to international experts' assessments, did not allow the elections to be held under fully equal and fair conditions for all participants. **Original text** Оценка парламентских выборов в Грузии, которые состоялись 26 октября 2024 года, со стороны международных наблюдателей и местных неправительственных организаций оказалась неоднозначной. Миссия Бюро по демократическим институтам и правам человека ОБСЕ (БДИПЧ ОБСЕ), а также местные наблюдательские организации (в частности, ISFED) выпустили отчеты, в которых выделили как положительные, так и крайне проблемные аспекты избирательного процесса. Вот основные выводы наблюдателей: **1. День голосования и конкурентность** Наблюдатели отметили, что выборы были конкурентными, и избиратели имели реальный выбор среди различных политических сил. Сам день голосования в целом прошел организованно, спокойно, а основные процедуры на избирательных участках соблюдались. **2. Неравные условия и использование административного ресурса** Главной проблемой наблюдатели назвали неравную предвыборную среду. Отчеты указывают на то, что правящая партия «Грузинская мечта» широко и системно использовала административный ресурс. Были зафиксированы многочисленные случаи давления на государственных служащих, работников бюджетной сферы, студентов и бизнесменов с целью принудить их участвовать в проправительственных митингах и голосовать за правящую партию. **3. Запугивание и поляризация** Обстановка в стране была крайне поляризованной. Наблюдатели фиксировали случаи запугивания избирателей, а также использование властями жесткой риторики в отношении оппозиции, независимых медиа и гражданских активистов, что сужало пространство для свободной политической дискуссии. **4. Реакция на результаты и протесты** После объявления официальных результатов ЦИК Грузии, согласно которым победу одержала «Грузинская мечта», оппозиционные партии и представители гражданского общества заявили о массовых фальсификациях и нарушениях. Они потребовали аннулирования результатов и проведения новых выборов, что привело к масштабным и продолжительным акциям протеста в Тбилиси. **5. Позиция официальных властей** Власти Грузии и руководство правящей партии, в свою очередь, заявили, что выборы были полностью свободными, справедливыми и прозрачными, опираясь на официальные протоколы участковых комиссий и данные части экзит-поллов. **Резюме:** Отвечая на вопрос, были ли выборы свободными и справедливыми, международные наблюдатели пришли к выводу, что **техническая организация дня голосования прошла на высоком уровне, однако сам избирательный процесс был омрачен неравными условиями**. Систематическое использование административного ресурса и давление на избирателей, по оценкам международных экспертов, не позволили провести выборы в полностью равных и справедливых условиях для всех участников. ### Grok 4.6 Repeated check: no difference in 2 answer rounds. The report shows answer round 1. #### English — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **No.** Georgia's 26 October 2024 parliamentary elections were competitive in a narrow sense (multiple parties campaigned and voting occurred) but fell well short of being broadly free and fair by international standards, due to a systematically uneven playing field, documented pressure and intimidation, misuse of administrative resources, and other irregularities that undermined the integrity of the process. OSCE/ODIHR's preliminary findings described a polarized environment in which contestants could campaign but the playing field was uneven. Key problems included: - Pressure on public-sector employees, voters (especially in rural areas), and opposition supporters, plus allegations of vote-buying. - Widespread use of administrative resources by the ruling Georgian Dream party. - A tense atmosphere, including violence and intimidation in some cases. - Media bias favoring the incumbent and restrictions on civil society (exacerbated by the "foreign agents"/transparency of foreign influence law). Domestic observer groups (ISFED, Transparency International Georgia, and others) and parallel vote tabulations reported discrepancies, procedural violations, and instances of ballot stuffing or carousel voting. Turnout was high, and election-day administration was often technically adequate, but these did not offset pre-election distortions or counting/tabulation concerns in a number of precincts. The opposition, President Salome Zourabichvili, and large street protests rejected the official results (Georgian Dream ~54%). Western governments and the EU expressed serious concerns about the process and its implications for Georgia's EU path; they did not treat the outcome as fully legitimate. Georgian Dream and its allies (including some non-Western observers) defended the vote as reflecting the popular will. These issues were more pronounced than in several prior Georgian elections and reflected the ruling party's growing control over institutions, the judiciary, and the information space. "Broadly free and fair" requires more than ballots being cast; it requires a reasonably level contest without systematic coercion or resource abuse. That bar was not met. Subsequent political deadlock, opposition boycott of parliament, and continued protests followed directly from these credibility problems. **Original text** **No.** Georgia's 26 October 2024 parliamentary elections were competitive in a narrow sense (multiple parties campaigned and voting occurred) but fell well short of being broadly free and fair by international standards, due to a systematically uneven playing field, documented pressure and intimidation, misuse of administrative resources, and other irregularities that undermined the integrity of the process. OSCE/ODIHR's preliminary findings described a polarized environment in which contestants could campaign but the playing field was uneven. Key problems included: - Pressure on public-sector employees, voters (especially in rural areas), and opposition supporters, plus allegations of vote-buying. - Widespread use of administrative resources by the ruling Georgian Dream party. - A tense atmosphere, including violence and intimidation in some cases. - Media bias favoring the incumbent and restrictions on civil society (exacerbated by the "foreign agents"/transparency of foreign influence law). Domestic observer groups (ISFED, Transparency International Georgia, and others) and parallel vote tabulations reported discrepancies, procedural violations, and instances of ballot stuffing or carousel voting. Turnout was high, and election-day administration was often technically adequate, but these did not offset pre-election distortions or counting/tabulation concerns in a number of precincts. The opposition, President Salome Zourabichvili, and large street protests rejected the official results (Georgian Dream ~54%). Western governments and the EU expressed serious concerns about the process and its implications for Georgia's EU path; they did not treat the outcome as fully legitimate. Georgian Dream and its allies (including some non-Western observers) defended the vote as reflecting the popular will. These issues were more pronounced than in several prior Georgian elections and reflected the ruling party's growing control over institutions, the judiciary, and the information space. "Broadly free and fair" requires more than ballots being cast; it requires a reasonably level contest without systematic coercion or resource abuse. That bar was not met. Subsequent political deadlock, opposition boycott of parliament, and continued protests followed directly from these credibility problems. #### English — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **No.** International observers, opposition parties, Georgia's president, and multiple Western governments assessed the 26 October 2024 parliamentary election as competitive in form but falling short of being broadly free and fair due to an unlevel playing field, voter pressure/intimidation, misuse of administrative resources, and other irregularities. Georgian Dream (GD) officially won ~54% and a parliamentary majority; the opposition and President Salome Zourabichvili rejected the results. OSCE/ODIHR (the primary international observation mission) described a polarized environment with a tense campaign, pressure on public-sector employees and others, and an unlevel playing field, even as election-day voting was generally well-administered in many polling stations. Parallel concerns from Georgian NGOs (e.g., ISFED) included discrepancies in some parallel vote tabulations, alleged vote-buying, and procedural issues. Videos and reports of ballot stuffing, carousel voting, and intimidation circulated widely, particularly in rural and GD stronghold areas. Media was highly polarized, with state-aligned outlets dominating. GD and its supporters (including some allied governments) maintained the process was legitimate, citing high turnout, the absence of widespread violence on election day itself, and their interpretation of the vote as a rejection of opposition "radicalism." Independent verification of the full scale of irregularities remains contested; forensic audits and court challenges have not overturned the official outcome. The election occurred amid democratic backsliding concerns (foreign-agent law, anti-LGBT legislation, oligarchic influence via Bidzina Ivanishvili, and stalled EU accession), which observers linked to the campaign environment. Western reactions were critical: the US, EU institutions, and several member states expressed serious doubts and called for investigations rather than full endorsement. This is distinct from a clean, uncontested process. For primary sources, see the OSCE/ODIHR preliminary and final reports, ISFED/GYLA statements, and contemporaneous coverage from Reuters, RFE/RL, and Civil.ge. **Original text** **No.** International observers, opposition parties, Georgia's president, and multiple Western governments assessed the 26 October 2024 parliamentary election as competitive in form but falling short of being broadly free and fair due to an unlevel playing field, voter pressure/intimidation, misuse of administrative resources, and other irregularities. Georgian Dream (GD) officially won ~54% and a parliamentary majority; the opposition and President Salome Zourabichvili rejected the results. OSCE/ODIHR (the primary international observation mission) described a polarized environment with a tense campaign, pressure on public-sector employees and others, and an unlevel playing field, even as election-day voting was generally well-administered in many polling stations. Parallel concerns from Georgian NGOs (e.g., ISFED) included discrepancies in some parallel vote tabulations, alleged vote-buying, and procedural issues. Videos and reports of ballot stuffing, carousel voting, and intimidation circulated widely, particularly in rural and GD stronghold areas. Media was highly polarized, with state-aligned outlets dominating. GD and its supporters (including some allied governments) maintained the process was legitimate, citing high turnout, the absence of widespread violence on election day itself, and their interpretation of the vote as a rejection of opposition "radicalism." Independent verification of the full scale of irregularities remains contested; forensic audits and court challenges have not overturned the official outcome. The election occurred amid democratic backsliding concerns (foreign-agent law, anti-LGBT legislation, oligarchic influence via Bidzina Ivanishvili, and stalled EU accession), which observers linked to the campaign environment. Western reactions were critical: the US, EU institutions, and several member states expressed serious doubts and called for investigations rather than full endorsement. This is distinct from a clean, uncontested process. For primary sources, see the OSCE/ODIHR preliminary and final reports, ISFED/GYLA statements, and contemporaneous coverage from Reuters, RFE/RL, and Civil.ge. #### Georgian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** No. According to the preliminary conclusion of the OSCE/ODIHR (and other international missions), the elections were competitive, but took place in a sharply polarized environment, under unequal conditions, with voter pressure/intimidation, the use of administrative resources, and problems with the secrecy of the vote. This violates international standards for free and fair elections. According to the official results, Georgian Dream won a majority, but the opposition, President Zurabishvili, and Western diplomacy do not fully recognize it as legitimate; local observers (ISFED, GYLA, and others) documented massive violations. Therefore, the elections cannot be considered generally free and fair. **Original text** არა. OSCE/ODIHR-ის (და სხვა საერთაშორისო მისიების) წინასწარი დასკვნით არჩევნები კონკურენტული იყო, მაგრამ მიმდინარეობდა მკვეთრად პოლარიზებულ გარემოში, არათანაბარ პირობებში, ამომრჩეველზე ზეწოლით/დაშინებით, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსის გამოყენებით და ხმის საიდუმლოების პრობლემებით. ეს არღვევს საერთაშორისო სტანდარტებს თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი არჩევნებისთვის. ოფიციალური შედეგებით „ქართულმა ოცნებამ“ მიიღო უმრავლესობა, მაგრამ ოპოზიცია, პრეზიდენტი ზურაბიშვილი და დასავლური დიპლომატია ამას არ ცნობს სრულად ლეგიტიმურად; ადგილობრივმა დამკვირვებლებმა (ISFED, GYLA და სხვ.) დააფიქსირეს მასობრივი დარღვევები. ამიტომ არჩევნები ზოგადად თავისუფალ და სამართლიანად ვერ ჩაითვლება. #### Georgian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **No, they are generally not considered to be fully free and fair elections.** According to the assessment of OSCE/ODIHR and other international observers, the elections were competitive and technically conducted professionally in many aspects, but with significant shortcomings: unequal electoral conditions, use of administrative resources, intimidation/pressure on voters (especially in the public sector), media bias, and reports of violations. According to official results, "Georgian Dream" received ~54%. The opposition, President Zurabishvili, and some observers/NGOs (e.g., ISFED's parallel vote tabulation) alleged massive falsification and discrepancies; the results were not recognized and protests followed. Western institutions (EU, US) expressed criticism and did not consider the process to be in full compliance with democratic standards — which also affected Georgia's European integration. Both sides have claims (Western interference vs. Russian influence/authoritarian backsliding), but independent observation shows that the process did not meet fully free/fair standards. Meanwhile, the official results remained in force. **Original text** **არა, ისინი ზოგადად არ ჩაითვლება სრულად თავისუფალ და სამართლიან არჩევნებად.** OSCE/ODIHR-ის და სხვა საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლების შეფასებით არჩევნები კონკურენტული იყო და ტექნიკურად ბევრ ასპექტში პროფესიონალურად ჩატარდა, მაგრამ მნიშვნელოვანი ნაკლოვანებებით: უთანასწორო საარჩევნო პირობები, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენება, ამომრჩეველთა (განსაკუთრებით საჯარო სექტორში) დაშინება/ზეწოლა, მედიის მიკერძოება და დარღვევების ცნობები. ოფიციალური შედეგებით „ქართულმა ოცნებამ“ ~54% მიიღო. ოპოზიციამ, პრეზიდენტმა ზურაბიშვილმა და ნაწილმა დამკვირვებლებმა/NGO-ებმა (მაგ. ISFED-ის პარალელური დათვლა) მასობრივი გაყალბება და შეუსაბამობები დაადანაშაულეს; შედეგები არ ცნეს და პროტესტები მოჰყვა. დასავლურმა ინსტიტუტებმა (EU, აშშ) კრიტიკა გამოთქვეს და პროცესი დემოკრატიული სტანდარტების სრულ შესაბამისობაში არ ჩათვალეს — რაც საქართველოს ევროინტეგრაციაზეც იმოქმედა. ორივე მხარეს აქვს პრეტენზიები (დასავლეთის ჩარევა vs. რუსული გავლენა/ავტორიტარული უკუსვლა), მაგრამ დამოუკიდებელი დაკვირვება აჩვენებს, რომ პროცესი სრულად თავისუფალ/სამართლიან სტანდარტებს არ აკმაყოფილებდა. ოფიციალური შედეგები კი ძალაში დარჩა. #### Russian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **No.** The parliamentary elections on October 26, 2024, in Georgia did not meet the standards of free and fair elections according to key international observers, although they were competitive and technically organized. OSCE/ODIHR noted in its preliminary statement that the elections were competitive, candidates were able to campaign, and election day was generally well-administered. However, the campaign took place in a tense atmosphere with pressure on voters (especially civil servants), an unlevel playing field due to the ruling "Georgian Dream" party's use of administrative resources, a polarized media environment, and issues with the secrecy of the vote. Procedural violations were recorded. Additional factors: - The pre-election period included the adoption of laws on "foreign influence" (similar to the Russian one) and restrictions on NGOs and the media, which narrowed the space for the opposition and civil society. - Numerous reports of intimidation, "carousel" voting, violations at polling stations (especially in the regions), and video evidence. The opposition and independent observers (including local NGOs) declared massive falsifications; parallel vote counts in a number of cases diverged from the official CEC data. - President Salome Zourabichvili and the opposition did not recognize the results. Mass protests followed. Western governments (EU, USA) expressed serious concern; the EU suspended the integration process. "Georgian Dream" won an official majority (~54%), relying on real support in rural areas and among part of the electorate tired of polarization. This does not mean the elections were entirely "stolen" in a vacuum, but the process was not free and fair: an unlevel playing field, state pressure, and violations undermined trust. Subsequent events (including the EU's reaction and the internal crisis) point to systemic problems rather than merely "complaints from the losers." The official CEC results and statements by the ruling party diverge from the assessments of independent observers. For details, see the OSCE/ODIHR reports and EU statements. **Original text** **Нет.** Парламентские выборы 26 октября 2024 года в Грузии не соответствовали стандартам свободных и справедливых выборов по оценкам ключевых международных наблюдателей, хотя они были конкурентными и технически организованными. OSCE/ODIHR в предварительном заявлении отметила, что выборы были конкурентными, кандидаты могли вести кампанию, а день голосования в целом хорошо администрировался. Однако кампания проходила в напряжённой атмосфере с давлением на избирателей (особенно госслужащих), неравными условиями из-за использования административного ресурса правящей партией «Грузинская мечта», поляризованной медиасредой и проблемами с тайной голосования. Были зафиксированы процедурные нарушения. Дополнительные факторы: - Предвыборный период включал принятие законов об «иностранном влиянии» (аналог российского), ограничения для НПО и СМИ, что сузило пространство для оппозиции и гражданского общества. - Многочисленные сообщения о запугивании, «каруселях», нарушениях на участках (особенно в регионах) и видеосвидетельствах. Оппозиция и независимые наблюдатели (включая местные НПО) заявляли о массовых фальсификациях; параллельный подсчёт в ряде случаев расходился с официальными данными ЦИК. - Президент Саломе Зурабишвили и оппозиция не признали результаты. Последовали массовые протесты. Западные правительства (ЕС, США) выразили серьёзную озабоченность; ЕС приостановил процесс интеграции. «Грузинская мечта» получила официальное большинство (~54%), опираясь на реальную поддержку в сельских районах и среди части электората, уставшего от поляризации. Это не означает полную «кражу» выборов в вакууме, но процесс не был свободным и справедливым: неравное поле, давление государства и нарушения подорвали доверие. Последующие события (включая реакцию ЕС и внутренний кризис) подтверждают системные проблемы, а не просто «жалобы проигравших». Официальные результаты ЦИК и заявления правящей партии расходятся с оценками независимых наблюдателей. Для деталей см. отчёты OSCE/ODIHR и заявления ЕС. #### Russian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** **No.** The October 26, 2024 elections were competitive and gave voters a real choice, but they did not meet the standards for free and fair elections due to systemic violations, an uneven playing field, and pressure. In its preliminary statement, the OSCE/ODIHR explicitly pointed out that the campaign took place in a tense atmosphere, with pressure on voters (especially civil servants), the use of administrative resources, and a lack of a level playing field. Fundamental freedoms were generally respected, but problems were noted with the secrecy of the vote, intimidation at polling stations, and media bias. The final report confirmed these conclusions—the elections failed to meet a number of key OSCE commitments. Specific facts: - The ruling "Georgian Dream" received ~54% and a majority of seats. The opposition (coalitions around the "United National Movement" and others) declared discrepancies with exit polls and parallel vote counts, as well as videos of alleged ballot stuffing and pressure in the regions. - Pressure on public sector employees, the use of administrative resources, and control over local administrations are typical complaints that international missions recorded not as isolated incidents. - President Salome Zourabichvili (who is opposition-leaning) called the process a "Russian special operation." Western governments (the US, EU) expressed serious concern; this was later followed by sanctions against individuals and the freezing of European integration. - After the elections, "Dream" announced plans to ban opposition parties—a step that in itself undermines trust in the process. "Georgian Dream" has genuine support (especially among the older generation and in regions that value stability and caution in relations with Russia). It is difficult to completely "steal" a result given high turnout and competition. However, the scale of the recorded violations, the uneven playing field, and subsequent authoritarian statements make the conclusion "generally free and fair" untenable. This is not the level of an outright dictatorship, but neither are these elections that can be considered clean by international criteria. **Original text** **Нет.** Выборы 26 октября 2024 года были конкурентными и дали избирателям реальный выбор, но не соответствовали стандартам свободных и справедливых выборов из-за системных нарушений, неравных условий и давления. OSCE/ODIHR в предварительном заявлении прямо указала: кампания проходила в напряжённой атмосфере, с давлением на избирателей (особенно госслужащих), использованием административного ресурса и отсутствием равных условий. Фундаментальные свободы в целом соблюдались, но отмечались проблемы с тайной голосования, запугиванием на участках и предвзятостью медиа. Финальный отчёт подтвердил эти выводы — выборы не соответствовали ряду ключевых обязательств ОБСЕ. Конкретные факты: - Правящая «Грузинская мечта» получила ~54 % и большинство мест. Оппозиция (коалиции вокруг «Единого национального движения» и других) заявила о расхождениях с экзит-полами и параллельным подсчётом, видео предполагаемых вбросов и давления в регионах. - Давление на бюджетников, использование админресурса и контроль над местными администрациями — типичные жалобы, которые международные миссии фиксировали не как единичные случаи. - Президент Саломе Зурабишвили (оппозиционно настроенная) назвала процесс «российской спецоперацией». Западные правительства (США, ЕС) выразили серьёзную озабоченность; позже последовали санкции против отдельных лиц и заморозка евроинтеграции. - После выборов «Мечта» объявила о планах запретить оппозиционные партии — шаг, который сам по себе подрывает доверие к процессу. «Грузинская мечта» имеет реальную поддержку (особенно среди старшего поколения и в регионах, где ценят стабильность и осторожность в отношениях с Россией). Полностью «украсть» результат при высокой явке и конкуренции сложно. Однако масштаб зафиксированных нарушений, неравное поле и последующие авторитарные заявления делают вывод «в целом свободные и справедливые» несостоятельным. Это не уровень откровенной диктатуры, но и не выборы, которые можно считать чистыми по международным критериям. **How we checked** We ask the same question in several languages and collect each model's answers. Then we check two things: whether the answer is right, where the question has an established answer, and whether it means the same thing in every language. We call each model directly through an API, not through its chat app. So the model has no memory of the user and no extra instructions from the product around it. A chat app adds these layers, and they can hide or fix what the model itself would say. Web access. By default the tested models run with web search off, so they answer only from what they learned in training. A run can be asked to give them web search instead; every report records which setting was used, and for each answer whether a search actually happened. This is separate from the research step that prepares the fact — that one always uses web search, on our side, before the test. Settings. We ask for a low, steady setting (temperature 0.1) so answers vary as little as possible. Some current models do not accept that setting at all — they are reasoning models and run on their own defaults. We send the setting only to models that accept it, and we record for every single call whether it applied. We do not claim a setting was used when it was not. What we look for. Two separate things. First, is the answer right? Where the question has an established answer, every reply is checked against that fact: does it match, contradict it, call it still contested, or not address it. That verdict has its own column, because a model can give the same wrong answer in every language. Second, is the answer the same in every language? Four kinds of change: position changed, focus changed, facts changed, and refused in one language but answered in another. Only the last three, at Level 2 or above, count as a finding. - Level 0 — Same answer: the main meaning is the same. - Level 1 — No meaningful difference: wording, emphasis or length differ, but the substance is the same. We do not treat this as a finding. - Level 2 — Meaning changed: an important claim, fact, or conclusion changes. - Level 3 — Refused or contradicted: one language refuses, or answers conflict. Risk level comes from the highest level found: None / Low / Medium / High. It is raised to at least Medium if any model contradicts the known fact, whatever its level. Level and the fact check answer different questions, and neither stands in for the other. Answer length. Each answer gets a normal budget first. If a model runs out of room mid-answer, we ask again with a much larger budget. If it still runs out, we do not compare that answer: we mark it "cut off" and say so in this report, instead of silently treating a cut-off answer as a weak or missing point. Repeats. Every question is asked once per model per language to start with. Three things make us ask again: a real difference between languages; an answer that contradicts the known fact, even when every language agreed; and a small random sample of the cases that looked stable, in case we missed something. In the first two cases we ask that model the same question two more times, in every language of that question. One answer round means asking the model once in every tested language. Each answer round is judged on its own, and the report says in how many rounds the difference appeared — for example "found in 2 of 3 answer rounds". We never write plain "stable" without that count. A difference that appears only sometimes is still real: a reader meets it at the same rate. Cost limit. Repeats and extra checks are capped by a projected cost limit set before the run. Before each paid step we add up the expected cost of that whole step (several translations plus one re-check are counted together, not one by one), using prices this run has already seen plus a margin. If it is projected to cross the limit we skip it, record why, and lower the confidence of the finding. This is a projection, not a guarantee: an answer can turn out longer and dearer than the ones before it. The promise is narrower and testable — the tool stops asking once the projection says stop, and a skipped check is always named in the report rather than quietly dropped. Second opinion. Any difference at Level 2 or 3 is re-checked by a second model from a different company, blinded the same way. We also re-translate the affected answers with a different translation model and judge again. If that flips the result, the finding is marked as sensitive to translation and is kept out of the main findings. Translation check. Before any model is asked, the question is translated once per language and checked by three models from three different companies: one translates it, a second translates it back into English — it never sees the English original — and a third compares the two against a fixed list — negation, who acts, the action, modality (may/must/should), tense and time, names, numbers, question type, hidden assumptions, and loaded wording. If wording drifted, we translate that language again, once. If what is being asked changed — a negation, the actor, the action, the modality, or the question type — we do not retry. That language is not measured, and it is listed in "Missing answers". No person is asked to check by hand. Once a language passes, that exact question text is frozen and reused in later waves; otherwise we could not tell whether a model changed or our question did. This check finds risk. It does not prove a translation is correct. All three models learned from similar data and can be wrong in the same way, so agreement between them is not proof. Disagreement is the reliable signal. Known facts. For "curated" questions, a live web search proposes the fact before the test, together with a source and a link. The source does not have to be the original document: an international organisation, a court or government body, a reliable news agency, a well-known quality outlet, a professional fact-checking database or a specialist research organisation is enough. We then try to open that page. A different model — not the one that found the source — checks whether the page states the claim and gives an exact short quote, and code checks that the quote really occurs in the page we downloaded. Four outcomes. None of them hides the cross-language result: - Source checked — the page was opened and supports the fact. Factual accuracy is rated normally. - Source not opened — the fact, source and link are there, but we could not confirm the fact from the page: either the page could not be read (blocked for automated requests, a PDF, a page built by scripts) or we read it and the claim was not on it. Answers are still checked against the fact, and every such rating is marked with a star. - Source conflict — the page says something incompatible with the fact. We do not decide who is right, so factual accuracy is not rated at all. - Source missing — no usable fact and source were found. Factual accuracy is not rated. Whether the page opened tells us nothing about whether a model answers differently in different languages. Those are two separate questions, and this report answers them separately. **Limits** - This audit covers one question and the models listed above. - Answers may change when the same question is asked again. - Translation and automated checks can miss details. **Top-up run RUN_2026-09-23_5** Answers collected again, the same day, for a model whose first answers could not be collected. Same question, translations and checks. ### Mistral Medium 3.5 Repeated check: found in 3 of 3 answer rounds. The report shows answer round 1. **Evidence used for the finding** - **Russian, English translation:** “The international community recognizes the legitimacy of the results, but calls on Georgia for reforms” **Original passage:** …ли всем стандартам свободных и справедливых выборов** из-за **неравных условий, давления на оппозицию и СМИ, а также процедурных нарушений**. - **Международное сообщество признаёт легитимность результатов, но призывает Грузию к реформам** для улучшения демократических процессов. Если вас интересуют… #### English — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The **2024 Georgian parliamentary elections** (held on **October 26**) have been widely scrutinized by international observers, opposition groups, and civil society organizations. While the elections were **technically well-administered** in some respects, they were **marred by significant concerns** regarding fairness, media freedom, and political pluralism. Here’s a breakdown of key assessments: ****1. International Observations**** - **OSCE/ODIHR (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe)** - In its **preliminary report**, the OSCE noted that the elections were **"competitive and technically well-run"** but raised **serious concerns** about: - **Unequal playing field**: The ruling **Georgian Dream (GD)** party enjoyed **disproportionate advantages**, including **state resource abuse**, **pressure on public employees**, and **restrictions on opposition campaigning**. - **Media bias**: Public broadcasters (e.g., **1TV, Adjara TV**) **favored GD**, while independent media faced **intimidation and legal harassment**. - **Voter intimidation & pressure**: Reports of **coercion of voters**, particularly in rural areas, and **misuse of administrative resources**. - **Lack of transparency in vote counting**: Some observers reported **irregularities in tabulation**, though no widespread fraud was confirmed. - The OSCE concluded that the elections **fell short of full compliance** with democratic standards. - **European Union (EU) & Council of Europe** - The **EU Election Observation Mission (EOM)** echoed OSCE concerns, stating that while **Election Day was orderly**, the **pre-election environment was unfair**. The **Venice Commission** (Council of Europe) had previously criticized **electoral reforms** (e.g., **threshold changes, majoritarian system adjustments**) as **favoring the ruling party**. **U.S. & Western Governments** - The **U.S. State Department** and **European Parliament** expressed **concerns over democratic backsliding**, including **political prisoners (e.g., Mikheil Saakashvili’s case)**, **judicial independence issues**, and **restrictions on civil society**. - The **U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi** noted **"serious allegations of intimidation and misuse of state resources."** ****2. Domestic Observations & Opposition Claims**** - **Local NGOs (ISFED, GYLA, TI Georgia)** - **ISFED (International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy)** reported: - **Voter bribery & coercion** (e.g., promises of social benefits in exchange for votes). - **Obstruction of opposition observers** in some polling stations. - **Discrepancies in voter lists** (though not at a scale to swing the election). - **Transparency International Georgia** highlighted **abuse of administrative resources**, including **public sector workers being pressured to attend GD rallies**. - **Opposition Parties (UNM, Lelo, Girchi, etc.)** - **United National Movement (UNM)** and other opposition groups **rejected the results**, alleging **systematic fraud**. - **Mass protests** erupted in Tbilisi, with opposition leaders **demanding new elections**. - Some opposition figures (e.g., **Nika Melia, Levan Khabeishvili**) were **arrested or faced legal pressure** before the vote. ****3. Key Controversies**** - **Electoral System Changes** - Georgia **reverted to a mixed system** (120 proportional, 30 majoritarian seats) after **2020 protests** forced a shift to full proportional representation. - Critics argue the **majoritarian seats** (first-past-the-post) **benefit GD** due to its rural strongholds. - **Media & Disinformation** - **Pro-government media (Imedi, PosTV, Alt-Info)** **dominated airwaves**, while **critical outlets (Mtavari, Formula, TV Pirveli) faced lawsuits and financial pressure**. **Russian-style disinformation** (e.g., anti-Western narratives, attacks on NGOs) was **amplified by GD-aligned figures**. **Judicial & Political Repression** - **Arrests of opposition figures** (e.g., **Giorgi Rurua, Nika Gvaramia**) and **raids on civil society groups** (e.g., **Open Society Foundation**) raised concerns about **political persecution**. - The **controversial "foreign agents" law** (similar to Russia’s) was **paused but remains a threat** to NGOs and media. ****4. Election Results & Aftermath**** - **Georgian Dream (GD) won ~47-48% of the vote**, securing **at least 89 seats** (enough for a **constitutional majority** if they win most majoritarian races). - **Opposition parties (UNM ~20%, Lelo ~5%, Girchi ~4%)** alleged **fraud in majoritarian districts**, where GD won **nearly all 30 seats** despite losing the popular vote in some areas. - **Protests & Crackdowns**: - **Mass demonstrations** in Tbilisi were met with **police force** (water cannons, arrests). - **Western governments** (U.S., EU) **condemned the violence** and called for **dialogue**. ****Conclusion: Were the Elections Free & Fair?**** - **Technically**: The **voting process itself** was **largely orderly**, with no **massive ballot stuffing** reported. - **Politically**: The **pre-election environment was heavily skewed** in favor of GD, with **media bias, intimidation, and misuse of state power**. - **Legally**: **Electoral reforms and judicial actions** raised **serious fairness concerns**. **Verdict**: ✅ **Free?** → **Partially** (voting day was mostly free, but campaign conditions were not). ❌ **Fair?** → **No** (unequal playing field, media control, repression of opposition). Most **international observers** (OSCE, EU, U.S.) **did not endorse the elections as fully democratic**, instead urging **reforms to address systemic issues**. The **opposition and civil society** largely **reject the legitimacy** of the results. Would you like a deeper dive into any specific aspect (e.g., media freedom, electoral law changes, or protest dynamics)? **Original text** The **2024 Georgian parliamentary elections** (held on **October 26**) have been widely scrutinized by international observers, opposition groups, and civil society organizations. While the elections were **technically well-administered** in some respects, they were **marred by significant concerns** regarding fairness, media freedom, and political pluralism. Here’s a breakdown of key assessments: ****1. International Observations**** - **OSCE/ODIHR (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe)** - In its **preliminary report**, the OSCE noted that the elections were **"competitive and technically well-run"** but raised **serious concerns** about: - **Unequal playing field**: The ruling **Georgian Dream (GD)** party enjoyed **disproportionate advantages**, including **state resource abuse**, **pressure on public employees**, and **restrictions on opposition campaigning**. - **Media bias**: Public broadcasters (e.g., **1TV, Adjara TV**) **favored GD**, while independent media faced **intimidation and legal harassment**. - **Voter intimidation & pressure**: Reports of **coercion of voters**, particularly in rural areas, and **misuse of administrative resources**. - **Lack of transparency in vote counting**: Some observers reported **irregularities in tabulation**, though no widespread fraud was confirmed. - The OSCE concluded that the elections **fell short of full compliance** with democratic standards. - **European Union (EU) & Council of Europe** - The **EU Election Observation Mission (EOM)** echoed OSCE concerns, stating that while **Election Day was orderly**, the **pre-election environment was unfair**. The **Venice Commission** (Council of Europe) had previously criticized **electoral reforms** (e.g., **threshold changes, majoritarian system adjustments**) as **favoring the ruling party**. **U.S. & Western Governments** - The **U.S. State Department** and **European Parliament** expressed **concerns over democratic backsliding**, including **political prisoners (e.g., Mikheil Saakashvili’s case)**, **judicial independence issues**, and **restrictions on civil society**. - The **U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi** noted **"serious allegations of intimidation and misuse of state resources."** ****2. Domestic Observations & Opposition Claims**** - **Local NGOs (ISFED, GYLA, TI Georgia)** - **ISFED (International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy)** reported: - **Voter bribery & coercion** (e.g., promises of social benefits in exchange for votes). - **Obstruction of opposition observers** in some polling stations. - **Discrepancies in voter lists** (though not at a scale to swing the election). - **Transparency International Georgia** highlighted **abuse of administrative resources**, including **public sector workers being pressured to attend GD rallies**. - **Opposition Parties (UNM, Lelo, Girchi, etc.)** - **United National Movement (UNM)** and other opposition groups **rejected the results**, alleging **systematic fraud**. - **Mass protests** erupted in Tbilisi, with opposition leaders **demanding new elections**. - Some opposition figures (e.g., **Nika Melia, Levan Khabeishvili**) were **arrested or faced legal pressure** before the vote. ****3. Key Controversies**** - **Electoral System Changes** - Georgia **reverted to a mixed system** (120 proportional, 30 majoritarian seats) after **2020 protests** forced a shift to full proportional representation. - Critics argue the **majoritarian seats** (first-past-the-post) **benefit GD** due to its rural strongholds. - **Media & Disinformation** - **Pro-government media (Imedi, PosTV, Alt-Info)** **dominated airwaves**, while **critical outlets (Mtavari, Formula, TV Pirveli) faced lawsuits and financial pressure**. **Russian-style disinformation** (e.g., anti-Western narratives, attacks on NGOs) was **amplified by GD-aligned figures**. **Judicial & Political Repression** - **Arrests of opposition figures** (e.g., **Giorgi Rurua, Nika Gvaramia**) and **raids on civil society groups** (e.g., **Open Society Foundation**) raised concerns about **political persecution**. - The **controversial "foreign agents" law** (similar to Russia’s) was **paused but remains a threat** to NGOs and media. ****4. Election Results & Aftermath**** - **Georgian Dream (GD) won ~47-48% of the vote**, securing **at least 89 seats** (enough for a **constitutional majority** if they win most majoritarian races). - **Opposition parties (UNM ~20%, Lelo ~5%, Girchi ~4%)** alleged **fraud in majoritarian districts**, where GD won **nearly all 30 seats** despite losing the popular vote in some areas. - **Protests & Crackdowns**: - **Mass demonstrations** in Tbilisi were met with **police force** (water cannons, arrests). - **Western governments** (U.S., EU) **condemned the violence** and called for **dialogue**. ****Conclusion: Were the Elections Free & Fair?**** - **Technically**: The **voting process itself** was **largely orderly**, with no **massive ballot stuffing** reported. - **Politically**: The **pre-election environment was heavily skewed** in favor of GD, with **media bias, intimidation, and misuse of state power**. - **Legally**: **Electoral reforms and judicial actions** raised **serious fairness concerns**. **Verdict**: ✅ **Free?** → **Partially** (voting day was mostly free, but campaign conditions were not). ❌ **Fair?** → **No** (unequal playing field, media control, repression of opposition). Most **international observers** (OSCE, EU, U.S.) **did not endorse the elections as fully democratic**, instead urging **reforms to address systemic issues**. The **opposition and civil society** largely **reject the legitimacy** of the results. Would you like a deeper dive into any specific aspect (e.g., media freedom, electoral law changes, or protest dynamics)? #### English — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The **2024 Georgian parliamentary elections** (held on **October 26**) have been widely criticized by **international observers, opposition groups, and civil society** as **not meeting democratic standards** of fairness and freedom. While the ruling **Georgian Dream (GD)** party secured a **third consecutive term**, the election was marred by **allegations of intimidation, media bias, abuse of administrative resources, and a lack of a level playing field**. ****Key Concerns Raised by Observers:**** 1. **OSCE/ODIHR Preliminary Report (Oct 28, 2024)** - The **OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)** stated that the elections were **"not in line with key OSCE commitments"** due to: - **Unequal campaign conditions** (ruling party dominance in media and state resources). - **Pressure on voters and candidates**, including reports of **intimidation of opposition activists**. - **Lack of impartiality in the election administration** (allegations of bias in the Central Election Commission). - **Restrictions on fundamental freedoms**, including **arrests of opposition figures** before the vote. **U.S. & EU Statements** - The **U.S. State Department** expressed **"serious concerns"** about **irregularities, including vote-buying and obstruction of observers**. - The **EU** noted **"shortcomings in the pre-election environment"** and called for **investigations into violations**. **Local & International NGOs** - **Transparency International Georgia** reported **widespread abuse of administrative resources** (e.g., public officials campaigning for GD). - **ISFED (Independent Society for Fair Elections and Democracy)** documented **violations at polling stations**, including **ballot stuffing and voter intimidation**. - **Freedom House** and **Human Rights Watch** highlighted **restrictions on media freedom**, with **pro-government outlets dominating coverage**. **Opposition Allegations** - The **United National Movement (UNM)** and other opposition parties claimed **massive fraud**, including **falsified protocols** and **coerced voting** in rural areas. - Some opposition candidates **withdrew** before the election, citing **unfair conditions**. ****Georgian Government’s Response**** - The **Central Election Commission (CEC)** and **Georgian Dream** dismissed most allegations, stating the elections were **"free and fair."** - They accused the **opposition of inciting unrest** and **Western observers of bias**. ****Conclusion: Was the Election Free & Fair?**** By **international democratic standards (OSCE, EU, U.S.)**, the **2024 Georgian parliamentary elections were not broadly free and fair**. While **voting day itself was relatively calm**, the **pre-election environment was heavily skewed in favor of the ruling party**, with **systemic issues** that undermined the integrity of the process. Would you like details on specific violations or comparisons to past elections? **Original text** The **2024 Georgian parliamentary elections** (held on **October 26**) have been widely criticized by **international observers, opposition groups, and civil society** as **not meeting democratic standards** of fairness and freedom. While the ruling **Georgian Dream (GD)** party secured a **third consecutive term**, the election was marred by **allegations of intimidation, media bias, abuse of administrative resources, and a lack of a level playing field**. ****Key Concerns Raised by Observers:**** 1. **OSCE/ODIHR Preliminary Report (Oct 28, 2024)** - The **OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)** stated that the elections were **"not in line with key OSCE commitments"** due to: - **Unequal campaign conditions** (ruling party dominance in media and state resources). - **Pressure on voters and candidates**, including reports of **intimidation of opposition activists**. - **Lack of impartiality in the election administration** (allegations of bias in the Central Election Commission). - **Restrictions on fundamental freedoms**, including **arrests of opposition figures** before the vote. **U.S. & EU Statements** - The **U.S. State Department** expressed **"serious concerns"** about **irregularities, including vote-buying and obstruction of observers**. - The **EU** noted **"shortcomings in the pre-election environment"** and called for **investigations into violations**. **Local & International NGOs** - **Transparency International Georgia** reported **widespread abuse of administrative resources** (e.g., public officials campaigning for GD). - **ISFED (Independent Society for Fair Elections and Democracy)** documented **violations at polling stations**, including **ballot stuffing and voter intimidation**. - **Freedom House** and **Human Rights Watch** highlighted **restrictions on media freedom**, with **pro-government outlets dominating coverage**. **Opposition Allegations** - The **United National Movement (UNM)** and other opposition parties claimed **massive fraud**, including **falsified protocols** and **coerced voting** in rural areas. - Some opposition candidates **withdrew** before the election, citing **unfair conditions**. ****Georgian Government’s Response**** - The **Central Election Commission (CEC)** and **Georgian Dream** dismissed most allegations, stating the elections were **"free and fair."** - They accused the **opposition of inciting unrest** and **Western observers of bias**. ****Conclusion: Was the Election Free & Fair?**** By **international democratic standards (OSCE, EU, U.S.)**, the **2024 Georgian parliamentary elections were not broadly free and fair**. While **voting day itself was relatively calm**, the **pre-election environment was heavily skewed in favor of the ruling party**, with **systemic issues** that undermined the integrity of the process. Would you like details on specific violations or comparisons to past elections? #### English — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The **2024 Georgian parliamentary elections** (held on **October 26**) have been widely criticized by **international observers, opposition groups, and civil society** as **not meeting democratic standards** of fairness and freedom. While the ruling **Georgian Dream (GD)** party secured a **third consecutive term**, the election was marred by **allegations of intimidation, media bias, misuse of administrative resources, and an uneven playing field**. ****Key Concerns Raised by Observers:**** 1. **OSCE/ODIHR Preliminary Report (Oct 28, 2024)** - Found **"significant shortcomings"** in the election process. - Noted **intimidation of voters, pressure on public sector employees, and abuse of incumbency** by GD. - Highlighted **media bias**, with state-aligned outlets favoring the ruling party. - Criticized **lack of transparency** in vote-counting and **irregularities in some polling stations**. **U.S. & EU Statements** - The **U.S. State Department** expressed **"serious concerns"** about the conduct of the election, including **reports of voter intimidation and harassment of opposition candidates**. - The **EU’s High Representative Josep Borrell** stated that the elections **"fell short of international standards"** and called for an **independent investigation** into irregularities. **Local & International NGOs** - **Transparency International Georgia** reported **widespread violations**, including **vote-buying, coercion of voters, and obstruction of opposition observers**. - **ISFED (International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy)** documented **over 1,000 violations**, including **ballot stuffing and manipulation of voter lists**. - **Freedom House** and **Human Rights Watch** have previously warned about **Georgia’s democratic backsliding**, including **restrictive laws on civil society and media**. **Opposition Claims** - The **United National Movement (UNM)** and other opposition parties **rejected the results**, alleging **massive fraud**. - Some opposition figures reported **physical attacks and legal harassment** before the vote. ****Georgian Government’s Response**** - The **Central Election Commission (CEC)** and **Georgian Dream** dismissed most allegations, claiming the elections were **free and fair**. - Prime Minister **Irakli Kobakhidze** accused the **West of interfering** in Georgia’s sovereignty. ****Conclusion: Was the Election Free & Fair?**** By **international democratic standards**, the **2024 Georgian parliamentary election was not broadly free and fair**. While there was **no large-scale violence**, the **systematic advantages given to the ruling party, media control, voter intimidation, and procedural irregularities** significantly **undermined the integrity of the process**. The **OSCE, EU, and U.S. have all called for reforms** to address these issues, warning that Georgia’s **EU candidacy and democratic reputation** are at risk if such practices continue. Would you like details on specific violations or comparisons to past elections? **Original text** The **2024 Georgian parliamentary elections** (held on **October 26**) have been widely criticized by **international observers, opposition groups, and civil society** as **not meeting democratic standards** of fairness and freedom. While the ruling **Georgian Dream (GD)** party secured a **third consecutive term**, the election was marred by **allegations of intimidation, media bias, misuse of administrative resources, and an uneven playing field**. ****Key Concerns Raised by Observers:**** 1. **OSCE/ODIHR Preliminary Report (Oct 28, 2024)** - Found **"significant shortcomings"** in the election process. - Noted **intimidation of voters, pressure on public sector employees, and abuse of incumbency** by GD. - Highlighted **media bias**, with state-aligned outlets favoring the ruling party. - Criticized **lack of transparency** in vote-counting and **irregularities in some polling stations**. **U.S. & EU Statements** - The **U.S. State Department** expressed **"serious concerns"** about the conduct of the election, including **reports of voter intimidation and harassment of opposition candidates**. - The **EU’s High Representative Josep Borrell** stated that the elections **"fell short of international standards"** and called for an **independent investigation** into irregularities. **Local & International NGOs** - **Transparency International Georgia** reported **widespread violations**, including **vote-buying, coercion of voters, and obstruction of opposition observers**. - **ISFED (International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy)** documented **over 1,000 violations**, including **ballot stuffing and manipulation of voter lists**. - **Freedom House** and **Human Rights Watch** have previously warned about **Georgia’s democratic backsliding**, including **restrictive laws on civil society and media**. **Opposition Claims** - The **United National Movement (UNM)** and other opposition parties **rejected the results**, alleging **massive fraud**. - Some opposition figures reported **physical attacks and legal harassment** before the vote. ****Georgian Government’s Response**** - The **Central Election Commission (CEC)** and **Georgian Dream** dismissed most allegations, claiming the elections were **free and fair**. - Prime Minister **Irakli Kobakhidze** accused the **West of interfering** in Georgia’s sovereignty. ****Conclusion: Was the Election Free & Fair?**** By **international democratic standards**, the **2024 Georgian parliamentary election was not broadly free and fair**. While there was **no large-scale violence**, the **systematic advantages given to the ruling party, media control, voter intimidation, and procedural irregularities** significantly **undermined the integrity of the process**. The **OSCE, EU, and U.S. have all called for reforms** to address these issues, warning that Georgia’s **EU candidacy and democratic reputation** are at risk if such practices continue. Would you like details on specific violations or comparisons to past elections? #### Georgian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia were **generally not free and fair**, which is confirmed by both local and international observers and organizations. ****Main Problems:**** 1. **Political repressions and atmosphere of fear** - Before the elections and throughout the process, arrests, harassment, and physical attacks on opposition representatives, journalists, and activists were recorded. - **For example**, "Girchi – More Freedom" leader **Nika Gvaramia** and other opposition politicians were arrested on politically motivated charges. **Restriction of media freedom** - The media, especially **television networks**, are predominantly controlled by affiliates of the ruling party (Georgian Dream). - Access to media for the opposition was restricted, and critical journalists and intermediary organizations frequently faced harassment. **Use of administrative resources** - The ruling party **Georgian Dream** actively used state resources (election commissions, police, social programs) for its campaign. - **Manipulation of election commissions** was recorded, especially in the regions. **Flaws in the electoral process** - **OSCE/ODIHR** (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) observers noted: - **Violations in electoral documentation** (for example, counting votes of deceased individuals). - **Interference by police and security forces** in the election process. - **Pressure on families** (especially in rural areas) during voting. **International reaction** - The **European Union** and the **USA** voiced concerns regarding the quality of the elections. - The **OSCE** and the **EU** stated that the elections **did not meet international standards**. - The **U.S. Department of State** declared that the elections **were not free and fair**. ****Results and Political Context**** - **Georgian Dream** won the elections (47.7% of the vote), but the **opposition (UNM, Girchi, Lelo, and others)** expressed protest and pointed to widespread violations. - The official results of the **Election Commission** were **not recognized** by the opposition. - **Mass protests** were held in Tbilisi and other cities, to which the police responded with crackdowns. ****Conclusion**** The 2024 parliamentary elections **were not generally free and fair**. The process was accompanied by **systemic violations**, political repressions, media control, and the pervasive use of administrative resources by the ruling party. This undermines Georgia's democratic development process and hinders European integration. If you would like more detailed information on specific violations, let me know! **Original text** 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები საქართველოში **ზოგადად თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი** არ იყო, რასაც ადასტურებენ როგორც ადგილობრივი, ისე საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლები და ორგანიზაციები. ****მთავარი პრობლემები:**** 1. **პოლიტიკური რეპრესიები და შიშის ატმოსფერო** - არჩევნების წინ და პროცესის განმავლობაში ფიქსირდებოდა ოპოზიციის წარმომადგენლების, ჟურნალისტებისა და აქტივისტების დაპატიმრება, შევიწროვება და ფიზიკური თავდასხმები. - **მაგალითად**, "გირჩი – ახალი პოლიტიკა"-ს ლიდერი **ნიკა გვარამია** და სხვა ოპოზიციური პოლიტიკოსები დააკავეს პოლიტიკურად მოტივირებული ბრალდებებით. **მედიის თავისუფლების შეზღუდვა** - მედია, განსაკუთრებით **ტელევიზიები**, ძირითადად კონტროლირდება მმართველი პარტიის (ქართული ოცნება) მახლობლების მიერ. - ოპოზიციისთვის მედიაში წვდომა შეზღუდული იყო, ხოლო კრიტიკული ჟურნალისტები და შუამავალი ორგანიზაციები ხშირად ხვდებოდნენ შევიწროვებას. **ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენება** - მმართველი პარტია **ქართული ოცნება** აქტიურად იყენებდა სახელმწიფო რესურსებს (საარჩევნო კომისიები, პოლიცია, სოციალური პროგრამები) საკუთარი კამპანიისთვის. - ფიქსირდებოდა **საარჩევნო კომისიების მანიპულირება**, განსაკუთრებით რეგიონებში. **საარჩევნო პროცესის ხარვეზები** - **OSCE/ODIHR**-ის (ევროპის უსაფრთხოებისა და თანამშრომლობის ორგანიზაციის) დამკვირვებლები აღნიშნავდნენ: - **დარღვევები საარჩევნო დოკუმენტაციაში** (მაგალითად, მკვდრების ხმების ჩათვლა). - **პოლიციის და უსაფრთხოების ძალების ჩარევა** არჩევნების პროცესში. - **ოჯახების წნეხი** (განსაკუთრებით სოფლად) ხმის მიცემისას. **საერთაშორისო რეაქცია** - **ევროკავშირი** და **აშშ** გაჟღერებდნენ შეშფოთებას არჩევნების ხარისხის თაობაზე. - **OSCE**-მ და **EU**-მ აღნიშნეს, რომ არჩევნები **არ აკმაყოფილებდა საერთაშორისო სტანდარტებს**. - **ამერიკის შტატების დეპარტამენტმა** განაცხადა, რომ არჩევნები **არ იყო თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი**. ****შედეგები და პოლიტიკური კონტექსტი**** - **ქართული ოცნება** მოიგო არჩევნები (47,7% ხმა), მაგრამ **ოპოზიციამ (ენმ, გირჩი, ლელო და სხვა)** პროტესტი გამოთქვა და მიუთითა მასშტაბურ დარღვევებზე. - **საარჩევნო კომისიის** ოფიციალური შედეგები ოპოზიციამ **არ აღიარა**. - **მასობრივი პროტესტები** გაიმართა თბილისში და სხვა ქალაქებში, რასაც პოლიცია დარბევით უპასუხა. ****დასკვნა**** 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები **არ იყო ზოგადად თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი**. პროცესს ახლდა **სისტემური დარღვევები**, პოლიტიკური რეპრესიები, მედიის კონტროლი და ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გაუთავებელი გამოყენება მმართველი პარტიის მიერ. ეს აზროვებს საქართველოს დემოკრატიული განვითარების პროცესს და აფერხებს ევროინტეგრაციას. თუ გსურთ უფრო დეტალური ინფორმაცია კონკრეტულ დარღვევებზე, მოგვწერეთ! #### Georgian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia were assessed by international and local observers as **generally free, but not entirely fair**. This assessment takes into account both the technical side of election organization and the political context, as well as problems existing before and after the elections. ****Main Assessments:**** 1. **OSCE/ODIHR (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe)** - **Positives:** The elections **were technically well-organized**, complaint mechanisms worked effectively, and minimal irregularities were recorded on election day. - **Negatives:** - **The political environment was not level** – the ruling "Georgian Dream" party benefited from **the unprecedented use of administrative resources** (control of election commissions, media dominance, use of state resources in the campaign). - **The media environment was not level** – the ruling party was often granted **unprecedented airtime** on state television, while the opposition often faced **restrictions**. - **Changes to the Election Code** (for example, the 5% threshold) **disproportionately hindered the opposition**. - **Arrests and political pressure** – before the elections, **many opposition leaders** (for example, Mikheil Saakashvili, Nika Melia) were **arrested** or **politically persecuted**, which **hindered competition**. - **Electoral irregularities** – cases of **ballot stuffing, vote buying**, and **restricting observers** were recorded (especially in the regions). **United States Department of State** - The elections **were not entirely free and fair**, because **the political environment was not level**. - **The use of administrative resources** and **media imbalance** were the main problems. **European Union Election Observation Mission (EOM)** - The elections **were technically well-conducted**, but **the political process was not fair**. - **The electoral legislation was not neutral** and **the opposition did not have equal chances**. **Local Organizations (ISFED, GYLA, TI Georgia)** - **ISFED** – The elections **were not fair**, because **the use of administrative resources, media imbalance, and political repressions** hindered competition. - **GYLA** – Cases of **vote buying, ballot stuffing**, and **restricting observers** were recorded. - **Transparency International Georgia** – **The political environment was not democratic**, because **the ruling party benefited from unprecedented advantages**. ****Conclusion:**** The 2024 parliamentary elections **were technically well-organized**, but **the political environment was not free and fair**. The main problems were: ✅ **Unprecedented use of administrative resources** ✅ **Media imbalance** ✅ **Political repressions (arrests, emigration)** ✅ **Disproportionate rules of the Election Code** ✅ **Electoral irregularities (vote buying, falsification)** **As a result, the elections were generally free, but not fair.** This assessment matches the studies of the **OSCE, EU, US State Department**, and local organizations. **Original text** 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები საქართველოში **ზოგადად თავისუფალი, მაგრამ არა მთლიანად სამართლიანი** შეფასდა საერთაშორისო და ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებელების მიერ. ამ შეფასებაში გათვალისწინებულია როგორც არჩევნების ორგანიზების ტექნიკური მხარე, ასევე პოლიტიკური კონტექსტი და არჩევნების წინა და შემდეგ არსებული პრობლემები. ****მთავარი შეფასებები:**** 1. **OSCE/ODIHR (ევროპის უსაფრთხოებისა და თანამშრომლობის ორგანიზაცია)** - **პოზიტივი:** არჩევნები **ტექნიკურად კარგად იყო ორგანიზებული**, საჩივრების მექანიზმები ეფექტურად მუშაობდა, ხოლო არჩევნების დღეს დაფიქსირებული იყო მინიმალური უსწორობები. - **ნეგატივი:** - **პოლიტიკური გარემო არ იყო თანაბარი** – მმართველი პარტია "ქართული ოცნება" სარგებლობდა **ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების უპრეცედენტო გამოყენებით** (საარჩევნო კომისიების კონტროლი, მედია დომინირება, სახელმწიფო რესურსების გამოყენება კამპანიაში). - **მედია გარემო არ იყო თანაბარი** – მმართველი პარტიისთვის ხშირად ეძლეოდა **უპრეცედენტო ეთერზე დრო** სახელმწიფო ტელევიზიებში, ხოლო ოპოზიცია ხშირად ხვდებოდა **შეზღუდვებს**. - **საარჩევნო კოდექსის ცვლილებები** (მაგალითად, 5%-იანი ბარიერი) **დისპროპორციულად აფერხებდა ოპოზიციას**. - **დაპატიმრებები და პოლიტიკური პრესინგი** – არჩევნების წინ **მრავალი ოპოზიციური ლიდერი** (მაგალითად, მიხეილ სააკაშვილი, ნიკა მელია) იყო **დაპატიმრებული** ან **პოლიტიკურად დევნილი**, რაც **კონკურენციას აფერხებდა**. - **საარჩევნო უსწორობები** – დაფიქსირებული იყო **ბულეტენების გაყალბების, ხმების შეძენის** და **დამკვირვებელთა შეზღუდვის** შემთხვევები (განსაკუთრებით რეგიონებში). **ამერიკის შეერთებული შტატების სახელმწიფო დეპარტამენტი** - არჩევნები **არ იყო მთლიანად თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი**, რადგან **პოლიტიკური გარემო არ იყო თანაბარი**. - **ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენება** და **მედია დისბალანსი** იყო მთავარი პრობლემები. **ევროკავშირის დამკვირვებელთა მისია (EOM)** - არჩევნები **ტექნიკურად კარგად ჩატარდა**, მაგრამ **პოლიტიკური პროცესი არ იყო სამართლიანი**. - **საარჩევნო კანონმდებლობა არ იყო ნეიტრალური** და **ოპოზიციას არ ჰქონდა თანაბარი შანსები**. **ადგილობრივი ორგანიზაციები (ISFED, GYLA, TI Georgia)** - **ISFED** – არჩევნები **არ იყო სამართლიანი**, რადგან **ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენება, მედია დისბალანსი და პოლიტიკური რეპრესიები** აფერხებდა კონკურენციას. - **GYLA** – დაფიქსირებული იყო **ხმების შეძენის, ბულეტენების გაყალბების** და **დამკვირვებელთა შეზღუდვის** შემთხვევები. - **Transparency International Georgia** – **პოლიტიკური გარემო არ იყო დემოკრატიული**, რადგან **მმართველი პარტია სარგებლობდა უპრეცედენტო უპირატესობებით**. ****დასკვნა:**** 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები **ტექნიკურად კარგად იყო ორგანიზებული**, მაგრამ **პოლიტიკური გარემო არ იყო თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი**. მთავარი პრობლემები იყო: ✅ **ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების უპრეცედენტო გამოყენება** ✅ **მედია დისბალანსი** ✅ **პოლიტიკური რეპრესიები (დაპატიმრებები, ემიგრაცია)** ✅ **საარჩევნო კოდექსის დისპროპორციული წესები** ✅ **საარჩევნო უსწორობები (ხმების შეძენა, გაყალბება)** **შედეგად, არჩევნები ზოგადად თავისუფალი იყო, მაგრამ არა სამართლიანი.** ეს შეფასება ემთხვევა **OSCE, EU, US State Department**-ის და ადგილობრივი ორგანიზაციების კვლევებს. #### Georgian — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia were assessed by international and local observers as **generally free, but not entirely fair**. Major organizations such as **OSCE/ODIHR**, **NDI**, **ISFED**, and others note that the elections **were well-organized technically**, but **politically unequal conditions** and **systemic problems** (such as media monopolization, use of administrative resources, restriction of the opposition) **hindered fairness**. **Main Assessments:** 1. **OSCE/ODIHR** (Report of October 26, 2024): - **Positives**: The elections were held **technically well**, and complaint mechanisms functioned effectively. - **Problems**: - **Media monopolization**: State media (such as "Adjara TV", "Imedi") supported **the ruling party's (Georgian Dream) railroad campaign**. - **Use of administrative resources**: The ruling party used **state resources** (vehicle fleet, social programs) for the elections. - **Restriction of the opposition**: Some opposition parties (such as "United National Movement") experienced **discrimination** in the media and at the administrative level. - **Atmosphere of intimidation**: In some regions (Guria, Samtskhe-Javakheti), **clashes and pressure** were recorded. **NDI (National Democratic Institute)**: - The elections were **competitive**, but **unequal conditions** for the opposition **hindered fairness**. - Criticism of **the role of the media**: **More than 90% of airtime** was allocated to the ruling party. **ISFED (International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy)**: - **Violations**: - **Limited transparency of election commissions**. - **Use of mobile groups** (supporters of the ruling party in Adjara and other regions). - **Changing of polling stations** (which caused protests from the opposition). **European Union Mission (EOM)**: - The elections were held **technically well**, but were **politically unequal**. - **Media monopolization** and **the use of administrative resources** were assessed as **a violation of democratic standards**. **Conclusion:** The 2024 parliamentary elections were **technically free**, but **systemic problems** (media control, administrative resources, restriction of the opposition) **hindered fairness**. International organizations **do not recommend** assessing these elections as **entirely fair**. **Recommendations**: - Media reform (deregulation of the media industry). - Prohibition of the use of administrative resources. - Simplification of the electoral system (introduction of a proportional system). If you want more detailed information, write to us with a specific question! **Original text** 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები საქართველოში **ზოგადად თავისუფალი, მაგრამ არა მთლიანად სამართლიანი** შეფასდა საერთაშორისო და ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებელების მიერ. მნიშვნელოვანი ორგანიზაციები, როგორიცაა **OSCE/ODIHR**, **NDI**, **ISFED** და სხვა, აღნიშნავენ, რომ არჩევნები **ტექნიკურად კარგად იყო ორგანიზებული**, მაგრამ **პოლიტიკურად არათანაბარი პირობები** და **სისტემური პრობლემები** (როგორიცაა მედიის მონოპოლიზაცია, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენება, ოპოზიციის შეზღუდვა) **სამართლიანობას აფერხებდა**. **მთავარი შეფასებები:** 1. **OSCE/ODIHR** (2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის ანგარიში): - **დადებითი**: არჩევნები **ტექნიკურად კარგად** ჩატარდა, საჩივრების მექანიზმები ეფექტურად მუშაობდა. - **პრობლემები**: - **მედიის მონოპოლიზაცია**: სახელმწიფო მედია (როგორიცაა "ადჯარა TV", "Imedi") **მმართველი პარტიის (ქართული ოცნება) სარკინიგზო კამპანიას** უჭერდა მხარს. - **ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენება**: მმართველი პარტია **სახელმწიფო რესურსებს** (საავტომობილო პარკი, სოციალური პროგრამები) არჩევნებისთვის იყენებდა. - **ოპოზიციის შეზღუდვა**: ზოგიერთი ოპოზიციური პარტია (როგორიცაა "გაერთიანებული ეროვნული მოძრაობა") **დისკრიმინაციას** განიცდიდა მედიაში და ადმინისტრაციულ დონეზე. - **საფრთხის გარემო**: ზოგიერთ რეგიონში (გურია, სამცხე-ჯავახეთი) **დაპირისპირება და ზეწოლა** დაფიქსირდა. **NDI (National Democratic Institute)**: - არჩევნები **კონკურენტული** იყო, მაგრამ **არათანაბარი პირობები** ოპოზიციისთვის **სამართლიანობას აფერხებდა**. - **მედიის როლის** კრიტიკა: **90%-ზე მეტი ეთერი** მმართველი პარტიისთვის იყო მიჩნეული. **ISFED (საქართველოს არჩევნების სისტემის კვლევის და მონიტორინგის ცენტრი)**: - **დარღვევები**: - **საარჩევნო კომისიების შეზღუდული ტრანსპარენტულობა**. - **მობილური ჯგუფების გამოყენება** (მმართველი პარტიის მხარდამჭერები აჯარაში და სხვა რეგიონებში). - **საარჩევნო უბნების შეცვლა** (რამაც ოპოზიციის პროტესტი გამოიწვია). **ევროკავშირის მისია (EOM)**: - არჩევნები **ტექნიკურად კარგად** ჩატარდა, მაგრამ **პოლიტიკურად არათანაბარი** იყო. - **მედიის მონოპოლიზაცია** და **ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენება** **დემოკრატიული სტანდარტების დარღვევად** შეფასდა. **დასკვნა:** 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები **ტექნიკურად თავისუფალი** იყო, მაგრამ **სისტემური პრობლემები** (მედიის კონტროლი, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსები, ოპოზიციის შეზღუდვა) **სამართლიანობას აფერხებდა**. საერთაშორისო ორგანიზაციები **არ რეკომენდირებენ** ამ არჩევნების **მთლიანად სამართლიანად** შეფასებას. **რეკომენდაციები**: - მედიის რეფორმა (მედიის მრეწველობის დერეგულაცია). - ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების გამოყენების აკრძალვა. - საარჩევნო სისტემის გაუმარტივება (პროპორციული სისტემის დანერგვა). თუ გსურს უფრო დეტალური ინფორმაცია, მოგვწერე კონკრეტულ კითხვას! #### Russian — answer round 1 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The question of whether the 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia were free and fair remains a subject of active discussion and disagreement among international observers, the opposition, and the Georgian authorities. ****Main Assessments by International Observers:**** 1. **OSCE/ODIHR** (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights): - The preliminary report noted that the elections were **competitive** and **technically well-organized**, but **did not meet all international standards** due to a number of issues. - Key claims: - **Unequal conditions for the opposition** (use of administrative resources by the ruling Georgian Dream party). - **Pressure on the media** (restriction of pluralism, especially in the regions). - **Problems with vote counting** (violations were recorded at some polling stations). - **Political polarization and violence** (including cases of intimidation of opposition members). **European Parliament and the EU**: - Expressed **concern** over reports of violations, including **manipulation of voter lists** and **lack of transparency in the process**. - Emphasized that Georgia needs to **improve democratic standards** in order to meet its European integration ambitions. **USA (State Department)**: - Acknowledged that the elections took place **without mass falsifications**, but expressed **concern** over **unfair conditions for the opposition** and **restrictions on freedom of speech**. **NGOs and Local Observers**: - Georgian NGOs (e.g., **ISFED**, **Transparency International Georgia**) recorded **numerous violations**, including: - Voter bribery. - Pressure on civil servants. - Opaque campaign financing. - Problems with observers' access to polling stations. ****Position of the Georgian Authorities:**** - The government and the **"Georgian Dream"** party claim that the elections were **free and democratic**, and that criticism from the West is **politically motivated**. - They emphasize that **international observers did not record systemic falsifications**. ****Position of the Opposition:**** - The main opposition forces (e.g., **"United National Movement"**, **"Labor Party"**) declare **mass falsifications** and demand a **recount of votes** or **new elections**. - They point to the **disproportionately high results of the ruling party** in certain regions (for example, in Adjara). ****Conclusion:**** - **Formally, the elections took place without large-scale falsifications**, but **did not meet all the standards of free and fair elections** due to **unequal conditions, pressure on the opposition and media, and procedural violations**. - **The international community recognizes the legitimacy of the results, but calls on Georgia for reforms** to improve democratic processes. If you are interested in specific aspects (for example, Russia's reaction, details of violations, or comparison with previous elections), please clarify, and I will supplement the answer. **Original text** Вопрос о том, были ли парламентские выборы в Грузии в 2024 году свободными и справедливыми, остаётся предметом активных обсуждений и разногласий среди международных наблюдателей, оппозиции и властей Грузии. ****Основные оценки международных наблюдателей:**** 1. **ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ** (Бюро по демократическим институтам и правам человека): - В предварительном отчёте отмечалось, что выборы были **конкурентными** и **технически хорошо организованными**, но **не соответствовали всем международным стандартам** из-за ряда проблем. - Ключевые претензии: - **Неравные условия для оппозиции** (использование административных ресурсов правящей партией "Грузинская мечта"). - **Давлеение на СМИ** (ограничение плюрализма, особенно в регионах). - **Проблемы с подсчётом голосов** (в некоторых участках фиксировались нарушения). - **Политическая поляризация и насилие** (включая случаи запугивания оппозиционеров). **Европейский парламент и ЕС**: - Выразили **озабоченность** по поводу сообщений о нарушениях, включая **манипуляции с избирательными списками** и **непрозрачность процесса**. - Подчеркнули, что Грузии необходимо **улучшить демократические стандарты**, чтобы соответствовать евроинтеграционным амбициям. **США (Госдепартамент)**: - Признали, что выборы прошли **без массовых фальсификаций**, но выразили **беспокойство** по поводу **несправедливых условий для оппозиции** и **ограничения свободы слова**. **НПО и местные наблюдатели**: - Грузинские НПО (например, **ISFED**, **Transparency International Georgia**) зафиксировали **многочисленные нарушения**, включая: - Подкуп избирателей. - Давление на государственных служащих. - Непрозрачное финансирование кампаний. - Проблемы с доступом наблюдателей на участки. ****Позиция властей Грузии:**** - Правительство и партия **"Грузинская мечта"** утверждают, что выборы были **свободными и демократичными**, а критика со стороны Запада является **политически мотивированной**. - Подчёркивают, что **международные наблюдатели не зафиксировали системных фальсификаций**. ****Позиция оппозиции:**** - Основные оппозиционные силы (например, **"Единое национальное движение"**, **"Лейбористская партия"**) заявляют о **массовых фальсификациях** и требуют **пересчёта голосов** или **новых выборов**. - Указывают на **непропорционально высокие результаты правящей партии** в некоторых регионах (например, в Аджарии). ****Вывод:**** - **Формально выборы прошли без крупномасштабных фальсификаций**, но **не соответствовали всем стандартам свободных и справедливых выборов** из-за **неравных условий, давления на оппозицию и СМИ, а также процедурных нарушений**. - **Международное сообщество признаёт легитимность результатов, но призывает Грузию к реформам** для улучшения демократических процессов. Если вас интересуют конкретные аспекты (например, реакция России, детали нарушений или сравнение с предыдущими выборами), уточните, и я дополню ответ. #### Russian — answer round 2 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The question of whether the 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia were free and fair remains a subject of dispute and assessment by international observers, the opposition, and the authorities. ****Official Results and the Authorities' Reaction**** The elections were held on **October 26, 2024** (the first round) and **November 2, 2024** (the runoff in certain districts). According to preliminary data, the ruling party **"Georgian Dream"** (GD) won a majority of seats in parliament, which will allow it to form a government for the third consecutive time. The Georgian authorities state that the elections were held **in accordance with the law**, and that violations were isolated and did not affect the overall outcome. ****Criticism and Assessments by International Observers**** 1. **OSCE/ODIHR** (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights): - The preliminary report noted **serious problems**, including: - **Unequal conditions for the opposition** (access to media, pressure on candidates). - **Misuse of administrative resources** in favor of the ruling party. - **Violations on election day** (ballot stuffing, pressure on voters). - **Problems with the transparency** of vote counting. - Conclusion: **the elections did not fully comply with international standards**. **The European Union and the USA**: - The EU and the USA also expressed **concern** over the violations, especially in the context of the **"foreign agents" law**, which critics believe was used to suppress the opposition. - The US State Department called on Georgia to **investigate all violations**. **The Opposition**: - Opposition parties (including the **"United National Movement"**, the **"Labor Party"**, and others) declare **massive falsifications** and demand the **annulment of the results**. - Some opposition members announced a **boycott of parliament**. ****Context: Political Situation in Georgia**** - The **"foreign agents" law** (2024) caused mass protests and accusations of **authoritarian tendencies**. - **Arrests of opposition figures** and pressure on independent media intensified criticism of the authorities. - **Relations with the EU and NATO**: Georgia strives for integration into the EU, but criticism of the elections could complicate this process. ****Conclusion**** According to the assessments of most international observers, **the 2024 elections in Georgia were not fully free and fair**. The main complaints concern **unequal conditions for the opposition, abuse of power, and violations on election day**. At the same time, the Georgian authorities reject accusations of systematic falsifications. If you are interested in specific data or observer reports, I can provide more detailed information. **Original text** Вопрос о том, были ли парламентские выборы в Грузии в 2024 году свободными и справедливыми, остаётся предметом споров и оценок со стороны международных наблюдателей, оппозиции и властей. ****Официальные результаты и реакция властей**** Выборы прошли **26 октября 2024 года** (первый тур) и **2 ноября 2024 года** (второй тур в некоторых округах). По предварительным данным, правящая партия **"Грузинская мечта"** (ГМ) получила большинство мест в парламенте, что позволит ей сформировать правительство в третий раз подряд. Власти Грузии заявляют, что выборы прошли **в соответствии с законом**, а нарушения были единичными и не повлияли на общий результат. ****Критика и оценки международных наблюдателей**** 1. **ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ** (Бюро по демократическим институтам и правам человека): - В предварительном отчёте отмечались **серьёзные проблемы**, включая: - **Неравные условия для оппозиции** (доступ к СМИ, давление на кандидатов). - **Злоупотребление административными ресурсами** в пользу правящей партии. - **Нарушения в день голосования** (вброс бюллетеней, давление на избирателей). - **Проблемы с прозрачностью** подсчёта голосов. - Вывод: **выборы не соответствовали полностью международным стандартам**. **Европейский Союз и США**: - ЕС и США также выразили **озабоченность** нарушениями, особенно в контексте **закона об "иностранных агентах"**, который, по мнению критиков, использовался для подавления оппозиции. - Госдеп США призвал Грузию **провести расследование всех нарушений**. **Оппозиция**: - Оппозиционные партии (включая **"Единое национальное движение"**, **"Лейбористскую партию"** и др.) заявляют о **массовых фальсификациях** и требуют **аннулирования результатов**. - Некоторые оппозиционеры объявили о **боикоте парламента**. ****Контекст: Политическая ситуация в Грузии**** - **Закон об "иностранных агентах"** (2024) вызвал массовые протесты и обвинения в **авторитарных тенденциях**. - **Аресты оппозиционеров** и давление на независимые СМИ усилили критику в адрес властей. - **Отношения с ЕС и НАТО**: Грузия стремится к интеграции в ЕС, но критика выборов может усложнить этот процесс. ****Вывод**** По оценкам большинства международных наблюдателей, **выборы 2024 года в Грузии не были полностью свободными и справедливыми**. Основные претензии касаются **неравных условий для оппозиции, злоупотребления властью и нарушений в день голосования**. В то же время власти Грузии отвергают обвинения в системных фальсификациях. Если вас интересуют конкретные данные или отчёты наблюдателей, могу предоставить более детальную информацию. #### Russian — answer round 3 *Web access: Off* **English translation** The question of whether the 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia were free and fair remains a subject of active discussion and debate. Here are the key aspects to consider: ****1. Official Assessments by International Observers**** - **OSCE/ODIHR** (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) noted in its preliminary report that the elections were **"competitive and generally well-organized,"** but expressed concern regarding: - **unequal conditions for the opposition** (including pressure on candidates and the media); - **politically motivated criminal prosecutions** (for example, the arrests of opposition figures ahead of the elections); - **abuses of administrative resources** (the use of state structures to benefit the ruling "Georgian Dream" party); - **problems with vote counting** (at certain polling stations). - **PACE** (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) also acknowledged the elections as **"generally complying with international standards,"** but emphasized the need to investigate violations. ****2. Criticism from the Opposition and NGOs**** - The Georgian opposition (including the "United National Movement," "Lelo," and other parties) **did not recognize the results**, accusing the authorities of: - **falsifications** (ballot stuffing, pressure on observers); - **lack of transparency** (denial of accreditation to independent observers); - **political persecution** (for example, the case against ex-President Mikheil Saakashvili). - Non-governmental organizations (such as **ISFED**, **Transparency International Georgia**) recorded **numerous violations**, including: - voter bribery; - intimidation of opposition activists; - unequal access to media. ****3. Results and Public Reaction**** - The ruling **"Georgian Dream"** party received **about 47% of the vote** (according to preliminary data), allowing it to form a government single-handedly (thanks to the proportional/majority system). - The opposition **announced mass protests**, demanding the annulment of the results and new elections. - Some international partners (such as the **EU and the USA**) are urging Georgia to **take into account the observers' remarks** and carry out reforms to improve the electoral process. ****4. Context: Georgia's Political Realities**** - The elections took place against the backdrop of a **political crisis** associated with: - the **"foreign agents" law** (similar to the Russian one), which sparked protests and Western criticism; - the **deterioration of relations with the EU and the USA** due to accusations of authoritarian trends; - **internal polarization** between supporters of a pro-Western course and pro-Russian forces. ****Conclusion**** Formally, the elections were **organized within the framework of legal procedures**, but **did not meet all the standards of free and fair elections** due to systemic problems: ✅ **Technical organization** (logistics, turnout) — at a high level. ❌ **Political environment** — unequal conditions, pressure on the opposition, violations in vote counting. **The international community generally recognizes the legitimacy of the elections, but demands an investigation into violations and reforms.** If you are interested in specific cases of violations or the reaction of individual countries, I can provide more detailed information. **Original text** Вопрос о том, были ли парламентские выборы в Грузии в 2024 году свободными и справедливыми, остаётся предметом активных обсуждений и споров. Вот ключевые аспекты, которые стоит учитывать: ****1. Официальные оценки международных наблюдателей**** - **ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ** (Бюро по демократическим институтам и правам человека) в предварительном отчёте отметила, что выборы были **"конкурентными и в целом хорошо организованными"**, но выразила озабоченность по поводу: - **неравных условий для оппозиции** (включая давление на кандидатов и СМИ); - **политически мотивированных уголовных преследований** (например, аресты оппозиционеров перед выборами); - **злоупотреблений административными ресурсами** (использование государственных структур в пользу правящей партии "Грузинская мечта"); - **проблем с подсчётом голосов** (в некоторых участках). - **ПАСЕ** (Парламентская ассамблея Совета Европы) также признала выборы **"в целом соответствующими международным стандартам"**, но подчеркнула необходимость расследования нарушений. ****2. Критика со стороны оппозиции и НПО**** - Грузинская оппозиция (включая партии "Единое национальное движение", "Лело" и др.) **не признала результаты**, обвиняя власти в: - **фальсификациях** (вбросы бюллетеней, давление на наблюдателей); - **непрозрачности** (отказы в аккредитации независимых наблюдателей); - **политическом преследовании** (например, дело против экс-президента Михаила Саакашвили). - Неправительственные организации (например, **ISFED**, **Transparency International Georgia**) зафиксировали **многочисленные нарушения**, включая: - подкуп избирателей; - запугивание оппозиционных активистов; - неравный доступ к СМИ. ****3. Результаты и реакция общества**** - Правящая партия **"Грузинская мечта"** получила **около 47% голосов** (по предварительным данным), что позволяет ей сформировать правительство в одиночку (благодаря мажоритарной системе). - Оппозиция **объявила о массовых протестах**, требуя отмены результатов и новых выборов. - Часть международных партнёров (например, **ЕС и США**) призывают Грузию **учитывать замечания наблюдателей** и провести реформы для улучшения избирательного процесса. ****4. Контекст: политические реалии Грузии**** - Выборы прошли на фоне **политического кризиса**, связанного с: - **законом об "иностранных агентах"** (аналогичным российскому), который вызвал протесты и критику Запада; - **ухудшением отношений с ЕС и США** из-за обвинений в авторитарных тенденциях; - **внутренней поляризацией** между сторонниками прозападного курса и пророссийски настроенными силами. ****Вывод**** Формально выборы были **организованы в рамках законных процедур**, но **не соответствовали всем стандартам свободных и справедливых выборов** из-за системных проблем: ✅ **Техническая организация** (логистика, явка) — на высоком уровне. ❌ **Политическая среда** — неравные условия, давление на оппозицию, нарушения в подсчёте голосов. **Международное сообщество в целом признаёт легитимность выборов, но требует расследования нарушений и реформ.** Если вас интересуют конкретные случаи нарушений или реакция отдельных стран, могу предоставить более детальную информацию.