Georgia 2024 Parliamentary Elections
October 26, 2024
Observers documented pressure on voters, tracking at polling stations and vote secrecy compromised at scale, and found that the complaints system afterwards provided no effective remedy. The European Parliament held that the elections did not meet international standards and called for a re-run under international supervision. No Georgian forum agreed: every challenge to the result was dismissed by the commission, the courts and the Constitutional Court. What was not established is that the count was wrong — a parallel vote tabulation and a mandated recount both matched the declared figures. This is the mirror image of Romania 2024: a contested election that was not annulled.
Resultados oficiales
- Georgian Dream53,9%1.120.053
89 mandates
- Coalition for Change11%229.161
19 mandates
- Unity – National Movement10,2%211.216
16 mandates
- Strong Georgia – Lelo, For People, For Liberty!8,8%182.922
14 mandates
- Gakharia For Georgia7,8%161.521
12 mandates
- Girchi3%62.223
Below the threshold; no mandates
El Registro de Integridad
Lo que la evidencia establece y lo que no establece, lado a lado, con cada hallazgo documentado y clasificado.
Lo que está establecido
- Violaciones del procesoConfirmado
The secrecy of the ballot was compromised at scale, in a measured share of observations rather than as isolated incidents.
Más detalles
ODIHR recorded potential compromises to vote secrecy in 24 per cent of observations from the way ballots were inserted into boxes, 12 per cent from how voters marked them, and 7 per cent from polling station layout. Contributing factors included the proximity of commission members, party representatives or observers to boxes and booths (16 per cent), overcrowding (16 per cent), improper use of ballot sleeves (9 per cent) and marks bleeding through the paper (6 per cent). Voters using the newly introduced electronic devices were not properly instructed, which produced further breaches.
Fuentes:1 - Violaciones del procesoConfirmado
Voters were tracked at polling stations and pressured during the campaign, particularly public sector employees, and observers received credible reports of vote buying.
Más detalles
Observers reported tracking of voters outside polling premises in 10 per cent of observations, frequently inside the prohibited 100-metre perimeter, and tracking by party representatives inside stations in 7 per cent. Ruling-party representatives frequently video-recorded the voting process. Group or family voting was seen at 4 per cent of stations. ODIHR found that citizen observer status had been misused, with some accredited observers involved in tracking voters on behalf of the ruling party.
Fuentes:1 - Violaciones del procesoConfirmado
The post-election complaints process failed to provide an effective remedy: challenges were dismissed at every level without substantive consideration.
Más detalles
District commissions received 1,203 complaints, including 537 requests for recounts or invalidation; most were dismissed, 170 upheld fully or partially and mainly on disciplinary points, and 107 rejected on technical grounds. ODIHR found the handling of most complaints lacked substantive consideration, especially where several were examined in a single session, and that some commissions restricted complainants' right to be heard. Appeals against the results to the commission, the courts and the Constitutional Court were all dismissed.
- Violaciones del procesoConfirmado
The electoral legal framework was amended more than twenty times after 2020, including changes shortly before the vote that shifted control of the election commission toward the ruling party.
Más detalles
The 2024 amendments moved control over the selection and nomination of commission members to the ruling party, abolished the opposition-nominated deputy chairperson, and altered decision-making to bypass the two-thirds majority requirement in repeat voting. They were introduced without an inclusive consultative process or broad political consensus. A significant imbalance in financial resources and the advantage of incumbency contributed to an already uneven playing field, and the instrumentalisation of private outlets for political propaganda affected impartial coverage.
Fuentes:1 - Operaciones de informaciónCorroborado
The European Parliament condemned Russian disinformation directed at the campaign, in particular a narrative claiming that opposition parties would drag Georgia into war at Western direction.
Fuentes:1
Lo que no está establecido
- Falsificación de resultadosDesmentido
That the count was falsified — not established, and checked twice by different methods. A legally mandated recount of 366 randomly selected precincts confirmed 91 per cent of the results initially reported, with 32 requiring minor corrections to protocols. The domestic observer group ISFED reported that the official preliminary results aligned with its own parallel vote tabulation, while maintaining that the process concerns meant the result did not represent a genuine expression of the voters' will.
Fuentes:1 - Violaciones del procesoContestado
Whether the documented violations were grave enough to invalidate the result — contested, and never resolved by a court. The European Parliament held the elections neither free nor fair and called for a re-run within a year under international supervision; every Georgian legal forum dismissed the challenges, and no judicial body annulled any part of the vote.
Más detalles
Preliminary reports from key domestic observer organisations noted procedural irregularities and isolated cases of major violations including vote buying, ballot box stuffing, intimidation and multiple voting, but did not assess them as systemic or orchestrated. The opposition coalition led by Transparency International Georgia took the opposite view, calling the observed violations evidence of orchestrated electoral manipulation.
- Injerencia extranjeraContestado
That the Russian Federation interfered in the conduct of the vote — alleged, not established. Opposition parties raised it on election night alongside their other objections, and ODIHR records it as an allegation rather than a finding. The European Parliament's condemnation concerns disinformation in the information environment, which is a separate question from the administration of the ballot.
Evaluación del proceso
ODIHR concluded that the elections were procedurally well-organised and administered in an orderly manner, but marked by a tense environment, frequent compromises in vote secrecy, procedural inconsistencies and reports of intimidation and pressure on voters that negatively impacted public trust. It found the legal framework an adequate basis for democratic elections but overly complex, with several recent revisions marking a step backwards, and reported that numerous issues negatively affected the integrity of the elections and eroded public trust in the process.