Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy

Throughout 2008, given the highly polarized political climate, there was very little room for multiparty dialogue. The VoteMatch process provided an opportunity for the parties for high-level dialogue during the tense pre-election period, but a dialogue on a shared political reform did not materialise. Funding for the next phase of the NIMD programme in Georgia has not materialised yet, which constituted one of the reasons why the programme was stalled since the summer of 2008.

Enhanced dialogue on political reform agenda between political parties

A national reform agenda shared by all political parties in Georgia did not materialise in 2008. Especially the lack of dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition proved to be in the way of creating a common understanding on national reform issues. Prior to the August war with Russia, political parties were in cahoots over the lack of an inclusive electoral reform process and the legitimacy of the election results. Since August, especially the extra-parliamentary opposition parties have criticised president Saakashvili for having led Georgia into a full-scale war that they thought could have been avoided.  

Constructive cooperation and agreement between ruling and opposition parties on a reform of the electoral law

Two months before the parliamentary elections in May 2008, a number of reforms of the electoral law proposed by the ruling party were endorsed by the Georgian parliament. However, these amendments, which entailed a controversial rule on the issue of majority’s versus proportionality and lowered the number of seats in parliament, were not the result of a process of consultation and constructive cooperation between the ruling and opposition parties. The opposition strongly opposed the proposed amendments and tried to enforce its claims by going on a hunger strike. After the May 2008 elections, the electoral law remained under discussion; a new code is likely to be drafted some time in 2009.

Constructive cooperation and agreement between ruling and opposition parties on a reform of the state structures

Throughout 2008, NIMD was unable to contribute to a process of political reforms in Georgia. A constructive dialogue between ruling and opposition parties on structural political reforms other than the electoral law has not come off the ground for the same reasons as mentioned above: snap presidential and parliamentary elections, preceded by a political crisis and street protests, increased distrust and polarization between ruling and opposition parties, and a short war between Georgia and Russia. During a conference on political party assistance organised jointly by NIMD and the OSCE mission to Georgia in early October, it was reaffirmed that the time was not ripe for NIMD to engage in a dialogue process, given that parties could not agree on the mode and focus of such a political dialogue, and the rumours of (renewed) snap elections.

For these same reasons the foreign study tours within the framework of the Georgian Parties Leaders Programme could not be undertaken in 2008.

Constructive cooperation and agreement on joint priorities of a national agenda between opposition parties

In the run-up to the May 2008 parliamentary elections, a number of opposition parties have shown an unprecedented willingness to cooperate and join forces against the ruling party. Nine opposition parties, including the New Rights Party and the Conservative Party, decided to run as a bloc (United Opposition-National Council) in the elections. As an unforeseen positive side-effect, the NIMD-led VoteMatch project (see below) has provided the nine-party opposition with an opportunity and an incentive to define its shared political agenda. The opposition bloc was required to provide unified answers to 93 political statements in VoteMatch and the parties managed to do so. However, the shared political agenda did not materialise.

Thus, prior to the elections, NIMD activities contributed to a constructive cooperation between the nine parties which joined the United Opposition-National Council. However, the opposition as a whole took a unanimous stand only in its rejections of the UNM government, and in the aftermath of the parliamentary elections disunity was rife again in opposition ranks. The opposition parties remained divided over a boycott of the elected parliament, which further undermined their influence and the chances for a shared agenda. Due to this increased fragmentation and polarization, to the political turmoil after the August 2008 war, and due to the fact that NIMD’s donor was under pressure to revise its strategy, NIMD saw no opportunity during the second half of 2008 to facilitate a joint negotiation of the opposition parties towards the ruling party.

Party programmes developed and presented to the Georgian public

The internal VoteMatch project which aimed to strengthen the programmatic capacities of political parties and to assist them in developing party programmes, initiated in 2007, was finalized in 2008. Throughout 2007, the six participating parties had engaged in a process of providing answers and motivation to a list of 117 political statements and submitting the same statements to a large number of party members. In January 2008, in six separate meetings with the parties, NIMD’s partner IPP would finally present a test version of a VoteMatch tool that encompassed all Georgian political parties, as well as internal party analysis of the parties’ main political priorities and of the correlation between viewpoints of the party leadership and other party members, as well as a strategic electoral analysis.  

As a result of the internal party workshops, all six participating parties indicated to have reinforced their party profile and agenda. By answering to the list of 117 statements on political statements that they deemed most relevant for the Georgian political debate and by providing comments to these answers, the party leadership has collected the necessary materials to be able to draft a party manifesto. Moreover, the party leaders have been informed on their unique selling points, and the opinions of their membership. All party representatives interviewed during the evaluation underlined the usefulness of this exercise in at least four respects: 1) for having stimulated a programmatic discussion within the party at various levels; 2) for having pointed out inconsistencies in already existing party programmes; 3) for having raised awareness of the need to discuss programmatic issues with its membership; and 4) for having pointed out divergences between the opinions of rank and file members and party leaders. In Georgia, NIMD has thus developed, refined and tested an innovative instrument for strengthening parties’ programmatic capacities, which could in the future also be used in other programme countries.

Enhanced capacity building within the political parties

In general, political parties in 2008 showed little advancement in capacity building. After the November 2007 street protests and during the entire pre- and post-election period, parties refrained from developing long-term perspectives and institutional strengthening. Instead many of them focused their attention on reaching voters. Organisational capacities remained weak, particularly at the local level where chapters continued to lack visibility and problem solving capabilities. Programme writing capacities improved slightly, though. The small group of party representatives that attended NIMD’s Votematch sessions and those within the Board of Trustees were given a platform to enhance their skills. The overall capacity building picture, however, remained rather bleak.  

National VoteMatch developed and implemented in close cooperation with the political parties

Despite the fact that the parliamentary elections were advanced with six months, and upon the specific request of the political parties, the programme partners decided to carry on with the development of a public VoteMatch, intended to inform the electorate on the parties’ programmatic viewpoints in the run-up to the parliamentary elections in 2008. The public VoteMatch would differ from the internal one in both its objective (public voter education and information instead of internal party strengthening) and its procedure (no involvement of the political parties in drafting and selecting statements). Clear conditions and pre-requisites were agreed with the six parties, among others that all six parties would have to participate in the process and that statements would be drawn by an independent editing team consisting of eminent Georgian experts. 

Under the supervision of NIMD and IPP, an independent editing team drafted a long list of political statements, on which the parties had to take position. All parties were asked to appoint a high ranking party member involved in the electoral campaign in the so-called Board of Trustees. Under the chairmanship of the Dutch Ambassador in coordination with the Swiss Ambassador representing the OSCE, this Board of Trustees has met four times between March and May 2008 and has allowed the parties to oversee the public VoteMatch process in the run-up to the elections and to reach consensus on issues regarding its implementation.  

Unfortunately, in the final phase of its implementation, the United National Movement refused to answer to all the statements provided. A public VoteMatch was deemed unfeasible without all the answers of the UNM and the programme partners decided not to continue the process without UNM’s involvement. They unanimously agreed not to launch the public VoteMatch.

The process of developing a public VoteMatch as a voter information and education tool in the run-up to the parliamentary elections in a young, developing democracy, was a first-time and risky experience for all the partners involved. It has allowed NIMD to refine the VoteMatch methodology, to adapt it to the specific circumstances, to develop a publicity and dissemination strategy in a country with limited internet access, and to reflect on its potential use in other countries.  

Parties have the capacities to develop and implement their own training programmes in the run-up to the 2008 elections

The Training of Trainers programme, carried out from December 2006 until October 2007, could not be continued in 2008 for reasons amply explained in the previous paragraphs. Even though NIMD has not been able to provide any follow-up training, it is worth mentioning that the National Democratic Institute (NDI) invited three party trainers trained within the framework of the NIMD-CIPDD-OSCE/ODIHR programme to conduct voter education trainings in the run-up to the parliamentary elections. Their role was positively assessed by NDI representatives.

Sustainability issues

Since the start of the NIMD country programme in Georgia in 2005, the CIPDD has acted as an implementing partner. Against the backdrop of the highly polarized political environment of 2008, CIPDD’s role in the programme came somewhat under pressure, due to its perceived lack of impartiality in the eyes of the opposition parties and the appointment of the chairman of the board, Mr. Ghia Nodia, as minister in the UNM government. NIMD and the CIPDD therefore agreed that the role of CIPDD in the implementation of the VoteMatch would be reduced to administrative and logistical support, while NIMD played a more active role on the ground in programme management and coordination.

To ensure the sustainability and complete local ownership of the programme, the aim of the programme partners has been to work towards the establishment of a multiparty centre in Tbilisi. Such a centre would be run by the political partners themselves and ensure, in the long run, the programme coordination and management. The 2006-2008 programme has certainly contributed to laying a foundation for such a multiparty centre. It has done this through promoting trust between programme partners, by making them feel responsible for the programme and by enabling the political parties to get accustomed to cooperate in a multiparty environment. However, the political context since 2007 and the increasing polarization between the parties have hindered the establishment of a multiparty centre.

Currently, the sustainability of the NIMD programme in Georgia is under review.