The Georgian Institute of Politics (GIP), a Tbilisi-based think tank, has analyzed statements from all leading prime-time talk shows on 20-30 October 2020, interviewed the activists and experts and concluded that political parties ignored the Code of Conduct upon signing.

According to the study of GIP, Political parties that adopted the campaigning Code of Conduct last September have violated it 300 times during the run-up to the elections.

“The CoC for political parties was signed in 2020, before the Parliamentary elections by 40 parties. In the end, the political parties, like the experts and representatives of observer organizations, welcomed the introduction of the CoC. In the long-term, the CoC may become an important part of Georgian political tradition, violation of which would be damaging to a party's image, which would therefore facilitate the implementation of CoC commitments by parties and by political actors in general.

As for the implementation of the CoC during the 2020 pre-election period, the document has not facilitated any fundamental changes: violation of CoC principles by all major political parties was evidenced in the pre-election environment. Political parties had not established any new internal mechanism/units to ensure the implementation and monitoring of CoC and have not issued specific instructions about the commitments taken under the CoC. What is more, some of the parties even denied the fact that they had signed the CoC. There were also cases when party representatives were not familiar with CoC content or other signatory parties.

Media monitoring by the representatives and leaders of the ten main political parties identified more than 300 CoC violations by the ruling party as well as the opposition. Violations included mostly personal insults or unsubstantiated statements and allegations. Less common violations included the use of hate speech and calls for violence. The research did not find any instances of fake news. It also needs to be noted that in electoral and organizational terms, the big parties were the least characterized by issue-based, program- and subject-oriented discussions during their TV appearances. However, here, in addition to the role of the party, the role of the media was important since numerous programs encouraged issue-based discussion to various extents.

It also needs to be noted that in electoral and organizational terms, the big parties were the least characterized by issue-based, program- and subject-oriented discussions during their TV appearances. However, here, in addition to the role of the party, the role of the media was important since numerous programs encouraged issue-based discussion to various extents.

The media is not a passive actor simply reflecting pre-election the campaigns of the political parties. Given the research methodology for this report, we cannot discuss the cause-andeffect aspects, however, an interesting association was identified between TV channels and parties. For instance, statements of the ruling party representatives were covered mostly by TV Imedi and Rustavi 2, while opposition parties were less visible on TV Imedi (news programs excluded).

Establishing the CoC is a step forward as it contributes to raising awareness among politicians, activists and citizens of the rules of the game. Despite the fact that multiple CoC violations were identified during the 2020 parliamentary elections, parties failed to put in sufficient effort to integrating the CoC within their structures. Regardless of this, in the longterm, the CoC will contribute to fair pre-election campaigns, based on the practice of informing the voters.

The challenges found in the report reflect the complexity of Georgia’s political environment and will remain relevant for the foreseeable future. Some of these challenges are related to the political culture, which cannot be changed in a day. It needs longer engagement from the donor community, international partners, civil society, academia, and media, as well as the parties and their supporters”, the study said.

KEY FINDINGS

Lack of information. The parties did not have the full information regarding the CoC. Party leaders were familiar with CoC commitments, since the decisions to become signatories of the Code were taken after joint discussions with them and before the document was signed. However, information-sharing was not systemic in relation to activists, other party members, and, most importantly, their supporters. As for the latter, information was shared with them to the least extent. Some party representatives did not have enough information about other CoC signatories. Social media, which is a widespread platform in Georgia, was used by only two out of ten of the parties monitored as a tool for communicating about the CoC.

Limited communications. Communicating about the CoC and information-sharing by parties was usually limited to discussions during political council meetings, with the document being sent to regional party structures, and in some cases through verbal introductions during regional meetings. However, the parties did not go into detail during such communications and discussion was confined to general information about signing the document. It is noteworthy that, as demonstrated by the interviews, the parties considered the CoC to be in line with moral and ethical norms, and therefore did not see the need for formal and systemic communication about the document.

Absence of implementation mechanism. None of the ten parties selected had established any new mechanism for implementation and monitoring. In general, any implementation and monitoring function was fulfilled by internal structural units that were already in place. However, it was notable that parties had not given specific instructions to these units on how the commitments taken under the CoC should be implemented and monitored.

Lack of issue-based discussion. In total 1160 speeches by representatives of the selected 10 party were identified for monitoring from October 20, 2020 to October 30, 2020, during the prime-time period (20:00-23:59). Most of the speeches monitored did not include subject-oriented, program- and issue-based discussion related to either policy changes or policy implications. Out of 1160 speeches, 54% were assessed as not issue-based at all. Approximately a third of the speeches (32%) were assessed as partially issue-based, while 14% were assessed as fully subject-oriented, program- and issuebased.

Negative campaigns still prevailed. Media monitoring revealed that political party representatives frequently violated the CoC in the media. Over the ten days of monitoring, more than 300 violations were detected. Most of these were personal insults, or unsubstantiated statements by politicians that accused opponents of crimes or misconduct, or otherwise aimed to harm the reputation of the opponent in the eyes of the voters. Routine use of insults, accusations and slander in the media could only serve to divide and confuse the voters, rather than help them make informed decisions. However, politicians refrained from using hate speech or calling for mass violence through the media.

Effects of political polarization are strong when it comes to adhering to ethical principles. Media monitoring showed that even though 50 political parties were registered for the 2020 Parliamentary elections, the elections were mostly two-sided, and represented a battlefield for the ruling party on one hand, and the opposition on the other hand. Almost all the detected violations were made either by the ruling party referring to the opposition, or vice versa.

Facing the Challenge of Restraint among leadership. Most violations were made by speakers who held high positions in their parties (either the Top -10 party list, or the majoritarian candidate), which was to be expected since most of the time they would be able to secure airtime. Men outnumbered women in making violations by nearly five times.

Divergent interpretation. Discussing specific instances of violations with stakeholders (political parties and experts) revealed that whether or not an act by political organizations constituted a violation of the CoC might be subject to diverse interpretations of (1) the CoC principles themselves or (2) the context of a particular violation.

Blurred line between competition and violation. It is important to measure the circumstances of personalization - who makes the violation and against whom, since the violation might at first sight be part of “political competition” or “innocent criticism”.

Demonizing opponents as an art. According to the reports, and other official sources provided by local and international observers, the pre-election period of the 2020 Parliamentary election was marred by negative campaigning, attacking and demonizing particular political subjects, the abuse of administrative resources, cases of physical violence, campaigns to discredit candidates and parties and fake support pages.

Political party representatives highly misunderstand or miscommunicate inclusivity in their pre-electoral campaigns: international and local observers indicated failures to represent traditionally vulnerable minority groups in the political process while political party representatives perceived female participation, youth involvement and ethnic minorities’ inclusion as among their assets in pre-election campaigning

RECOMMENDATIONS

For Political Parties:

Ensure effective intra-party communication with regards to the CoC norms and content by the party leaders. Distribute specific instructions that will contribute to awareness of the CoC within the internal structure of a party; Work and establish an effective intra-party mechanism to ensure the implementation and monitoring of CoC commitments, conformity with which would be ensured by the parties’ own regulations; With the active involvement of the political parties and close cooperation with the CEC and other interested organizations, establish a permanent inter-party platform ("interparty council"), that would ensure interparty communication on ethical norms in terms of agreement, mutual understanding, prevention of violations, language, and appropriate behavior; If there are cases of differing interpretations of CoC articles, discussions should be held via the inter-party platform to clarify any vague aspects of the Code, to prevent the violation of the principles; Instead of the traditional negative campaigning, offer a stronger positive agenda to support the spirit and principles of the CoC. This would also reflect voters’ preference for positive campaigning, as shown by public opinion polls.

For CEC:

Implement specific result-oriented measures to achieve an improvement in trust and cooperation in the political environment of, aimed at reaching compromise among the parties; Organize and facilitate the establishment of a neutral platform (“interparty council”) in close cooperation with the parties that could be used to raise and discuss issues in the CoC content, monitoring mechanisms and existing violations. Similar neutral platform could contribute to a better execution and monitoring of CoC commitments. In addition to party representatives, the involvement of media outlets and non-governmental organizations in the work of the interparty council would be desirable; Contribute to informing civil society, the pubic, media, international organizations and other stakeholders about the CoC’s content to significantly increase the sense of accountability of parties towards society; Create an information platform to carry details regularly of violation of CoC principles by those involved in elections for local or international organizations or other stakeholders in the research and monitoring of election process. Provide relevant information on the CoC and its implementation so that election monitoring by the CSOs and international observers could include coverage of the CoC.

For the International Partners and Donors:

Even though impact of the CoC was limited, changing political culture is a long-term process and short-term fix could not be expected. International partners and donors should continue engagement in dialogue and compromise – based relationship building between political parties. Persistent support to consensus based politics is important, in cooperation with all international actors active in Georgia; Push introducing the CoC concept at an early stage before the elections, allowing time for it to be internalized within the parties, agree on the principles, communicate with the party members and set up implementation and monitoring mechanisms; Support the establishment of forum among the political parties ("interparty council") that met regularly to discuss ethical norms among political parties – with the aim of improving the monitoring mechanisms; it is also important to focus on encouraging the main political actors to reach political compromises; Ensure direct/ bilateral engagement with political party leadership to discuss ways in which to ensure better compliance on abiding by the CoC; In order to ensure a competitive and fair election environment and increase the sense of responsibility among the political parties and the effectiveness of the Code, it is important to: "Encourage more involvement of media outlets and journalists, which would help inform the public of the importance of the CoC; Continue research and support for public discussions for the upcoming elections to ensure that the dynamic of CoC implementation is constantly observed, which would raise the quality of accountability on the part of the political parties; Include CoC in the election monitoring reports, reflecting on the ethical principles in it for of political campaigning; Given the Georgian political context, it is desirable to narrow the focus of the CoC in line with the gravity and quality of violations, since there is a perception among the parties that the Code is a general one and all-encompassing and that some parts of it are regulated by other legal norms. Narrow down the language of the CoC, defining terms in the document, so it is less open to interpretation; Ensure active involvement of the main media outlets which will be involved in upcoming elections, as their active involvement in the discussions of the CoC is desirable. This could be facilitated through a separate document, which would be signed by main media outlets. While the document would be tied to the existing CoC in terms of content and principles, but it would be different in regards to commitments." Plan and organize activities – debates, conferences and public discussions - to ensure that the international experience and the benefits of implementing the CoC norms are shared with political parties and civil society as much as possible.

For civil society and media organizations:

Include CoC in the election monitoring reports, reflecting on the ethical principles in it for political campaigning; Media organizations could support and actively disseminate the results of the CoC monitoring; Support ethical campaigning in everyday engagement with political parties, setting the expectation for the upholding of the CoC. Reflect on their role in the future elections and CoC, from its inception to implementation; Inform wider society about the existence of the CoC, its content and the challenges in implementation; Support de-polarization of the political process. Opinion polls show the political maturity of Georgians, who now favor a multiparty parliament and consensual politics over polarization and one-party politics. So, it is advisable for both local and international research organizations to address voters’ attitudes towards ethical campaigning in their surveys.

The full study is available here.