In Georgia’s 2012 election, then-president Mikheil Saakashvili’s pro-Western party was defeated by Georgian Dream, a party led by the Russian-backed oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili. Though widely hailed at the time as a democratic triumph, astute observers warned against celebrating.
One such observer was Georgia’s former economy minister, the late Kakha Bendukidze, a businessman and philanthropist who wryly remarked that with Ivanishvili’s victory, the country “made a step forward in terms of democracy, but sometimes when you make a step forward, you step in shit.”
When friends who supported Georgian Dream in 2012 assured me they would vote the party out of power if it failed to deliver, I warned them that doing so would be far harder than they expected.
Unfortunately, as Georgia’s Oct. 26 parliamentary elections showed, my prediction was accurate. According to independent polling organizations such as Edison Research, which conducted both pre-election and exit polls, Georgian Dream was soundly defeated by a coalition of four opposition parties. However, as we celebrated our victory, the Central Election Commission (CEC) abruptly reported results giving Ivanishvili’s party a lead that exceeded the exit-poll numbers by about 15 percent.
Post-election fatigue quickly gave way to deep confusion and uncertainty. Although we had received numerous reports of polling issues and other legal violations throughout the day, the full extent of the government’s electoral fraud became clear after the official results were announced.
In the lead-up to the election, the government introduced a new system of electronic voting machines. While many Georgians assumed that the government would make such a change only if it served its own interests, some non-governmental organizations (NGOs), political parties, and international organizations believed that the new system provided stronger safeguards for free and fair elections.
The skeptics were right. Although the Georgian opposition is still investigating the specifics of the government’s electoral fraud, it is clear that Georgia has not witnessed such massive election interference since its first post-Soviet election 33 years ago.
In Tbilisi and other large cities, Georgian Dream clearly lost. However, in many rural areas the scale of manipulation seems staggering, and independent election-observer groups have called for annulment of the results in over 246 precincts — covering more than 400,000 voters — citing grave violations. Given that the new system did not manage to secure ballot secrecy, some NGOs are calling for total annulment of the results and new elections.
Encouragingly, the US and the EU have called for an investigation into the election, and no Western leader — aside from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban — has recognized the results as legitimate.
To address this unprecedented election fraud, the US and the EU must support an international investigative mission and clearly state that the election’s outcome would not be recognized as legitimate until the investigation is complete. They should emphasize that refusal to cooperate with the investigation would trigger immediate sanctions against Ivanishvili and his allies.
One promising approach would be to launch an investigative mission under the EU’s common security and defense policy. An independent investigative mission would provide essential resources and credibility, especially since Georgia’s opposition parties and civil-society groups lack the capacity to investigate a crime of this scale on their own.
The EU has an obvious stake in finding out what happened in Georgia. In today’s era of hybrid warfare, electoral manipulation has become one of Russia’s go-to tactics in its ongoing assault on Western democracies. These countries’ leaders should treat Georgia as an opportunity to confront an urgent security challenge to which they, too, are exposed.
Meanwhile, Georgian President Salome Zourabishvili has announced that she would not exercise her constitutional authority to convene the first parliamentary session after an election, accusing Georgian Dream of “working hand-in-hand with Russia.” Similarly, newly elected opposition lawmakers have stated that they would boycott all parliamentary proceedings if the election results reported by the Ivanishvili-controlled CEC are not validated by international observers.
Amid this growing backlash, Ivanishvili might have to convene the new parliament’s first session with just Georgian Dream MPs in attendance. Should that happen, Georgia would effectively become a one-party state with an illegitimate government.
Whether Ivanishvili is prepared to take this step remains to be seen. Nevertheless, he appears intent on following in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s footsteps, transforming Georgia from a democracy into an authoritarian state where elections are little more than formalities. For over a decade, he has systematically undermined democratic institutions while persuading Georgians that he is a pro-Western leader, despite having made his fortune in Russia.
Ivanishvili probably thought he could maintain this pro-Western facade indefinitely, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the EU’s 2023 decision to grant Georgia candidate status, forced him to reveal his pro-Putin sympathies. Once unmasked, he recognized that his chances of winning a fair election were slim.
Georgia now finds itself on the brink of a profound political transformation. If the West fails to support the country’s opposition in challenging the election results, its 30-year-old democracy could come to an end.
This outcome would derail Georgia’s EU accession and mark a strategic defeat for Western countries.
Over the past 30 years, Georgia has been the West’s most reliable ally in the region, benefiting from substantial US and EU aid aimed at helping the country modernize and build its democracy. Allowing Georgian Dream’s electoral fraud to go unchallenged would squander decades of hard-won progress and deal a major blow to the global effort to protect democracy against authoritarian threats.
Salome Samadashvili, a former head of Georgia’s Mission to the European Union, is a member of Georgia’s parliament and political secretary of the Lelo for Georgia party.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS