Interview | Levan Natroshvili, New Executive Director of ISFED

The International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) is one of the oldest and most prominent Georgian organizations working on election issues. The organization has often been the subject of accusations and attacks by the ruling Georgian Dream party, including in the aftermath of the October 2020 and 2024 elections. The latest allegation was voiced by the GD Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, who claimed that ISFED operates on behalf of forces that “do not have good intentions toward Georgia.”

The organization has a new executive director, Levan Natroshvili, who was elected to the post last week. Before his election, Levan Natoshvili has served as ISFED’s Deputy Executive Director since 2022. He has nearly 17 years of experience in civil society, public service, and academia, with a focus on elections and governance since 2012.

Civil.ge’s Gigi Kobakhidze spoke with Levan Natroshvili about the challenges facing civil society organizations, and ISFED in particular, the contested elections in October 2024, the challenge of damaged trust in the electoral process, GD’s policies affecting the electoral environment, the upcoming local elections, and other issues.

Civil.ge: Thank you for the interview, and congratulations on your election as a Director of ISFED, which comes at perhaps the most challenging time for the Georgian civil society. The Georgian Dream party is trying to cut off all funding to Georgian civil society, and is also doubling down on discrediting CSOs and independent media as “foreign agents.” ISFED is one of the main targets. How is ISFED continuing its work, including in terms of funding? Should we expect any changes in the organization’s modus operandi?

I would say that the situation is quite difficult for the civil society organizations, for media organizations, and for any group in a society that is not directly or indirectly controlled by the ruling party. 

The Georgian dream has introduced many new initiatives in the legislation, starting from the so-called Russian law – Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence –  then the Foreign Agents Registration Act [FARA], which will be enforced starting from June, and in addition to that, they just amended the Law on Grants, which establishes a mechanism for controlling the grants coming from foreign donors. The introduction of the initial consent of the government on grants means they can filter the grants and reject grants designated for such organizations as ISFED and others, that are not acceptable to the Georgian Dream.

At this point, we continue with our work and with our plans. We try to contribute to the strengthening of democracy and governance in Georgia, including by providing our expertise on elections and good governance issues. We also work on revealing information about [information] warfare campaigns, and on the integrity of information in general, and depict the picture in a society about how disinformation and misinformation campaigns work in Georgia, and who is behind these campaigns.

In addition to that, we are providing free legal aid to those persons who are allegedly discriminated against on political grounds: some of them are participants in the ongoing protests, some of them are in jail right now, others have been fined…

Unfortunately, after the parliamentary elections, a new way of dismissals from public institutions began, after many public servants expressed their [dissenting] opinion about Irakli Kobakhidze’s statement in November halting EU accession. GD amended the legislation – Law on Public Service – and started reorganization processes in various institutions. We provide legal assistance to these persons as well.

Civil.ge: Financial resources are essential for the work of any organization.  How do you see the near future of ISFED, given the reduction of funds from some Western sources on the one hand, and the internal legislation blocking these funds on the other?

Unfortunately, this has been a challenge coming from two different sides: first is from domestic actors and the government, which has introduced new restrictions on grants, making our lives very difficult; on top of that, the USAID issue and the near cessation of foreign aid from the United States also affected local Georgian organizations.

However, fortunately, at this point we can say that we still have funds for our activities, since we worked with the help of other donors, especially European donors. I’d say, for one year, our activities will continue smoothly. However, if the law on grants has its chilling and direct effect on getting the funds, maybe in a year we’ll have trouble finding the funds for our activities, and we should find alternative sources.

Civil.ge: What could be the alternatives?

We are considering such options as getting donations from Georgian citizens and from outside the country as well. But at this point, we are not ready to switch our sources of funding to these kinds of [new] sources. We should try our best to continue our work, because we believe that without the civil society organization, media organizations, the quality of democracy in Georgia will further decrease.

Civil.ge: ISFED, more than probably any other non-governmental organization in Georgia, has been subjected to attacks by the Georgian Dream. Why do you think this is the case?

I guess the primary reason for that is the fact that the current version of Georgian Dream, unfortunately, cares only about keeping their power at all costs, at the expense of Georgia’s future.

That is why they launched the anti-Western campaign. This is a part of their strategy and tactics to avoid the necessary steps to reform our country, because, [for example], the EU accession process requires reforms in certain directions. Without these reforms, it’s impossible to be part of the European Union. They don’t want to implement these reforms, they just want to retain power. And they try to somehow find some excuses for not reforming various directions of public policies, accusing our European and U.S. partners of organizing coups against them. 

ISFED works mainly on election-related issues. [For Georgian Dream], to legitimize their power, the primary and most important issue is to win the elections. And of course, the organization, which observes the elections, can be a barrier for them, because when they want to use illegal methods to rig the elections. Such organizations as ISFED can detect these kinds of [election-rigging] schemes and manipulations, hence they try to attack us and discredit us, discredit our findings to make them look less reliable for the Georgian society and our partners.

Civil.ge: After almost five years, the 2020 PVT controversy is still invoked in the ruling party’s attacks against ISFED. The ruling party often accuses you, but also your donors, of trying to stage revolutions in Georgia by manipulating the PVT results in the 2020 parliamentary elections and not disclosing the error in time. Did anything happen between ISFED and its partners that prevented the timely disclosure of the PVT error, such as a communication problem? Are there any potential downsides to working closely with donors?

Of course, there was a problem with communication. The mistake is a normal thing, I guess.  Everybody can make mistakes, but the reaction and communication after making a mistake are very important. There were some problems in this regard, of course.

The organization managed to maintain the trust of the donors and to continue getting funds and support from them. The reputation, I would say, was restored because the Director decided to step down. That was a very responsive and responsible action, I think. 

This incident was very actively used by the Georgian Dream. If we look at their anti-Western narrative, it says that our Western partners, like the European Union and the United States, tried to stage some kind of coup or revolution, for which they falsified the PVT results. 

This campaign and narrative actually started in 2022, two years after the PVT incident, and it continues. ISFED, unfortunately, became a part of this narrative. In the big picture, we can say that this was used [by Georgian Dream] to attack our Western partners rather than to attack ISFED itself, because ISFED is a much smaller actor. The primary targets are the United States and the European Union.

Civil.ge: Let’s move on to the 2024 parliamentary elections, which are widely considered to have been rigged. It has not been assessed as either free or fair by local and international monitors. But at the same time, both the civil society and the opposition are often criticized for not preparing well enough for the challenges that October 26 posed, which the citizens believe facilitated alleged violations and rigging. What are the lessons learned from the previous October 26, 2024, elections?

We should say that the type of election manipulation used in Georgia during the last parliamentary elections, and not only in those elections, but in the previous ones as well, is quite subtle. 

It’s very difficult to detect and collect hard evidence of this kind of manipulation, because we’re talking about the predetermined lists of people who should be counted as voters for the ruling party. In the pre-election period, these people are mobilized, intimidated, and bribed. The ruling party, usually with the help of public institutions, mobilizes these people to get enough votes. On the day of the election, these preparations are carried out, and mainly the schemes are implemented through the so-called carousel voting, the multiple voting, which is very difficult to detect if the election administration is not prepared for it. The problem then is that all the public institutions that are supposed to work on this kind of manipulation and rigging are unfortunately politicized and controlled directly or indirectly by the ruling party.

For outsiders, like civil society and media organizations, it’s hard to get hard evidence that these schemes are being used. However, we gathered this evidence in 2022, when a whistleblower released a very impressive amount of information about how this system works and how these vote-buying and intimidation schemes work, as well as the role of various public institutions like the State Security Service and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and various line ministries that can provide assistance tools and benefits to the electorate in exchange of their votes.

This scheme and mechanism is very effective in getting votes. Unfortunately, the response to such publications and reports has not been strong. The prosecutor’s office started an investigation, but after three years this investigation has not been completed. So it’s very difficult to prevent this kind of manipulation. We know that it’s happening – that people are being bribed and intimidated – but it’s very difficult to prevent it.

Election day is another thing: the precinct commissioners don’t take their job seriously, they are partial, and they try to work for the ruling party. So they are part of these schemes as well. This scheme of multiple voting, the carousel voting, works like this: a certain group of people go from one precinct to another and they vote instead of other people. Certain members of the election commissions are informed about the scheme and they allow these people to enter the main precincts multiple times. So they don’t check the ink markings of these people; they don’t properly ink mark these people; they also don’t properly check their identities and they allow them to use other people’s identities. It’s very difficult to prevent these actions if the election administration is not impartial.

Civil.ge: But there was also the idea that citizens had been misled into believing that electronic technologies in elections would make any kind of manipulation impossible.

That’s right. The electronic technologies simplified certain procedures and provided more transparency in certain procedures, but not all of them. As I said, the process of multiple voting involves the verification of a person who enters the polling station. In this reality, these electronic machines, which were used in our elections, unfortunately, could not prevent these kinds of schemes, because the verification machines don’t have biometric verification features like fingerprints or eyes. If they did, then it would be difficult to organize multiple voting schemes, but since we don’t have such features, it is still easy to organize the carousel voting, the multiple voting schemes. The electronic technologies mainly simplify the voting and counting processes.

Unfortunately, there was also the problem of voter secrecy in these elections, due to decisions of the election commission regarding the type of marker and paper, and the proper type of cover… The problem of vote secrecy was very significant. But it was not a problem of electronic machines per se, but rather the way they were used.

That’s why we can say that, on the one hand, electronic machines simplified some processes – voting and counting – which was good. However, on the other hand, in the event of improper usage of these machines, they revealed an absolutely new kind of problem: vote secrecy. In addition, they could not prevent the type of manipulation and rigging, such as multiple voting. That’s why we can’t blame the electronic machines. They are not supposed to prevent all types of rigging, unfortunately. 

Civil.ge: The resistance movement has been demanding new parliamentary elections, but Georgian Dream has so far shown no willingness to call them. Still, some actors – including President Salome Zurabishvili – strongly believe that they will take place. She has even called for the mobilization of an “army of observers”. Do you think new parliamentary elections are a realistic possibility, and how is ISFED preparing for this scenario? 

First of all, we should say that ISFED agrees with the two demands: to release all political prisoners and the prisoners who were detained during the protests, and to hold new parliamentary elections. We think that these decisions could be a way to decrease the political temperature and solve the crisis.

As for what will happen in the future, it’s hard to say. It’s hard to make any forecasts on whether the ruling Georgian Dream party will agree on holding new parliamentary elections this year, next year, or whenever.  

However, we can say that our organization depends on the decision of political parties. If political parties decide to participate in elections and if we see that the election process is competitive, we can provide our assistance. But if we see that the election process is not competitive and major parties didn’t register for the elections, it doesn’t make any sense to observe such kind of elections. 

Civil.ge: Unlike the parliamentary elections, the local elections are already planned for October 4. Some opposition parties say they won’t participate in them, while others still haven’t made their position clear. Can we say that if the opposition boycotts the elections, you will not observe them?

Yes. We can say that if these elections are not competitive and only one party or some opposition parties participate formally, maybe some small parties, it will not be a competitive election. That’s why, of course, we will not spend our resources on observing. 

Of course, there can be many scenarios: holding only local elections this October…holding both, parliamentary and local elections, together, or, for instance, organizing a plebiscite about holding parliamentary elections. We are observing this process. We will look at their [parties’] positions, their decisions, and after we will decide ourselves whether to be or not of this process. 

Civil.ge: Here also comes the role of the international organizations, which are working on the elections in Georgia. There had also been this criticism against them that they focus on some technical aspects, such as training the CEC staff, rather than addressing deeper, systemic issues. In your view, what could be an effective role for international organizations in observing any future elections in Georgia to better help free and fair vote? 

I would say that international organizations are quite diverse; they have their own agendas, their own policies, so that’s why it wouldn’t be fair to somehow unify all of them together and criticize them, I guess.

Some work mainly on capacity-building activities and these kinds of actions. Others work on election observation. All of them have their policies or agendas. So that’s why, for us, it will be hard to dictate anything to them. 

There are at least a couple of organizations that play a huge role in this process, like the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission. If they decide to come to Georgia, the Georgian government should invite them. Without an invitation, they cannot come. It would be their decision.

The role of international actors is very important in this process, especially if we look at the domestic situation, where we have very high polarization and mistrust between various groups. Of course, the role of international actors is very important. They also look at this process; they are following all the developments as far as I know, and they will decide whether to have or not some kind of actions and missions in the elections.

Civil.ge: After the last parliamentary elections, how serious do you think the risk is that citizens will lose faith in elections and adopt a nihilistic approach to this important democratic process and tool? What does this spell for Georgian democracy, which is crumbling as it is?

Unfortunately, this is a very serious problem, because nihilism and this kind of disappointment, of course, would affect, in general, the political participation of Georgian society and turnout for any elections. 

I guess this disappointment is based on reality. However, it is the role of political parties, and maybe of all civil society organizations as well, to provide some kind of solutions to these problems.

It’s very hard to change the opinion about this issue if nothing changes, right? Of course, if Georgian Dream decides not to change anything in election legislation… If the opposition parties are very fragmented, if they don’t know whether or not they will participate in these elections or the next ones, or if they don’t have enough resources… all these factors will ultimately influence the opinion of the electorate.

Unfortunately, we can say that the trust in the elections in general is quite damaged because of the previous elections. If we want to retain [trust in] the elections, and somehow try to have more or less normal elections in Georgia, many stakeholders should work on that. But the primary role in this process is, of course, the role of the ruling party, of the state institutions which are supposed to hold the elections and react to various kinds of violations. These [institutions] are the Central Election Commission, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor’s Office…

But unfortunately, we don’t see any signs that these institutions will try their best to somehow improve the situation. That’s why we expect that the process ahead will be very tough and very disappointing for many people. And that’s a challenge for our country, because lower turnout in elections means the lower legitimacy of the next bodies – municipal bodies, or parliamentary bodies, or parliament. And distrust and polarization will increase, which is very bad, of course. Unfortunately, right now we see this process, but how can we solve this? I don’t know, it’s a very difficult question. 

Civil.ge: Systemic changes?

Indeed, but we don’t see the political will of the Georgian Dream showing that they are ready to significantly change something.  

So, the opposition parties should decide whether they are going to play this game with these unfair rules, to try to change these rules, or just boycott the whole process. That’s a political decision of political parties. We don’t see their final decisions at this point, but we are going to see that in the coming weeks or maybe months. 

Civil.ge: Thank you

The interview has been edited for brevity

Also Read:

• 01/05/2025 – CEC Ballot Secrecy Fix is Admission of Breach, Critics Say
• 30/04/2025 – Local Elections: New Divisive Issue for Opposition
• 21/11/2024 – Joint Assessment on Elections by ISFED, My Vote, and GYLA: Elections Neither Free nor Fair