The recent parliamentary elections in Georgia, held on October 26, 2024 have stirred domestic and international controversy, particularly around allegations of irregularities in the voting process. The European Union (EU) has called for an independent investigation and a transparent inquiry into these alleged irregularities, yet it has taken a non-committal stance on the election’s legitimacy—a decision that has disappointed Georgia’s pro-European opposition while providing some relief for the pro-Russian ruling party.
Since 2012, Georgia has been governed by the Georgian Dream party, a group often perceived as pro-Russian in contrast to Georgia’s growing population of Europhiles, especially in urban areas. Georgian Dream’s time in office has been marked by steady control over the nation’s political institutions, an achievement often attributed to its firm hold on Georgian political, economic, civil society and media landscapes. Meanwhile, the pro-European opposition, advocating for closer ties with the EU and NATO, has steadily gained traction among Georgians who envision the country aligned with Western democratic values. However, despite mounting public support for EU integration, the opposition has struggled to make headway against the influence and resources of the ruling party.
The EU’s reaction to the alleged voting irregularities reflects a cautious approach, balancing between supporting democratic principles and maintaining diplomatic neutrality. While the EU has called for an independent investigation, it has refrained from taking a definitive stance on whether the elections were conducted fairly. This decision, seen as ambivalent, has disappointed Georgia’s pro-EU opposition, who view EU support as vital for fostering democratic change in the country. There are also calls from Georgian opponents for Western sanctions in the hypothesis of the use of violence to confirm the election results and to confront the protest movement. Moreover, a significant number of ordinary Georgians are seeking support from the EU to affirm their country’s objective of joining the union. There is also the question of EU internal divisions. Despite EU official statements mentioning “irregularities,” Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban was among the first to congratulate the ruling Georgian Dream party on its recent electoral victory.
Many Georgian opposition leaders had hoped for a strong EU statement that would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election results, pressuring the government to initiate broader reforms. However, by opting not to take a direct stance, the EU is likely attempting to avoid intensifying Georgia’s existing political divisions, which could risk further instability in a nation that already sits at a geopolitical crossroads.
The EU’s position — or lack thereof — has broader implications for its relationship with Georgia. The bloc has been actively promoting democratic values and the rule of law in the region through its Eastern Partnership initiative, aiming to foster closer political and economic ties with former Soviet republics like Georgia. However, by not affirming or rejecting the legitimacy of the recent elections, the EU risks appearing indifferent to the democratic aspirations of many Georgians who see European integration as a means to achieve lasting reforms.
Georgia’s opposition leaders argue that this ambivalence undermines the EU’s credibility in supporting democratic norms and human rights, especially in regions with fragile democratic institutions. This sentiment echoes throughout the pro-EU camp in Georgia, which views the EU as a potential counterbalance to Russian influence. Meanwhile, by maintaining its current position, the ruling Georgian Dream party may feel emboldened to pursue policies that reinforce its power domestically without fear of reprisal from Brussels.
Russia remains a significant influence in Georgia’s internal affairs, often employing economic and political leverage to discourage closer ties between Georgia and the West. The Georgian Dream party, with its pragmatic approach to Russia, has maintained an ambivalent stance on certain foreign policy matters, potentially to avoid antagonizing Moscow. By not actively opposing Russian interests, Georgian Dream has arguably positioned itself as a stable intermediary, a role that is both strategic and cautious given the country’s complex relationship with its northern neighbor. Georgia still does not have diplomatic relations with Russia. Nevertheless, Tbilisi’s refusal to impose sanctions on Russia and the restoration of air links with its Russian neighbor in 2023 have given the impression that the Georgian government has been taking a stance against the West since the beginning of the war Russia-Ukraine war. Georgian Dream has become closer to the Georgian Orthodox Church and conservative circles, which are opposed to the societal developments that they associate with European integration.
This approach has created a political divide within Georgia; while the ruling party’s pro-Russia orientation appeals to some factions, a substantial part of the population perceives EU and NATO integration as essential to securing a democratic future for the country. These citizens are frustrated by what they see as Georgia’s current political stagnation and limited international support in advancing democracy.
The EU’s call for an independent investigation, though moderate, suggests that it is not turning a blind eye to the allegations. However, whether this investigation will yield meaningful results or impact the legitimacy of Georgian Dream’s rule remains uncertain. The EU’s involvement could prompt reforms if it strengthens its stance on electoral integrity and insists on implementing transparency measures in future elections. However, until it adopts a clearer position, the EU risks alienating pro-EU Georgians who look to Brussels for support.
The EU’s decision to remain neutral on the legitimacy of Georgia’s disputed parliamentary elections underscores its complex balancing act between upholding democratic principles and preserving regional stability. While the call for an investigation indicates some level of engagement, the absence of a firm position leaves Georgia’s pro-EU factions in a precarious position, without the support they hoped for from Brussels. As Georgia’s political future remains uncertain, the EU faces a critical choice: either take a more decisive role in supporting Georgian opponents or risk diminishing its influence in a region increasingly contested by competing powers.
