Authors: Tamuna Kimadze and Manana Ghoghoberidze
As elections approach, politicians and party coordinators begin “door-to-door” campaigns, engaging in informational outreach. They speak with people, visiting homes in both cities and villages, aiming to secure support on the spot. This pre-election tradition is followed by both the opposition and the ruling party.
Typically, the ruling party also leverages administrative resources for its political agitation, and reports of this practice frequently emerge during pre-election periods. This year, it has been confirmed that the ruling party is using public servants employed by city halls, specifically representatives of mayors, in these efforts.
In an experiment conducted by iFact, mayoral representatives, openly admitted that they actively contribute to party propaganda and campaigning, expressing pride in their involvement. They emphasize that no law impedes their participation.
The law only considers it a violation if public servants engage in pre-election campaigning during working hours or while performing their official duties.
Thus, despite numerous reforms to the Election Code, the law does not view it as problematic for city hall employees to work a “second shift” after 6 p.m. to help “Georgian Dream” gather votes. In some cases, they even take leave from their city hall jobs to assist the party in its pre-election campaign.
The facts uncovered by our investigation highlight that this lenient provision in the law enables every ruling party to utilize administrative resources for its benefit.
Mayor’s Representatives “Door-to-Door” in Service of the Party
“For about three months now, I’ve been going everywhere, even to the opposition. Some of them we’ve persuaded, but others are die-hard ‘Nationals,’ and you can’t change their minds… When you start talking and they say, ‘It’s my business who I’ll vote for,’ then you know who they are. But if they’re open to talking, you explain—’ You don’t want war, you want peace, don’t you, for heaven’s sake.’ I say anything… We need to win with a good percentage,” told Gurgen Peranidze, the representative of the mayor of Zestafoni in the Dilikauri village, while we were experimenting.
We called him under the pretense of being from the headquarters of the “Georgian Dream” delegate in Zestafoni, Zviad Shalamberidze, claiming we were finalizing lists for the upcoming election and were curious about the mood in the region and the work being done.
In this manner, we contacted representatives in 11 municipalities in Imereti, posing as a “headquarters coordinator.” In ten of them, the mayors’ representatives openly admitted that they, too, were meeting with the population as part of the “door-to-door” campaign, and they saw no problem with this practice.
However, the following day, when we revealed that we were journalists, many of them retracted their statements and changed their stories. Some said, “What are you talking about? We’re not allowed to campaign, and we’ve never done that.” Others were startled by the mere mention of journalism and immediately hung up.
Only in Samtredia did they refuse to speak to us from the outset, citing a lack of time. The mayor’s representative in Tolebi said he was at a meeting, while Merab Tevzadze from the village of Opeti told us, “I’m at headquarters right now,” and abruptly hung up the phone.
Ucha Gabriadze, the mayor’s representative in the village of Khresili in Tkibuli, was more forthcoming. When we called him from “headquarters,” he provided a detailed overview of what to expect on October 26 in his district and how he was personally helping to attract more voters. He didn’t hide the fact that he was breaking the law by engaging in party campaigning during working hours:
Ucha Gabriadze: “I’m the mayor’s representative, and I do whatever is needed. We have good results—probably around 60 percent…”
Journalist: “But you don’t personally go door-to-door, right?”
Ucha Gabriadze: “Of course, I do! I don’t shy away from whether it’s working hours or after working hours… It’s all written down—like, I’m on a one-month leave or whatever it’s called… Still, no one’s going to catch me.”
Journalist: “If you need anything from us, don’t hesitate to ask.”
Ucha Gabriadze: “Well, gas is a bit tight, but what can I do? I’m not going to ask for it… No, I don’t need it. I’ve held out this long, and I’ll keep holding out with my salary.”
The following day, when we introduced ourselves as journalists, Ucha Gabriadze’s tone changed completely. “Madam, I don’t have the right to conduct any pre-election activities… I’ve never had that right, and I’ve never done it.” When we reminded him of what he had said the previous day, he fell silent for a few seconds and then hung up.
This is exactly how three other public servants reacted—Gurgen Peranidze, Avtandil Tabukashvili, and Besik Chankseliani, who work as representatives of the mayors in Kharagauli, Zestafoni, and Khoni.
October 21, Calling from “Headquarters”:
“Of course [I go door-to-door]; who’s going to stop us even if we wanted to stop? I’m here, I’ve been everywhere for about three months now, even with the opposition. Some of them we’ve persuaded, but some are die-hard ‘Nationals,’ and there’s no changing them… [So, you do go door-to-door?] Of course, man, what’s there to talk about… If someone says, ‘It’s my business who I vote for,’ then you know who they are. If they’re open to talking, you explain—‘Do you want war? You don’t want peace? Please…’ I say anything… I think we’ll win with a good percentage! Most of our people are aware, and I’m not going to teach a ‘National’ how to vote—if they make a mistake, it’s better for me,” said Gurgen Peranidze, the mayor’s representative from the village of Dilikauri.
“Everything is going smoothly, peacefully. We’re going door-to-door, of course… There are fewer opposition members. As for the socially vulnerable, I can’t give you an exact number, but most of them are voting for us,” said Besik Chankseliani, the representative from the village of Ivandidi.
“Coordinators are going door-to-door, but I’m on leave, and I’m going too. Sure, everyone’s reliable, but I still don’t trust anyone, so I enter every house myself. [Do you personally go in?] Yes, yes… of course. You’re at work, and you do what’s required,” said Avtandil Tabukashvili, the representative from the village of Fartskhnali.
October 22, Calling as Journalists from “Ai, Fact”:
Gurgen Peranidze didn’t let us ask any questions and immediately hung up. Two of his colleagues initially avoided us with the same excuse:
“I’m in the middle of something, I can’t talk right now…”
“How soon can we call you back?”
“I don’t know, I don’t know…”
“When will you be free?”
“I can’t say…” (Tabukashvili).
“No, ma’am, no, I’m busy right now, I’m in a situation where I can’t talk to you,” said Chankseliani.
Their evasive behavior further proves that the mayor’s representatives are acting unethically and have resorted to hiding their involvement in campaigning for the “Georgian Dream.”
“The problem lies with the election administration’s standards. For example, the administration asks these individuals whether they wrote a Facebook post that contained signs of agitation, and the responses claim that someone else was using the computer, and so on. When such responses are acceptable to the commission and do not count as violations, it’s clear that the standard is problematic. It’s also questionable whether these individuals are actually on leave; often, such excuses are fabricated. It’s a way to justify their actions… The monitoring process is also very difficult because this information is not easily given, and they tend to complicate things,” Nika Odikadze, an election analyst from the Young Lawyers’ Association, told us.
While public servants going door-to-door during evenings, weekends, or while on leave is not a violation of the Election Code, their campaigning still creates an unequal pre-election environment and disproportionately benefits the ruling party.
The issue is that people associate these familiar faces with the “Georgian Dream,” and promises made on the back of budgetary resources are perceived as promises from the ruling party. The conflation of the party and the government is problematic and indicates that the law needs revision, according to Irma Pavliashvili, chairwoman of “Caucasus Open Space” and former executive director of the Young Lawyers’ Association, who has actively worked on election code reforms.
“Government activity and political party activity should be separated… It’s a fact that this boundary has been erased. The public shouldn’t have the perception that a representative of the local government is coming to them during the campaign process. In small communities, where everyone knows each other, you know who’s who, and if someone approaches you with campaign messages, whether it’s veiled threats or kind advice, it makes you think—if I don’t support them, I might have problems, I might lose my social assistance or my municipal job. There’s a line between the law and integrity that needs to be maintained. [Public servants] can technically do this during their breaks, and the election administration has even told us before that they can use their breaks however they wish. But in reality, this is a clear case of using administrative resources and status,” Pavliashvili explained.
Only one public servant was candid enough to not deny his involvement in the “Georgian Dream’s” campaign when speaking with us as journalists—Davit Adeishvili, the representative of the mayor of Vani from the village of Kumuri.
During our experiment on October 21, he told us, “I’ve been going door-to-door for about a month now. Everything’s peaceful in the village, and we have more supporters.” The next day, October 22, he confidently repeated, “Of course I go door-to-door; what else should I do? I’m the village governor, and there’s no need for instructions. Could I do this? Sure I could—what kind of questions are these? Have I broken any laws? It’s my choice, and whether I’m the village governor or an ordinary member, I’ll do it the way I see fit.”
In Imereti, some mayoral representatives were more cautious and unsure about whether to reveal their involvement in supporting the “Georgian Dream” during phone conversations. Representatives from Baghdati, Chiatura, and three villages in Terjola confirmed their participation in the “door-to-door” campaign, but when pressed for details, they became defensive and refused to continue the conversation.
Journalist: You’ve started going door-to-door as well, right?
Gocha Bitsadze (Chiatura, Village Sviri): Me, personally?
Journalist: It was your responsibility too, wasn’t it?
Gocha Bitsadze: Please understand me correctly, are you calling from the headquarters? Different people call from various places, and there are incidents sometimes…
Even after assuring him that we were calling from the headquarters and asking about the number of supporters, Bitsadze remained cautious: “I think it’s not necessary to discuss everything over the phone…”
Ezeki-Raindi Kipiani, the mayor’s representative in the village of Dimi in Baghdati, also expressed doubts: “I know the leadership of Baghdati’s headquarters, but I don’t know you, so I can’t give you an interview… Come on, I told you, I don’t give interviews… Let someone from Baghdati call me, but not from a private number,” he told us.
Gia Jokhadze, the mayor’s representative in the village of Kveda Simoneti in Terjola, became even more nervous. Initially, he explained in detail that “the mood is very good; everyone is expecting the 26th to go smoothly and beautifully. We’ve already been door-to-door three times and plan to go again.” However, when we asked if he was engaging in campaigning during working hours, he became confused and then angrily retorted:
“Are you lying to me or telling the truth? Come on, come on… are you lying to me? Don’t hang up, wait a minute… Where did all these scoundrels come from, flooding this village… All these scoundrels in parties other than ‘Dream,’ those who want LGBT rights, they don’t know their mother, they don’t know their father, and they don’t know that same-sex marriage isn’t allowed.”
The next day, when we revealed that we were journalists, Jokhadze, like his colleagues, retracted his previous statements:
Gia Jokhadze: “Why would I engage in pre-election campaigning? That’s done by the commission and the people responsible for it. What does it have to do with me? I’m the governor for everyone; whoever comes to me, I’ll solve their problems. If I can’t, well… I’m here.”
Journalist: But we spoke yesterday, and you told me you were engaged in pre-election campaigning, going door-to-door.
Gia Jokhadze: “Door-to-door? No, no, I’m not doing that… I don’t go door-to-door…”
In contrast, we encountered a different situation in Sachkhere. Vakhtang Kapanadze, the mayor’s representative from the village of Korbouli, confirmed his involvement in the “door-to-door” campaign but hinted that excessive campaigning wasn’t necessary for Sachkhere: “Sachkhere is Korbouli, and of course, the mood here is clear… Our great man has done a lot for us, for me, for my family. He has provided enormous help.”
Who and how monitors the involvement of municipal employees in agitation?”
Monitoring the involvement of city hall employees in political campaigning is a complex process. According to Irma Pavliashvili, former director of the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association and current chairwoman of “Caucasus Open Space,” effective oversight requires multiple steps. She explains that during monitoring, she would request official leave orders to verify if public servants were truly on leave. Additionally, there must be scrutiny of whether administrative resources—such as vehicles, fuel, or office supplies—are being misused for campaign purposes, ensuring that state funds are not being funneled into political activities. However, after the introduction of the so-called “Russian law” on transparency, public institutions have become more secretive, making such information less accessible.
Pavliashvili also emphasizes the importance of political parties, including the ruling party, reporting any expenses related to public servants who participate in campaigning, even while on leave. These expenditures should be reflected in financial declarations. However, when we reviewed Georgian Dream’s pre-election financial disclosures, covering the period from August 27 to October 7, 2024, there was no specific mention of expenses related to the “door-to-door” campaign.
We sought to understand from city hall administrative departments what mechanisms are in place to prevent election code violations, particularly the misuse of administrative resources, or breaches of the neutrality principle. Unfortunately, most responses were evasive. Out of several municipalities, we managed to interview only three administrative heads. The others either didn’t answer the phone or were hindered by the same excuse during the conversation: “You’re calling at a bad time, I’m traveling and can’t hear you at all” (you can judge for yourself where they might have been headed on October 23, when people from the regions were being brought to attend the Georgian Dream support concert in Tbilisi by minibus).
The heads of the administrative departments in Kharagauli, Tkibuli, and Zestafoni were able to respond, though they provided little concrete information about the control mechanisms in place for monitoring the “door-to-door” campaign.
In Zestafoni, David Nioradze from the mayor’s office vaguely said, “No one participates in agitation; everyone knows their duties and responsibilities.” When asked for more specifics on monitoring mechanisms, he suggested we submit our questions in writing and promised an official response within the legally mandated timeframe, which could take around 10 days—well after the elections had concluded.
Similarly, Marina Kvinitadze, head of the Kharagauli mayor’s office, declined an interview, instead advising written communication. She stated that her office would decide whether our query fell under the category of public information and respond within a reasonable period.
Teimuraz Tskipurishvili, head of the Tkibuli administrative service, appeared to know little about the campaign’s control measures. “Everyone has been warned, everyone knows. Call PR, they will tell you everything… As far as I know, they [the employees] are not participating [in the door-to-door campaign], but if they are, I don’t know… PR will give you more information,” he said. When we informed him that one of his employees, Ucha Gabriadze, had been participating in Georgian Dream’s door-to-door campaign in the village of Khresili, he promised to look into it. However, when we followed up the next day, communication with Tkibuli city hall became impossible as they stopped responding altogether.
In Terjola, Lasha Lanchava, the head of the administrative department, refused to speak with us, stating he was too busy and could not say when he would have time. The following day, on October 23, he claimed he could not hear us over the phone because he was traveling.
How to avoid the involvement of public servants in campaigning?
The example of municipalities in Imereti clearly shows that the ruling party is skillfully using administrative resources for its benefit, and the law facilitates this. Therefore, we decided to ask representatives of political parties currently fighting for seats in parliament for a solution. In theory, they should be prepared for legislative work and enforcement.
Shalva Kereselidze, Party “Gakharia For Georgia”:
“It should be prohibited by law, and very strict penalties should be imposed, both on the perpetrator and the one who orders it. Until this happens, nothing will change. However, if a public servant, teacher, or nurse, personally wishes to join any political party and start political activities, then during working hours they shouldn’t start campaigning or promoting anything. After working hours, when they go home, they can go to the party office or express their positions on their personal Facebook page. That is the solution.”
Giga Lemonjava, “Coalition for Change”:
“This is an entirely Russian and Soviet practice because, in Russia, the ruling political party and state institutions are completely intertwined. When we say that we should be a European state, it means not only that we must meet the 9 requirements of the European Commission but also that we need to create a European style of governance. This includes public administration reform and ensuring that the ruling party, the one in power, doesn’t use the state budget for its party purposes.”
According to Pavliashvili, chairwoman of “Caucasus Open Space,” the solution lies in political will: “When a party in power holds an absolute majority, it gains access to administrative resources—public servants, budgetary institutions, the budget, administrative buildings, inventory, etc. It has full access, and it becomes very difficult to enforce the law and monitor that these resources aren’t being used for campaigning. A review of the unified legislative political framework is necessary.”
Under the current situation, if a public servant works for a party during evening hours, or on weekends, it is not considered a violation of the law. If we take a critical view of this, it is still unclear how a mayor’s representative involved in political campaigning (even if it is only during evening hours or on weekends) can avoid being associated with the ruling party in the eyes of the village residents.
