What to know about administrative resources and how they are used before the Georgian election
Administrative resources and the Georgian Election
As elections approach, there is often talk of powerful administrative resources concentrated in the hands of those in power, with concerns that its use negatively impacts the democratic process. However, the exact nature, scale, and usage of these resources remain somewhat unclear.
Additional insight can be gleaned from the electoral code and numerous studies by non-governmental organizations. In this article, we aim to address questions surrounding administrative resources and they are used. To do so, we draw on existing sources and the pre-election context in Georgia, in collaboration with Giga Chikhladze from Transparency International Georgia.
What are administrative resources?
The electoral code of Georgia serves as the primary source for answers, though it lacks detailed explanations.
Article 48 of the code prohibits the use of administrative resources during election agitation and campaigning. This prohibition extends to the following: budgetary organizations, state authorities, municipalities, their assets, public officials, and directors of preschool and educational institutions, as well as educators. We will discuss the specific prohibitions in this context later, but for now, let’s focus on who and what can be considered administrative resources under the law.
Both local and international organizations rely on general definitions of administrative resources based on reports and assessments from the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe, and the OSCE/ODIHR.
- For example, a 2013 report from the Venice Commission defines administrative resources as human, financial, material, natural, and other intangible resources utilized by both sitting officials and public servants during elections, as they control personnel in the public sector, finances, and state institutions.
- A joint report prepared in 2014 by the Central Election Commission, Transparency International, ISFED, SAIA, and other organizations describes administrative resources as property or other forms of resources necessary for carrying out state functions. The authors identify several categories, including legal, institutional, financial, coercive, and media resources.
- In a 2021 publication by the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe, the concept of administrative resources, also referred to as state or public resources, is explained to extend beyond public finances to include resources derived from public office or intended for broad societal use.
Another important guiding principle is the 1990 Copenhagen Document from the OSCE, which emphasizes the need to maintain a clear distinction between state and political parties. Experts argue that the use of administrative resources during elections blurs this line.
By combining the existent definitions and simplifying them, administrative resources can be understood as the opportunities available to the state and its representatives.
Who or what constitutes administrative resources?
Giga Chikhladze, a lawyer with Transparency International Georgia, suggests categorizing administrative resources into four groups. These reflect international practices and the reality of the situation in Georgia.
- Institutional administrative resources;
- Legal, or regulatory administrative resources;
- Financial administrative resources;
- Executive administrative resources.
The lawyer explains that institutional administrative resources refer to public servants and employees of budgetary organizations who provide services to the public on behalf of the state. This includes staff from ministries, the Justice House, or municipal administrations, as well as school directors, teachers, and preschool educators.
“It’s easy to identify. They typically receive their salaries from the budget,” Chikhladze notes.
Additionally, material resources fall into this category. For example, buildings and vehicles owned by the state that should be used for the public good.
According to Chikhladze, the second category—legal resources—includes decisions made by various state bodies, from the parliament to all entities performing regulatory functions. This consists of bodies such as city councils, communication commissions, and the Central Election Commission.
“These are decisions that do not pertain to specific actions but establish rules. For instance, the ‘Russian law’ [the law on ‘foreign agents’] or any other law passed by parliament can be considered part of the administrative-legal resource,” Chikhladze explains.
The third category pertains to finances. According to the lawyer, this financial resource is used selectively, benefiting certain individuals or groups in the allocation and expenditure of the budget.
“We also refer to this as budget expenditure motivated by elections. When public funds—money collected through citizens’ taxes—are utilized, their distribution should aim to improve the lives of those citizens, meet their needs, and fulfill the goals set forth in the constitution and laws of the country. However, if these funds are used in a way that benefits a specific party or parties, then that counts as the misuse of financial administrative resources,” Chikhladze explains.
The fourth category is executive-administrative resources, which can include both police forces and the judiciary.
“For example, when the police unlawfully detain a person. Unlawful detention is an issue, but it doesn’t always indicate the use of administrative resources. However, if this is done for party or electoral motives, then it does qualify. Similarly, judicial decisions, the initiation of criminal prosecutions, or dismissals during the election period can be politically motivated actions,” Chikhladze explains.
Administrative Resources and Elections in Georgia
How are administrative resources used during elections?
“What we’ve outlined—the politicization of these actions—represents the use of administrative resources. More specifically, it involves providing advantages during the pre-election period,” Chikhladze elaborates.
The electoral code of Georgia states that access to administrative resources must be equitable. Specifically, the law prohibits state authorities and local government bodies, as well as organizations funded by the Georgian state budget, from using government-owned buildings if other political parties or candidates do not have the opportunity to use similar facilities under the same conditions.
“The nature of administrative resources is that they constantly change form by finding new pathways and dimensions, while the law has remained stagnant for 20 years. Even then, it wasn’t effective, and it certainly isn’t now. Our legal framework fails to meet contemporary demands. Relying solely on this law to address violations of administrative resource use is simply disconnected from reality,” Chikhladze states.
Criticism often arises regarding how authorities employ public servants, teachers, and school directors to achieve electoral goals. Over the years, numerous studies, reports, and articles have been produced on this issue.
The electoral code prohibits the use of public officials, directors of preschool and educational institutions, educators, and other staff for official duties related to electoral activities.
Additionally, the code stipulates that election campaigning (or agitation) begins 60 days before the voting day, and certain groups (e.g. public servants, directors of public preschool and educational institutions, educators, and other staff) are prohibited from participating in such activities.
Chikhladze explains that one of the most common instances of misusing these resources involves coercing public servants and teachers to attend campaign meetings and party events. He clarifies that this can occur both overtly and subtly. According to him, party representatives and supporters may provide information to state employees or teachers and encourage them to attend these meetings. However, given the current political environment and the politicized workplace, this is perceived not just as an invitation but as an obligation.
A report from the NGO “Fair Elections” notes that during the 2021 local government elections, the ruling party actively exploited administrative resources, including the participation of public servants and other state sector employees in campaign meetings. There were also instances of state employees being organized to attend meetings for the ruling party and its candidates in various regions, which, in some cases, appeared to be coerced based on their official positions—an act that is also prohibited.
In its 2021 conclusion, the OSCE/ODIHR emphasized the need for a legal mechanism to combat the abuse of administrative resources and its enforcement, particularly regarding the misuse of public service during election campaigns, to ensure equal conditions for all candidates. Similar recommendations were included in the organization’s conclusions for both the 2020 parliamentary elections and the 2018 presidential elections.
However, this has not been realized in practice. In 2022, Transparency International and ISFED published a study based on information from former Deputy Head of the State Security Service, Soso Gogashvili. The report examines an alleged scheme that operated before the 2018 and 2020 elections, which purportedly involved coordination among representatives of the ruling party and several state institutions illegally using administrative resources, bribing voters, and mobilizing support for the ruling party. The documents include political profiles of public school directors, resource center leaders, and budget organization employees, along with recommendations for their appointments.
A frequently discussed issue involves public servants posting support for specific candidates or parties on their personal Facebook pages. There have been instances where media outlets shared screenshots showing kindergarten teachers and educators being instructed to like and share politicians’ posts. Chikhladze explains that social media campaigning and the use of administrative resources in this context remain largely unchecked.
“In practice, this is impossible to implement. There is a lack of political will, and it’s technically challenging because a supportive post can be visible even during working hours. The only thing that can be done, which is quite cynical, is to call someone in and check whether they’ve used the internet for personal posts while at work, as that constitutes an administrative resource,” Chikhladze states. He explains that the issue here isn’t merely about how many kilobytes of internet were used from state resources, but rather that a public servant, who should be perceived as a neutral party making apolitical decisions, shows bias and politicization during work hours, affecting their colleagues.
The lawyer highlights budgetary spending as a significant issue in the abuse of administrative resources. According to the law, any projects or programs not previously included in the budget are prohibited 60 days before elections. Additionally, during this period, increasing social benefits (such as pensions, social assistance, and subsidies) is also banned, except for those planned at least 60 days prior to the elections.
“It’s impossible to implement this within 60 days, but they do it 61 days before the elections. In fact, the 60-day rule is irrelevant because the budget for the previous year accounts for increases in the upcoming year, and this often occurs in September. So they don’t violate the law, as it was already stipulated in the budget. Therefore, launching social projects and increasing benefits in the months leading up to elections is quite common,” Chikhladze notes, citing examples of infrastructure projects in the regions and the forgiveness of tax debts.
At the same time, he explains that a common counterargument arises, claiming that projects funded by the state budget are implemented continuously and cannot be considered a misuse of administrative resources. The expert outlines three criteria that, when met, indicate that budget expenditures can be deemed pre-election spending.
- The first criterion assesses whether these expenditures are extraordinary: how often have such expenses occurred in the past, and how do they align with the country’s long-term development goals? In other words, expenditures that are unplanned, short-term, and spontaneous fall under this category.
- The second is a quantitative criterion: how widespread is the action, and what electoral effect could a specific initiative have? If it only affects a small number of people, it does not qualify as a misuse of administrative resources, even if it meets the first criterion. The initiative must be broad and aimed at a large audience to potentially create an electoral impact.
- The third criterion is substantive: while it may involve many people, it should not provide tangible benefits to them. The initiative must have a clearly defined populist aim.
For example, during the 2018 presidential elections, ISFED reported that programs announced by authorities ahead of the second round constituted a financial misuse of administrative resources. These programs included salary increases for military personnel, border police, coast guard members, school directors, educators, and administrative staff, along with increased assistance for vulnerable populations, construction of housing for displaced persons, and the transfer of apartments to residents.
“Projects brought up by government and individual local authorities are aimed at securing electoral votes rather than implementing state policy priorities, and they serve to give an advantage to candidates supported by the ruling party over their competitors,” the organization stated at the time.
Regarding the legal and regulatory electoral aspects of administrative resources, Chikhladze cites a decision by the Central Election Commission from August 2024, which dictates that the distribution of functions among commission members at polling stations will occur up until election day.
“This can directly undermine the transparency of procedures and the quality of the electoral process, and naturally, we all harbor fears and reasonable assumptions that these changes will least affect the ruling party, while causing greater harm to others,” he explains.
He also discusses a decision by the Communications Commission from September 2024 to fine the television channels Formula and TV Pirveli for excluding advertisements from the “Georgian Dream” party that were deemed discrediting to non-governmental organizations.
According to him, the adoption of the “foreign agents” law serves as another example of using legal and regulatory electoral administrative resources, as it directly targets monitoring organizations.
“Organizations are living under a ‘sword of Damocles,’ never knowing when monitoring will occur or what requirements they’ll face. You could receive a heavy financial blow just 10 days before the elections, making it impossible to send observers to polling stations.”
Similar instances are discussed in the documents provided by Gogashvili. The study indicates that during the presidential elections, party representatives utilized administrative resources by offering individuals to cancel conditional sentences, grant early release from the penitentiary system, reclassify criminal charges, and restore management rights. Organizations claim that these processes reflected systemic abuses by officials.
“If a party possesses administrative resources, it means they hold a majority in parliament, allowing them to appoint individuals of their choosing to all public positions. Consequently, all these administrative resources are at their disposal—ranging from human resources to material ones, and even intangible assets like legal resources,” Chikhladze asserts.
The lawyer explains that these issues cannot be resolved solely through changes to the electoral code, and such changes may even prove ineffective. He identifies entrenched practices, weak institutions, and the complete politicization of the executive branch as the main problems.
Observations of both international and local practices, along with statements and reports from influential organizations, indicate that the misuse of administrative resources can significantly impact election outcomes. Since these resources are controlled by the ruling party, the results will inevitably favor them.
Administrative resources and the Georgian Election
