Georgian get-togethers: Private Problems versus Politics

In September 2011, CRRC on behalf of Eurasia Partnership Foundation and EWMI G-PAC conducted a nationally representative survey on Volunteerism and Civic Participation in Georgia. Georgians were asked how often they get together and discuss private problems and politics with their friends and relatives (who do not live in their houses). The results show that while Georgians meet their relatives and friends quite often, the frequency of political discussions among them–one of the indicators of political motivation and involvement—is rather low.

Note: The question “How often do you get together with your close friends?” was only asked to respondents who said they have close friends (92%).

As the chart shows, Georgians meet their close friends more frequently than their close relatives; just over half get together with their close friends at least once a week and 46% meet their close relatives at least once a month. Even though the frequency of get-togethers with close relatives is lower than the frequency of meeting close friends, many Georgians are comfortable sharing their own private problems with their close relatives. 45% of the adult Georgian population always discuss their personal problems with their close relatives when they get together. 

Note: (1) This question was only asked to respondents who get together with their close relatives at all (98%). 

(2) The original ten-point scale is collapsed to a five-point scale.

However, the picture changes dramatically when the question concerns politics. Over half of the adult Georgian population never discuss politics with their close friends or relatives. People in Georgia seem to prefer discussing their own private problems with their close relatives rather than politics–an issue that concerns everyone. The picture remains the same when Georgians are asked about how often they discuss politics with their friends when they get together. Georgians are equally reluctant to discuss politics with their close relatives and friends. This indicates that this aspect of political involvement is rather low in Georgia.

Note: (1) The question “How often do you discuss politics with your close relatives?” was asked to respondents who get together with their close relatives at all (98%). (2)The question “How often do you discuss politics with your close friends?” was asked to those who say they have close friends and get together with them (90%). (3) The original ten-point scale is collapsed to a five-point scale.

To explore this issue farther CRRC asked Georgians: When you get together with your close relatives, who discusses politics more – men or women? 40% said that men discuss politics more often than women. 36% said that men and women equally discuss politics when they get together with their close relatives, and 17% said that women discuss politics more often than men. Survey respondents were also asked to indicate an age range of their close relatives who discuss politics more frequently. 45% said middle aged (those in their 40s and 50s), 27% said elderly people (over 60) and only 6% said youngsters (those in their 20s and 30s). 23% said people of any age equally discuss politics with their close relatives when they get together. These results indicate that there is a perception that middle aged men are most likely to discuss politics with their close relatives when they get together, while youngsters are less eager to do so.

Discussing politics with friends and relatives is only one, yet very important indicator of political involvement that plays a crucial role in the democratization process. CRRC survey data indicate that the frequency of political discussions among Georgian relatives and friends is rather low. What are the reasons behind this result? Why people in Georgia are so reluctant to discuss politics with their friends and relatives then they freely discuss their private problems? How does such reluctance to discuss political issues affect democratization process in the country? We would like to hear your thoughts.

CB 2011 Preview | Attitudes towards IDPs in Georgia

The presence of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) within Georgia is testimony to its internal and cross-border conflicts. IDPs often face a life in limbo, unable to return to their homes and reliant on friends, family and the generosity of strangers to get by. To address this issue, and also in fulfillment of obligations to the Council of Europe, Georgia has developed policies on the integration and rehabilitation of IDPs.

As of January 2011, UNHCR-Georgia estimates that approximately 359,716 IDPs continue to live in Georgia proper. Preliminary survey results from the 2011 Caucasus Barometer show that Georgian attitudes towards IDPs are generally positive. More than half of Georgians support government assistance for IDPs, and view IDPs as part of Georgian society.

Results indicate that Georgians would like to see an increase in government assistance. 57% of Georgians say that the current level of assistance is not enough, while 18% claim it is. 22% of Georgians do not know if the current level of government assistance is meeting the needs of IDPs and only 2% consider the current policy of assistance to be excessive.

The survey refers to all IDPs in Georgia, not only those from Abkhazia or the Tskhinvali region of South Ossetia.

Over half of Georgians (61%) consider IDPs to be part of Georgian society. In addition 53% of Georgians disagree with the statement that, “IDPs are different from Georgia’s society”.

Data was recoded from a 5 to 3 point scale and the scale was reversed.The original scale comprised of strongly disagree=1, somewhat disagree=2, neutral=3, somewhat agree=4 and strongly agree=5.

On the whole, results indicate that Georgian attitudes towards IDPs are supportive. For those with further interest in the question, various crosstabulations should be of interest once the dataset is released. Also, click here for previous research CRRC has done on this topic.

This is only a quick preview of the results from the 2011 Caucasus Barometer, keep checking back for more information and the upcoming release of our results on ODA!

Blood Donation in Georgia: Obstacles and Opportunities

According to a report by the World Health Organization, blood donations in Georgia fall below the estimated need for patients. Approximately 60,000 donations are necessary per year to cover Georgian patients’ needs, while the number of actual blood donation does not exceed 37,000. Moreover, 95% of blood donations come from paid donors. The main obstacle in advocating volunteer blood donation is due in part to the fact that being paid to donate blood is deeply rooted in public perceptions and volunteer blood donors get little support from Georgian society. This blog looks at the obstacles and opportunities for fostering volunteer blood donation and shows that over half of the Georgian population disagrees with the statement that “people donating blood should be paid”, and that lack of awareness remains a deterrent.

Source: World Health Organization

According to the Caucasus Barometer 2011, about 80% of Georgians have never donated blood and 61% have not seen or heard anything about donating blood during the last two years. 57% do not personally know anyone who has donated blood in the last 10 years. Yet according to the same data, 61% of Georgians disagree with the statement that “people donating blood should be paid” (only 22% agree). If, as the data shows, over half of the Georgian population is against paid blood donations, what obstacles prevent the establishment a good practice of blood donation in Georgia? To explore the potential reasons behind this finding, CRRC asked Georgians why they have never donated blood.

Source: Caucasus Barometer, 2011

The data shows that 20% of Georgians cannot state an exact reason for not donating blood. A promising 9% say they do not know where to go and only 4% say that they do not like the idea of donating blood. 20% think that not being in good health or doctors’ advice against blood donation is the main reason why they have never donated blood, while 8% are afraid of possible infection, and 7% of Georgians indicate a fear of needles.

In another survey on Volunteerism and Civic Participation in 2011, CRRC asked Georgians what they thought were the main reasons why people do not donate blood. The answer options are different here, but still reflect the difference between what people mention as their own reason for not donating blood and their perceptions of others’ reasons for the same behaviour. Namely, 17% say people are preoccupied with their own problems. While talking about themselves only, 6% say they do not have time to donate blood. Similarly, 10% of Georgians think that being indifferent towards the problems of others is the main reason for people not donating blood – an answer which is less likely to be mentioned when people talk about themselves.

Source: Survey on Volunteerism and Civic Participation, 2011

As the chart shows, 30% of Georgians are unsure about the reasons why people do not donate blood in Georgia. 15% mention being afraid of infections as a reason for not donating blood, reflecting a concern related to blood safety standards that exists in Georgian society and prevents some people from donating blood.

Lack of awareness seems to be another factor explaining the low level of volunteer blood donors in Georgia. 6% of Georgians think people find donating blood as unnecessary. 5% say people do not know where to go in order to donate blood and 4% think people do not know that they can donate blood at all. In total 15% of Georgians think having no information is the main reason why people do not donate blood. These results indicate that there is room for awareness-raising campaigns. Filling the information gap can be an important step to promoting volunteer blood donation in the country.

Finally, Georgians were asked how possible it is that they donate blood in the next 12 months. 38% of Georgians are unsure, 21% think it will never happen and a promising 11% say it is highly expected. CRRC data indicates that this 11% can be increased by improving blood safety standards and raising public awareness about the importance of blood donation, as well as about blood banks already operating in Georgia.

Brookings Event - Internally Displaced Persons and Host Communities: The Limits of Hospitality?

...all of this straight from the Brookings website, an event that one of our colleagues, Yulia Aliyeva, will contribute to this week:

Most of the world's 27 million people who have been internally displaced by conflict do not live in camps; rather they live with family members or friends or are dispersed within communities. One frequently overlooked aspect of displacement is the impact of internally displaced persons (IDPs) on the communities which host them—communities which are often poor and marginalized themselves. 

On March 22, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement and the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) will host a discussion of two recent reports on IDP and host community relations: "Can You Be an IDP for Twenty Years? A Comparative Field Study on the Protection Needs and Attitudes Toward Displacement Among IDPs and Host Communities in Azerbaijan" and "The Effects of Internal Displacement on Host Communities: A Case Study of Suba and Ciudad Bolívar Localities in Bogotá, Colombia." 

Here a program snapshot: 

 
The event is at The Brookings Institution, Saul/Zilkha Rooms, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 12:00 — 1:30 pm.

Here is the link to the event. And here, as previously posted in our e-bulletin, is the link to the report.

Perceptions of Good Citizenship in Georgia

What do Georgians consider good citizenship to mean? The issue of good citizenship is important, especially because of Georgia’s expressed democratic aspirations. This blog looks at how Georgians perceive their responsibilities as citizens and how their attitudes towards good citizenship have changed in the past two years. The results indicate that mass attitudes and beliefs are gradually changing and that now, compared to 2009, Georgians take a more active view of citizens’ responsibilities.

Modern theories of democracy put a special emphasis on mass values and beliefs as a main force for achieving democracy (See Inglehart and Welzel, 2010 for a summary of modern theories on democracy). Several scholars (Lipset 1959, Deutsch 1961) have argued that citizens and their attitudes play a crucial role in bringing about and sustaining democracy. 

In 2009 and 2011 CRRC conducted a survey in Georgia entitled, “Knowledge and Attitudes toward the EU in Georgia”. Georgians were asked to consider the level of importance of certain activities or values in order to be a good citizen. The data shows that a majority of Georgians think supporting people who are worse off than themselves is one of the most important responsibilities of a good citizen. Paying taxes, protecting traditions, and obeying laws are also considered to be important by the vast majority of Georgians. Moreover, the importance of supporting the poor, protecting traditions and obeying laws has remained almost unchanged in the past two years. 

Note: Respondents were asked, “To be a good citizen, how important would you say it is for a person to...?” The answer options shown in this figure were collapsed into two categories (important and not important) from “not important at all, rather not important than important, rather important than unimportant and very important”.

In contrast, the importance of civic and political participation has notably increased from 2009 to 2011. Voting in elections—an issue closely related to democratization—gained more importance for Georgians in 2011 (92%) than in 2009 (86%). The shift from a passive to more active view of citizens’ responsibilities is further confirmed by the following results.

Since 2009, there has been an increase in the percentage of Georgians who think that forming their own opinions independently of others, being critical towards the government, and working as a volunteer are important for good citizenship. In addition, the number of people who think that participation in protests is important for a good citizen nearly doubled in 2011. These results indicate that mass values and beliefs are gradually changing in Georgia. 

There is a difference between the first and second group of activities in terms of the effort they require from citizens. Protecting traditions and obeying laws are consistently considered important to be a good citizen by the majority of Georgians; however, attitudes towards certain forms of political participation and criticism are changing over time. Yet, helping the poor, obeying rules and protecting traditions are not sufficient to sustain democracy, especially without a certain level of political participation and criticism. Thus, it will be interesting to see how values and attitudes towards the characteristics of good citizenship continue to change, and if they influence democratization in Georgia—a country which has also been influenced by its Soviet past. 

If you are interested in finding out more about Georgians’ attitudes towards EU Institutions or democratic values, you can access the survey’s associated report here. Moreover, both datasets are free and available online at the link above. You are also invited to explore the dataset on CRRC’s fun Online Data Analysis tool.

Georgia and the EU’s Economic Woes

Why hasn’t the economic crisis in Europe deterred Georgia’s desire to join the European Union? The majority of Georgians (and the Georgian government) want to join the EU despite crisis in the Eurozone. Yet, the continued crisis, including the Eurogroup’s recent (and second) rescue of Greece’s economy and Hungary’s harsh austerity measures, illustrates that the crisis is not isolated to the Eurozone. Thus, for EU-aspiring states such as Georgia--which also operates under the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) framework--the crisis presents a growing concern over the security of the Eurozone, as well as the overall health of EU integration. Despite these economic problems, Georgians remain overwhelmingly positive about the future of EU integration. This is because not only do Georgians have high expectations that economic conditions would improve in the country, but that territorial integrity and national security would significantly increase upon joining the union.

Map courtesy of europa.edu

A 2011 CRRC survey (and its associated report) entitled “Knowledge and Attitudes towards the EU in Georgia” show that support for EU membership has increased from 81% in 2009 to 88% in 2011. The report also presents an analysis of Georgians’ perceptions towards EU integration and shows that the desire for EU membership is partially tied to a desire for strengthened national security, territorial integrity and economic improvement. According to the survey, the top three most important issues facing Georgia are unemployment/jobs (58%), territorial integrity (42%) and poverty (31%).

Respondents were asked to indicate what they considered to be the three most important issues facing Georgia at the moment. The 2011 survey on Knowledge and Attitudes towards the EU in Georgia also had a target population of adult speakers of the Georgian language. See the report for information on the methodology used for this survey.

When asked, “How will the following issues change if Georgia becomes an EU member?” 59% of Georgians say national security would increase and 58% feel territorial integrity would improve. Just over half (56%) of Georgians anticipate that the number of available jobs would increase, and 48% of Georgians think poverty would decrease.

The data also shows that 40% of Georgians think the EU currently provides Georgia with financial support, while 15% say that the union provides solutions to social problems, and 10% believe the union helps Georgia to develop relations with Russia. 35% of Georgians think that the EU will help restore territorial integrity, thereby addressing one of the issues that many Georgians consider most important.

Many EU candidate (or potential candidate) countries see the current economic crisis as a warning of the risks associated with full European economic integration. Indeed, economic stability (e.g., jobs) is also a concern for many Georgians. However, Georgian motivations for membership are somewhat sated with the knowledge that EU membership could strengthen national security and territorial integrity even if membership may not provide a solution to the current economic woes facing the country.

Georgia Corruption Data | Now Available

Recently, a nuanced article in an Indian magazine discussed "How Georgia Did It" to get rid of corruption. This has, of course, been a topic of extensive debate in India. It's good to see that lessons are being drawn from the Georgian case, and that they travel beyond the immediate neighborhood.

The article cites a broad number of participants in the reforms, quotes Transparency International, and also refers to CRRC's research on Judicial Independence. Find the link to the article here.

On the theme of battling corruption, CRRC recently contributed some data analysis to a World Bank report that summarizes the Georgian lessons in the following way:

"From the case studies, 10 factors emerge that help explain Georgia's achievements to date: exercising strong political will; establishing credibility early; launching a frontal assault; attracting new staff; limiting the state's role; adopting unconventional methods; coordinating closely; tailoring international experience to local conditions; harnessing technology; and using communications strategically. While many of these factors may seem obvious, the comprehensiveness, boldness, pace, and sequencing of the reforms make Georgia's story unique."

Comparatively little data was cited in the report (link is here), but our Caucasus Barometer data certainly corroborates that there are huge regional differences.

To give good access to our data, we have now made a collection available on our website – more than 80 pages of tables, that offer a comprehensive overview over the years. This includes data from CRRC and other organizations, and thus should be a useful resource. To access this data collection, please click here. 

Comments? Let us know.

ETF Migration Survey in Armenia | Update

For the last few months, CRRC Armenia has been doing a survey for the European Training Foundation (ETF).  This is a major undertaking, with 4.000 respondents, and a specialized sampling procedure (basic details here). We are looking forward to getting the results. Now, the effort has been covered by the ETF website, in an article that shows some of the human dimensions of migration, and its various dimensions.

Within that article, there is a short reference to our ongoing work.

In early March 2012, Heghine Manasyan, the Country Director at CRRC Armenia, will be presenting the preliminary results of that survey at a conference in Turin (program). Keep following the blog, we will let you know once the survey results are available. (Of course, much additional CRRC migration research materials is also available, most of it linked through this blog.)

You find the ETF article here.

Tracking "CRRC" on the Web | Google Alerts

In the spirit of being data-driven, we try to track when and how people refer to our work on the Internet. The simplest tool for this is Google Alerts, from which we receive the weekly update on some of the main terms that are associated with our work.

One term that has NOT proven useful in this is "CRRC". As it turns out, a number of organizations use this acronym. There is, for example, the Conflict Records Research Center at the National Defense University, which itself is the center for professional military education in the United States. That CRRC says that its "mission is to facilitate the use of captured records to support research, both within and outside the government."

Next to keeping Saddam Hussein's records, CRRC also serves more basic tasks, such as keeping your roof from getting too hot.

This CRRC says that it "maintains a third-party rating system for radiative properties of roof surfacing materials." It's based in California, and has been rating roofs since 1998. We would like to think that this CRRC also is about numbers. Similarly in California is a CRRC that at first sounds as if it's dedicated to recycling. Actually, it's an association of companies in the waste industry, and, as such associations do, both serves their members with services, and lobbies on their behalf. Started in 1958, it's been around for a while.

And then there's another American association. Austere in its Internet design and logo, it also holds the www.crrc.org address. Since they had that .org domain, we had to get a much longer Web address way back when. Based in New Jersey, the Citizen's Rifle and Revolver Club is the oldest CRRC we could identify, and was started in 1938.

Between centers, councils, clubs and industry associations, we also found a more cuddly version of CRRC, this one in the United Kingdom.

If you are a lost rabbit, that is where you most likely would want to find yourself. As the website says:

"Our long term Rabbit residents enjoy the freedom of quiet, purpose built, predator proof enclosures to roam as they wish. [...] They have the chance to wash each other, and play, and spend a lot of time in rows next to each other just watching the world go by."

That doesn't sound like what we do everyday, but it's a nice group to share the search term "CRRC" with.

Any search terms you try to keep track off? Try Google Alerts by clicking here.

ODA Keyword Search

Most CRRC users know about our Online Data Analysis tool, ODA. It is easy to use, continues to be popular, and in less than a year we have had nearly 70.000 charts generated.

What is less well known, as we realized from questions we received, is that ODA also has a useful keyword search, in case you want to find particular pieces of data. Let's say you are interested in Georgian attitudes to the Chinese:

Select the dataset (1), go to Codebook and Keywords (2), and then enter your word (3). In the screenshot here, you already see the results. Note, as highlighted in pink, that we still have occasional typos (marring). These constitute less than 1% of the questions, but yep, the tool is not perfect yet, and you may want to try out different keywords. If you notice a spelling mistake, please leave a comment below.

At any rate, keyword search should further expand the usability of our Online Data Analysis for you, which is why we wanted to let you know about it. Try it out by clicking here on ODA.

Social Capital in Caucasus Analytical Digest (CAD)

We have previously worked on social capital, and this issue recently was taken up by the Caucasus Anylatical Digest. The issue discusses the concept of social capital and its relevance to the societies of the South Caucasus.

The author of the first article, Leslie Hough, argues that in contrast to previous perceptions that Georgia is a country with high "bonding" social capital and low "bridging" social capital, in-group solidarity and out-group mistrust, there are in fact vibrant forms of bridging social capital in Georgia; the challenge is the institutionalization of these informal forms of social capital and the alignment of the civil society sector with population's existing priorities and habits. The second article, by Jenny Paturyan, formerly with CRRC, focuses on the low level of social trust in Armenia and its effects on voting behavior and emigration, while the last article, by Anar Valiyev, analyses social capital in Azerbaijan, with the author positing that there is a relatively high level of bonding social capital and correspondingly little bridging social capital in the country, which hinders the development of grass-roots democracy and decreases voter turnout in elections.

All three articles draw on CRRC data, and there are a number of tables highlighting the main aspects of social capital. While we know the authors well, and thus almost feel a bit sheepish in recommending their work, the articles do summarize broad research in accessible style, thus well worth reading. Find the articles here.

Leaving Thoughts by British Political Officer in Georgia

David Gale, who had served as Political Officer at the British Embassy since 2007, recently wrote down some of his thoughts upon leaving Georgia, after covering a turbulent time. It was refreshing to read a direct and evenhanded take on a number of issues, from a diplomat who has been following events very closely.

One aspect we especially liked in David's reflections is that he repeatedly highlights polling, as a way of understanding the preferences of the Georgian electorate. To read David's thoughts click here.

Fatalism and Political Perceptions in Georgia

Widespread apathy and a general disbelief that good can come from joint effort is a major factor hindering social capital in Georgia. One indicator of apathy can be fatalism, meaning the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable. This blog explores the level of political fatalism in Georgia and how it is connected to Georgians’ perceptions of the country’s current political course and democracy. Many Georgians have fatalistic attitudes about their ability to influence political decisions (or are unsure), and this type of political fatalism is associated with perceptions of democracy and political course.

In March 2011 CRRC, on behalf of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), conducted the sixth wave of a survey on voting and public attitudes in Georgia. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they felt they could influence political decisions affecting their lives on a five-point scale. The results show that most Georgians are either unsure or do not feel they can influence political decisions that affect their lives.

How does this fatalistic attitude affect the way Georgians think about politics? The answer may not be straightforward, but as further analysis suggests there are some trends worth exploring. For example, people who do not feel they can influence political decisions that affect their lives tend to believe Georgian politics is going in the wrong direction. 

Note: The original five-point scale is collapsed to a three-point scale by merging strongly agree and agree, and strongly disagree and disagree responses.

There are slight, yet consistent differences between these groups. 35% of Georgians who think that they cannot influence political decisions that affect their lives also believe that Georgia is going in the right direction. However, 48% of those who think they can influence political decisions that affect their lives believe Georgia is going in the right direction. The latter are also less likely to believe that Georgia is going in the wrong direction compared to political fatalists. 

Georgians who demonstrate fatalism with respect to the political sphere are also more likely to believe that Georgia is not a democracy.

The data shows that 47% of Georgians who think that they can influence political decisions consider Georgia to be a democracy. In contrast, 37% of those who think they cannot influence political decisions consider Georgia to be a democracy (50% say it is not a democracy).

Thus, the results indicate that many people in Georgia have fatalistic attitudes towards their ability to influence political decisions (or are unsure), and that this type of political fatalism is associated with perceptions of democracy and political course. Whether this type of political fatalism affects Georgians’ political perceptions or Georgians’ perceptions of political situations encourage fatalism is a topic for further discussion.

BBC on Gender Roles in the Caucasus | CRRC Data

BBC's Damien McGuinness recently did a short report on gender roles in Georgia. The report used some CRRC data. Click here for the audio piece. The segment on Georgia starts at about 4:30, and our data is cited at 5:45.

You find the link to the report, written by Mariam Naskidashvili, itself here.

The French Senate Bill and Armenian Perceptions on Turkey

As the New York Times reports, on January 23, 2012 the French Senate “approved a bill […] criminalizing the denial of officially recognized genocides, including the Armenian genocide begun in 1915.” The bill has fanned tensions between Turkey and France, emphasizing the complexities of politics and perceptions. Turkish immigrants and French citizens of Turkish origin in Paris, as well as Turks in Ankara and in Istanbul have protested against the bill. Publicity has emphasized Turkey’s objections to the bill as well as the country’s perspective on the events of 1915.

Less attention has been given to the country and population of Armenia itself, leaving many questions unanswered. What does this mean for the future of Armenia-Turkey relations, as well as popular perceptions in these countries? And what are these perceptions to start out with? The 2010 CB asked Armenians how they think the population of Turkey perceives both the country of Armenia and its population. These set of questions were exclusively asked in Armenia and pertain to the population and country of Armenia, rather than the perceptions of Armenians throughout the world or in Turkey. When asked, “Please tell me, in your opinion, how negative or how positive is the population of Turkey's general attitude towards Armenians?” 62% of Armenians felt Turkey’s population had a negative attitude towards Armenians. 17% of Armenians felt Turkey’s population had a generally positive attitude towards Armenians.

Similarly, people were asked, “In your opinion, how negative or how positive is the population of Turkey's general attitude towards the country of Armenia?” More than half of the population (69%) of Armenia felt that Turkey’s population had a negative attitude towards Armenia and 9% thought Turkey’s population had a positive view of Armenia.

Recent politics has highlighted the historical events, while perceptions guide interactions. However, the data has shown that in some instances economic factors overshadow politics and perceptions. This is emphasized by 2010 CB data that shows a willingness on the part of Armenians to conduct business with Turks despite what they perceive to be Turkish discontent towards Armenians and Armenia. In response to the question, ‘Would you approve or disapprove of people of your ethnicity doing business with Turks?’ 45% of Armenians said they approved of conducting business with Turks while 53% said they did not approve.

The data indicates more negative perceptions of Turkish attitudes towards Armenia and Armenians than positive. Yet, almost half of the adult population of Armenia is willing to conduct business with Turks. This could prove to be a mediating factor between the two countries. The economic benefits of trade with Turkey as perceived by Armenians are presented in a previous blog, “Armenian attitudes towards opening the border with Turkey”. But what impact will the new bill have on the future of political, social and economic relationships between Turkey and Armenia? Will it alter Armenian-Turkish public perceptions?

Georgian Attitudes to Judicial Independence | EWMI JILEP report

Recently we undertook extensive research into judicial independence in Georgia for EWMI. This is what EWMI just put up on the website:

On January 24, 2012 CRRC presented a study entitled, “Attitudes towards the Judicial System in Georgia.” The study was supported by the Judicial Independence and Legal Empowerment Project (JILEP), implemented by the East West Management Institute (EWMI) and funded by USAID.

Since 2003, much has been done to reform the Georgian judicial system including the establishment of a High School of Justice, restructuring of the High Council of Justice, and major changes in the makeup of the judiciary and prosecutor’s office. However, these successes have been accompanied by serious concerns, particularly regarding judicial independence. International organizations from the Council of Europe to the US State Department have urged further reform of the system.

Relatively little research has been conducted to ascertain how Georgians themselves feel about their judicial system. It is with this in mind, that the East West Management Institute engaged the Caucasus Research Resource Center (CRRC), to undertake a comprehensive study of public attitudes toward the judicial system. CRRC employed a methodology that included citizen surveys, focus groups, and interviews which resulted in robust findings grounded in both quantitative and qualitative data analysis.

Representatives of the Georgian judiciary, non-governmental and international organizations working in the area of rule of law attended the presentation.

The link to the article is here. And find the report, which we tried to keep crisp and accessible while also rich in nuance and detail, by clicking here.

EU Survey Report Released: Knowledge and Attitudes towards the European Union in Georgia

On January 16, 2012 the Eurasia Partnership Foundation and CRRC presented a report entitled “Knowledge and Attitudes toward the European Union in Georgia” based on nationwide surveys conducted in Georgia by CRRC in 2009 and 2011. The 2009 survey was the first comprehensive study of Georgian attitudes towards the European Union. Koba Turmanidze, Country Director of CRRC-Georgia presented the report. Following the presentation, a panel of representatives from the EU Delegation, including Boris Iarochevitch and Oliver Reisner, the Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany--Ortwin Hennig, and Dr. Kakha Gogolashvili--Director of Center for EU Studies at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (GFSIS) gave commentary on the data and its potential implications for the Georgia-EU relationship.

The data reveals that a majority of Georgians (80%) support Georgia joining the EU. As described in the report, support for Georgia’s membership in the EU has increased over time, but so too has support for EU membership for all other Eastern Partnership countries, as well as Turkey and Russia. While support for membership is high, knowledge of what exactly membership entails and the overall functions of the EU can be strengthened.

As noted by the panel, the findings of the report imply that Georgia is moving in the right direction for EU membership in several areas. Georgians’ support is compatible with the objectives of membership; however, there are many areas that need to be improved. Representatives from the EU delegation suggested increasing efforts to educate Georgians about collaborative efforts between Georgia and the EU. Overall, the report indicates a positive relationship with the EU and has generated enthusiasm among scholars and politicians alike.

Those interested in learning more about the study can access the datasets at CRRC’s Online Data Analysis (ODA) webpage. The report is also available in English and Georgian on CRRC’s website.

Democracy in Georgia

In the wake of Russian protests for free and fair elections— one of the hallmarks of democracy— the international community has again turned its attention on democratization in the post-Soviet region. Democracy, in its various forms, represents something different to everyone. So what does it mean for Georgians? Do Georgians consider Georgia to be a democratic state in its present form? What are their perceptions of democracy? CRRC, on behalf of the National Democratic Institute-Georgia, conducted a repeated survey on public attitudes in Georgia from November 2008 to September 2011 in which respondents were asked a series of questions about democracy. Survey results show that just under half of the population considers Georgia to be a democracy. Also, most Georgians associate democracy with liberty, freedom of speech, media and expression, rather than government accountability and free and fair elections.

From April 2010 to September 2011, Georgians were asked ‘Is Georgia a democracy now’? The figure below shows that since July 2010 there has been a steady increase in the percentage of Georgians who believe Georgia is a democracy with 45% believing so in September 2011.

When asked to gauge the extent of Georgia’s transition to democracy in the September 2011 survey, 39% of Georgians said ‘Georgia is already a democracy but still needs improvement’, while 28% said Georgia is not a democracy, but is moving in that direction. In contrast, only 5% of Georgians believe Georgia is not and will never be a democracy.

Thus, the data shows that just under half of the population (45%) considers Georgia to be a democracy, and many people believe Georgia is either already a democracy that needs improvement or is not yet a democracy but is still developing in that direction. But what does democracy mean to Georgians? The 2011 survey asked, ‘What does democracy mean to you?’ 47% of Georgians interpret democracy to mean freedom of speech/media/hearing different views. 42% associate democracy with liberty and 40% say equality before the law/protection of justice. In contrast, only 7% say government accountability and 16% think democracy means free and fair elections. The results elicit a strong difference in the Georgian interpretation of democracy which prizes liberty and freedom of speech/media/hearing different views above free and fair elections.

Respondents were allowed to provide their own responses. The percentages do not add to 100% because respondents could name up to three items.

Thus, survey data tells us that the percentage of Georgians who think Georgia is a democracy is increasing over time, that there is room for improvement, and that the concept of democracy is more associated with liberty and freedom of speech/media/hearing different views, than government accountability and free and fair elections. This is important in light of recent global events in which ordinary citizens have begun to challenge their state systems and certain features of their democracy.

How do you think Georgia fairs on its path to democracy? Has Georgia reached its goal or is there still room for improvement?

Boy or Girl? Child Gender Preference in the South Caucasus

Survey data shows that there is a strong preference for male children over female children throughout the South Caucasus. As mentioned in the March 4, 2010 edition of The Economist, after 1991 there has been an increase in the ratio of boys to girls in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The sex ratio rose from 103-106 boys to 100 girls in 1991 to 115-120 boys to 100 girls by 2000. The 2010 Caucasus Barometer (CB) indicates that gender preferences in the South Caucasus remain skewed in favor of males with 54% of Armenians, 27% of Azerbaijanis and 46% of Georgians prefer to have male children if given a choice.

The 2010 CB asked people living in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia the following question—“If a family has one child, what would be the preferred gender of the child?” The answers were unprompted as respondents were not given a list of possible responses such as “girl”, “boy” or “it does not matter”. Overall, Armenians and Georgians prefer boys to girls while more than half of Azerbaijanis claim gender “does not matter”.

The preference for male children holds when the data is split by male and female respondents. Results from Armenia show the highest preference for a male child with 59% of men and 50% of women who prefer a boy, compared to 5% of men and 14% of women who prefer a girl. In Georgia 57% of men and 36% of women prefer a boy and 5% of men and 12% of women prefer a girl. In Azerbaijan 60%-68% of men and women say the sex of the child ‘does not matter’.

When sliced by settlement type (capital, urban and rural), the data shows that rural inhabitants in all three countries prefer male children over female children. 57% of the rural Georgian population prefers boys and this figure is 71% in Armenia. Azerbaijan, on the other hand continues the trend of perceived impartiality with 32% of rural respondents preferring boys.

Despite a relatively high percentage of claims that gender “does not matter” in the three countries, there is a low percentage of individuals whose overall preference is for a girl. On the whole, Georgians, Azerbaijanis and Armenians are more inclined to say they prefer boys or that it “does not matter”, rather than say they prefer girls. For example, in Azerbaijan—the country with the highest percentage of claims that gender “does not matter”—only 9% of the adult population prefers girls. This trend is similar in Georgia and Armenia in which there is a 9-10% preference for girls. Thus, the data shows that there is a strong preference for male children over female children in the South Caucasus.

Why do you think this is the case?

Can a Cut NATO Supply Route Through Russia Benefit Georgia and Azerbaijan?

The 20th anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union is upon us, and US-Russian tensions have risen as Russia contemplates terminating the NATO supply route through Russia. International news reports such as The New York Times detail the threat as a “death blow” to the U.S.-led NATO mission in Afghanistan and indicate that this could be a blessing in disguise for NATO hopeful Georgia, as well as for Azerbaijan.

NATO has two main transportation routes via the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), which connects Baltic and Caspian ports with Afghanistan via Russia, Central Asia and the Caucasus: the NDN North and NDN South. The NDN North transit route initiates in Latvia, crosses through Russian territory and enters Afghanistan via the Afghan-Uzbek border. The potential blessing for Georgia and Azerbaijan lies in NATO’s NDN South transit route that spans from the port of Poti in Georgia to the Afghan-Uzbek border. The potential termination of the NDN North route leaves the NDN South route as a viable alternative. The NDN South route currently facilitates the transportation of 30% of the U.S.-NATO supplies to Afghanistan, as reported by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Should Russia close its borders to NATO, and the NDN North route cease to function, this could provide an opportunity for economic diversification in the way of transit fees for Georgia and Azerbaijan. This move could also open trade possibilities between Georgia, Azerbaijan and Afghanistan, as well as add leverage for future NATO membership.

Map from Google Earth. Courtesy of CSIS

Therefore, the issues at hand are two-fold. Are Georgia and Azerbaijan willing or prepared for further commitments to the NDN South transit route? What implications does this have for both the future of Georgian and Azerbaijani NATO membership as well as commercial trade?

First, CRRC’s 2010 Caucasus Barometer (CB), shows that NATO membership is supported (fully and somewhat) by 70% of the Georgian population. Support for NATO membership is less in Azerbaijan where 44% of the population is supportive (fully and somewhat) (See the previous post by Nikola for more details). Thus, increased use of the NDN South route could generate an opportunity to demonstrate further interests in NATO membership. Based on public support for NATO membership, more use of the NDN South route could be welcomed.

Second, more traffic through the NDN South route could economically benefit Georgia and Azerbaijan. Data from the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that trade in commercial services (including transport) is a growing industry in Georgia. As indicated below, Georgia has seen an increase from 2009 to 2010 in import and export transportation (excluding government services). Azerbaijan has seen a slight decline in export transportation, but an increase in import transportation.

Data retrieved from WTO website

Thus, Georgia and Azerbaijan could benefit at least economically if Russia decides to cut off the NDN North transit route.