Nagorno-Karabakh: Prospects for a Difficult Reconciliation (Azerbaijan)

Many domestic and international observers consider the territorial dispute over Nagorno Karabakh to be one of the most significant issues in Azerbaijan. Gibler and Miller (2012) argue that "states must often settle territorial issues with their neighbors in order to democratize" ("Quick Victories? Territory, Democracies and Their Disputes"). The 2011 Caucasus Barometer (CB) covered several questions in Azerbaijan and Armenia about Nagorno Karabakh. This blog will cover the results in Azerbaijan and the next blog will cover the results in Armenia. The results show that the territorial problem is considered one of the most important issues in Azerbaijan. There is also a great deal of uncertainty about when the conflict will be resolved, and whether a solution would be achieved by peaceful negotiations or by force. Additionally, most of the population in Azerbaijan thinks Turkey should be involved in the conflict resolution process, and a majority of Azerbaijanis favor the integration of the area within the national boundaries of Azerbaijan.

 Source: CB 2011, 2010, 2009

About one third (31%) of Azerbaijanis in 2011 consider territorial integrity to be the most important issue in the country—followed by unemployment (28%). This is a substantial drop from 2010 when just over half of the population found territorial integrity to be the most important issue in the country. There is no notable variation in opinion across age groups, gender or level of education. For example, men are as concerned about this issue (32%) as women (30%). 

In general, uncertainty and pessimism are the most widespread feelings about finding a solution to the conflict. About 34% of Azerbaijanis have no idea when the conflict will be resolved. 10% think Azerbaijan and Armenia will never be able to find a solution. 5% believe the problem will be resolved within the next year, 24% say in 2-5 years, 12% in 6-10 years and 12% in more than 10 years. The remaining 3% believe that the conflict has already been resolved. 

Public opinion is also split about whether a potential solution would most likely be achieved by peaceful negotiations or by force. Just about 51% in Azerbaijan think a solution will come about by peaceful negotiations and 42% think a forceful solution would be expected. In addition, survey respondents were asked to indicate their level of acceptance over separately listed potential outcomes to the conflict. The majority (90%) favor the integration of Nagorno Karabakh within the national boundaries of Azerbaijan (without any kind of regional autonomy). 23% definitely favor granting the region some degree of autonomy (28% would accept autonomy under some circumstances and 40% would never accept it). Other provided options such as joint governance of the region by Armenia and Azerbaijan, the establishment of an independent state of Nagorno Karabakh, or making the territory a formal part of Armenia are not favored by the majority of the population (84%, 82% and 95%, respectively). 

Source: CB 2011

 

The 2011 CB also asked Azerbaijanis about which countries or groups they think should be involved in helping to solve the conflict. The majority of Azerbaijanis welcome heavier involvement by Turkey (86%). Russia is preferred as the second option, consistently with the recent development of dialogue promoted by Moscow ("Russia to continue to push for Nagorny Karabakh Dialogue"). This is followed by the European Union (40%), United States (35%), and France’s involvement is the least favored at 15%. 

Source: CB 2011

Thus, the survey results show that there is a large interest in the Nagorno Karabakh issue in Azerbaijan. Many are unsure about when the conflict will be resolved, and whether a solution would be achieved by peaceful negotiations or by force. Most of the population favors the integration of the area within the national boundaries of Azerbaijan and see a large role for Turkey in the conflict resolution process.

Interested in knowing more about these survey questions and how they differ with respect to socio-demographic groups in Azerbaijan? Visit CRRC’s fun and easy Online Data Analysis tool online at http://www.crrc.ge/oda/

Prejudices and Impressions? | Google Reveals All

An American researcher came up with an ingenious idea for capturing Americans' impressions of each other – simply check auto-complete in Google. The beauty of this research is that people typically don't feel directly observed while Googling, and thus are likely to ask the questions that otherwise they may not be willing to voice. And auto-complete illustrates that lots of people have been asking this question. In other words, we can expect that it is representative of Google searches – not what everybody thinks, but what searchers are looking for. For a detailed illustration of how that looks on an American map, and a description of the research, go here.

How does this look for the Caucasus? Azerbaijanis, to start out, with simply aren't on the map of people asking very specific questions about them. The main question that comes up relates to Eurovision.

The same is true about Georgians. They don't quite make it, or rather are thrown in with those Georgians
living around Atlanta.

As for Armenians, the searchers do not seem to be positively inclined. Yep, that's not too attractive, but this is what is out there.

The Russians get a mixed review. Why are the man so big, the women so pretty, and the people so crazy?

A great example of original research into stereotyping, and I wonder whether it would work for Google in Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian. While it is not a survey of people, it is a survey of searches, and thus tells us people's curiosity. If you find some of that as unsettling as I did, there is a search for you:

Education in Georgia: Results of the 2011 Caucasus Barometer

Education is considered to be a crucial factor for social development. According to the 2011 Caucasus Barometer (CB) survey, much of the Georgian population considers education to be an important factor to get a good job in Georgia. Public interest in education is high and many Georgians think that the quality of secondary education has improved during the last five years.

The CB 2011 asked Georgians to choose the most interesting issue they would like to learn about from a provided list. Just over half of the population (55%) said they would like to get information about how much the government spent on education in 2010, which falls far above the interest in getting information about television stations’ owners (6%), political parties’ donors (5%), and government spending on military and defence in 2010 (6%). The high amount of interest in the government’s spending on education is one indicator of the high importance that the population ascribes to education.

Source: CB 2011

The 2009, 2010 and 2011 CB surveys asked Georgians what they consider to be the most important factor for getting a good job in Georgia. The data reveals an interesting trend. Much of the Georgian population attaches increasingly high importance to education, while the importance of social connections for getting a good job in Georgia has decreased during the past 3 years. In 2008 just under half (43%) of the adult population thought connections was the most important factor for getting a job, while this share decreased to 19% in 2011. In 2011, education became the most commonly mentioned factor for getting a good job in Georgia.

Source: CB 2009, 2010, 2011

Moreover, over half of the population (66%) thinks that the quality of secondary education has improved during the last five years and only 9% believe that it has worsened. A small part of Georgia’s population (9%) thinks that the quality of education has not changed at all and 15% either do not know or refused to answer the question.

Source: CB 2011

CRRC also asked Georgians what they think their level of English and Russian knowledge is and what foreign languages they think should be mandatory in secondary schools. Despite the fact that more people in Georgia report a better command of Russian, Georgians support having English as a mandatory subject in secondary schools (69%) - much more than Russian (14%). According to the 2011 CB, 62% of the population say they have no basic knowledge of English, while this share decreases to 9% in the case of Russian. 20% say they have intermediate or advanced knowledge of English, and 74% say the same for Russian.

Source: CB 2011

To sum up, education is gaining increasing importance and interest among the Georgian public who positively evaluate the quality of education in secondary schools relative to the past 5 years. CB data indicates that more Georgians consider education to be an important factor for getting a good job, and there is an increasing demand for English knowledge. In other words, the importance of education for getting a good job and knowledge of English is gradually replacing the importance of social connections for the former and the demand for knowledge of Russian with respect to the latter. 

You are also welcome to explore the newest data about education and other social issues via CRRC’s Online Data Analysis tool.

Perceived Poverty in Georgia: Results of the 2011 Caucasus Barometer

The 2011 Caucasus Barometer asked the Georgian population, “Relative to most of the households around you, would you describe the current economic condition of your household as very good, good, fair, poor or very poor? The results revealed that 24% of Georgians rate their households’ economic condition relative to most households in Georgia as poor or very poor. 68% say it is fair and only 8% rate it as good or very good. Analysis shows that people in these three groups differ from each other, not only in terms of their perceived economic status, but also in a wide range of activities and feelings such as reading printed media, participating in social and cultural activities, and having feelings of happiness and good health.

Source: Caucasus Barometer 2011, Georgia

Note: In this and following charts the original five-point scale is collapsed to a three-point scale by merging “very poor” (1) and “poor” (2) as poor=1, and “very good” (5) and “good”(4) as good=3. The original score of 3 has been changed to 2 for fair. 

As the chart shows, people who consider themselves poor compared to most households in Georgia are less likely to read newspapers, spend time with friends, go for a walk, visit the theatre/cinema, do sports or exercise, or go to a public meeting than those who consider their economic status as fair or good. These data indicate that people who perceive their economic condition as good compared to most households in Georgia are forerunners in adopting a healthy life style and much more involved in social and cultural activities.

Moreover, the data show that there are some differences between these three groups in their health status, or to be more precise, in how they rate their health. The next chart shows that approximately one third (31%) of those who perceive themselves as poor compared to most households in Georgia rate their health as poor. This share decreases to 13% in the group of people who consider their economic status to be fair and to 4% for those who perceive their economic situation as good.

Source: Caucasus Barometer 2011, Georgia

Perceived poverty, less involvement in recreational activities and poor health status may be reflected in feelings of happiness. Indeed, data from the Caucasus Barometer indicate that people who perceive themselves as poor compared to most households in Georgia are more likely to say they feel unhappy.

Source: Caucasus Barometer 2011, Georgia

The chart shows that approximately one quarter (24%) of people who perceive themselves as poor are unhappy, while this share decreases to 3% in those who consider themselves to be in a better economic situation compared to most households in Georgia.

To conclude, the 2011 Caucasus Barometer data show that people in Georgia who consider themselves to be poor compared to most households in Georgia are less likely to spend time with friends, participate in different social and cultural events, or follow a healthy lifestyle (sports, exercise, hiking, etc.) than those who describe their economic condition as fair or good. These people are also less likely to consider themselves happy and rate their health as poor. 

The 2011 Caucasus Barometer offers more interesting data which is available and free on CRRC’s Online Data Analysis tool. Try it out!

New and Old Media: Trends in Azerbaijan

Despite some international criticism on media freedom, nationwide survey data shows that Azerbaijanis seem to be generally satisfied with certain forms of national mass media—although with a few exceptions. The overall picture that emerges from the 2011 Caucasus Barometer in Azerbaijan is that 44% of the population thinks TV journalists inform the population well, 32% are neutral, and 16% say TV journalists do not inform the population well (7% don’t know). A 2012 survey conducted by CRRC on Social Capital, Media and Gender (download at http://www.crrccenters.org/activities/research/?id=70) highlights some interesting facts about how Azerbaijanis use mass media and how they stay informed.

Taken together, channels of information such as television and personal networks remain favored by a majority of the population, whereas new media such as the internet still plays a minor role. Television is the preferred main source of information by 90% of the population. This is followed by informal personal networks such as family members and neighbors/friends that are preferred by 30% and 27% of the population, respectively, as their second main source of information. These ways of obtaining information far outstrip the internet or printed media (e.g., newspapers).

Source: Social Capital, Media and Gender in Azerbaijan, 2012

Television plays a pivotal role in Azerbaijan since the majority of the population uses it as their main source of information. Moreover, when asked to assess the level of importance for media to freely publish news and ideas without government control, 75% of Azerbaijanis think this is very important for TV. This is followed by fewer people who say that this freedom is very important for the radio (23%), internet (34%) and newspapers (27%).

In general, newspapers are less preferred in the country. 79% of Azerbaijanis do not read newspapers at all, 10% read them but not daily, and the other 11% say they read newspapers at some point on an average day. This indication of discontent with printed media seems to be stronger in rural regions where the percentage of those who do not read newspapers at all increases to 87%. The most common reasons people give for not reading newspapers are little interest (37%), not enough time to read them (21%), insufficient distribution (14%) and a lack of money (11%).

Source: Social Capital, Media and Gender in Azerbaijan, 2012

 Another interesting result that has emerged from the data is that general internet use is low in Azerbaijan. 64% of Azerbaijanis never use the internet and 11% say they don’t know what the internet is. Out of those who say they never use the internet, slightly more are women (55%) than men (45%). 17% use the internet at least once a week (up from 10% in 2010) and 7% access the web at most once a month.

The so-called digital divide which refers to inequalities within a society in terms of access to or knowledge of information and communication technologies is one of the reasons for the low level of internet usage in the country. 34% of Azerbaijanis have limited or no access to a computer or mobile phone (these two items were asked about within the same question), and 10% do not use the internet due to old age. Moreover, 27% of the population says that it has no interest using the internet. However, interestingly the level of education is positively associated with internet usage as 62% of adults with a degree above a Bachelors use the internet at least once a week.

Source: Social Capital, Media and Gender in Azerbaijan, 2012

More trends emerge with regard to radio usage. 56% of the population listens to news on national radio channels at least once a week and about 10% listen to regional channels for news. However, much of the population listens to the radio for entertainment such as popular (83%) or classical (61%) music. 

In summary, Azerbaijanis still prefer to rely on television and personal networks to obtain the news. It will be interesting to observe if Azerbaijan will follow the same path as many western countries in which there is an increasing importance of new media or if it will continue to place primary importance on TV and personal networks.

Exploring Neighbourhoods in Georgia: Promises and Challenges for Collaboration

In 2011 CRRC conducted a survey on Volunteering and Civic Participation in Georgia. A part of this survey aimed at exploring relationships between neighbours. The results indicate that the relationships between neighbours in Georgia can be a promising starting point for building social capital and achieving improved housing conditions through collaboration. The data show that just over a third of adults in Georgia are familiar with more than ten families in their neighbourhoods and most Georgians interact with their neighbours every day. A considerable amount of Georgians also report being involved in organized activities in which the person who takes on the role of mobilizer is usually respected by others. One challenge identified by this research is a lack of communication between neighbours regarding common problems and concerns. 

The data from the civic participation and volunteerism survey suggest that Georgians not only know many families in their neighbourhood but also maintain frequent contact with them; half of Georgians know all families in their neighbourhood and 37% know more than ten families. Only 12% of Georgians say they know less than 10 families in their neighbourhood. CRRC also asked Georgians about how often they talk to their neighbours. As it turned out, 78% talk to their neighbours every day and 18% at least once a week. However, in spite of frequent conversations, common problems are less discussed among neighbours which may prevent collaboration to fix important problems in their neighbourhood. The data show that only 15% always discuss common problems with their neighbours and 29% never do so. 

CRRC data also show that there is some degree of collaboration between neighbours in terms of cleaning common space. 71% of Georgians say that common space in their neighbourhood gets regularly cleaned and 78% say this is done by neighbours either collectively or on a rotating basis. This collaboration is a promising practice that has the potential to expand into other aspects of housing, such as improving the appearance of houses and yards in Georgia.  

Note: This question was asked to 71% of respondents who said that common space in their neighbourhood gets regularly cleaned.

How exactly does such collaboration work in Georgian neighbourhoods? Just over half of Georgians (52%) say there is a person in their neighbourhood who will organize people or solve a problem him/herself. Moreover, in about half of the cases (56%) this person is elected by other neighbours to handle neighbourhood problems. Most importantly, Georgians have a positive attitude towards these community organizers. Out of the 52% of Georgians who indicate that such a person exists, 81% of them say the majority of neighbours have a positive attitude towards this neighbour. 17% say that they have a neutral attitude towards this neighbour and only 1% thinks that the majority of neighbours have a negative attitude towards this person. 

The survey also asked Georgians about their attitude towards people who collect money in their neighbourhood to fix problems. 77% of Georgians respect these people because they spend energy to solve problems which concern everyone. In contrast, only 3% of Georgians say that they are suspicious of people who collect money in their neighbourhood because they make a profit out of it. 

Neighbours who collaborate are more likely to keep their houses and yards in good repair. This post has showed that many Georgian neighbourhoods have quite close-knit groups with a potential for improved collaboration. While lack of communication about problems that affect everyone remains a hindrance to collaboration, CRRC data suggest that those who take the initiative to organize and help in solving common problems are respected by others.

Freelancer.com | Far from Workable for Finding Statistical Expertise!

So here's a theory: with so many skills available, how about finding expertise online? This is one of the ideas behind Freelancer.com, and we tried it out. Freelancer.com certainly advertises themselves in a big way: supposedly the largest outsourcing platform worldwide, with more than 1 million projects completed, connecting more than 3 million freelancers and employers. We had some data analysis that we wanted to farm out, and the hope was that the right people might be anywhere, after all why not match an experienced survey statistician in, say, Uganda with CRRC in the Caucasus?

It seems like an exciting possibility. So does Freelancer.com work for statistical expertise?

Unfortunately, Freelancer.com runs far below expectations. (This is a polite way of saying that the system is dysfunctional for anyone with advanced needs.) The website is clunky, hard to maneuver, stitched together on the fly, probably useful for the most basic transactions, but not for more sophisticated transactions. It's also dreadfully slow.

As for the quality of the bids on Freelancer.com, we received two good ones, among the 23 bids. But the majority are people who plainly shouldn't be bidding, since they have no clue what they're writing about. This creates extra work, as you sort through things. Unfortunately the system for evaluating these bids is not good – remarks that you enter disappear, and while there is all sorts of supposed snazzyness to the left and the right on your screen, it really seems as if no one has done any usability tests. You run around in circles. If Freelancer had intended to set up a system to make it deliberately difficult to choose, they would have done a splendid job.

Freelancer.com does have support, but it doesn't work for you. Several times I received no response. When persisting (because I wanted access to deliverables I had set), I was told to wait "around 2 minutes", and more than 15 min. later I still hadn't heard back (see below). I then was instructed to read their FAQs on issues even though clearly the website didn't work. 50 minutes later I was still online with support giving me intermittent attention, still trying to find a fix for a very basic problem. And in the end, when they couldn't fix the problem – they just threw me out of their support line and terminated the conversation.

Overall, a deeply frustrating process with Freelancer.com, taking me hours of time. They also have a hefty fee structure, so that even projects that don't succeed end up costing you quite a bit -- may be worth thinking about, and they mentioned they have 3 million employers and freelancers signed up, but less than half of that as completed projects.

If there isn't a better way of finding statistical expertise, the market in the foreseeable future will remain local, and running through personal connections and networks. If anyone knows of a better system of finding statistical experts out there, please let us know.

Gender Attitudes in Azerbaijan

In February 2012, CRRC conducted a survey entitled “Social Capital, Media and Gender in Azerbaijan”, which was funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). People were asked about gender roles, division of labor and participation of men and women in domestic and public life. The results show that most Azerbaijanis express traditional attitudes.

According to the survey data, over half (67%) of the Azerbaijani population considers the main task of a woman to take care of the home and cook for her family. Moreover, 57% agree to the statement that being a housewife is just as fulfilling as working for pay, and 61% think the children suffer when a mother works for pay.

 

With regard to the division of labor within the household, 85% of Azerbaijanis think that changing diapers, giving kids a bath and feeding children are the mother’s responsibility. When asked about what tasks they were taught when they were children or teenagers, 96% of Azerbaijani women mentioned routine domestic chores such as cooking and cleaning (32% of men said the same). In contrast, 74% of the men said they were taught how to fix home appliances (21% of women said the same). Thus, the data indicates that the attitudes about gender roles as well as the actual behavior within the family are rather traditional in Azerbaijan.

The survey results show that there is an unequal level of participation between men and women in public sphere. There is generally less female involvement. 63% of the Azerbaijani population said that on the whole men make better business executives and political leaders than women do. Furthermore, 58% agree to the statement that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce. Nevertheless, 83% of the Azerbaijanis say they would vote for a woman candidate in the next parliamentary elections (all things being equal), and 59% think that the current number of women members of the parliament (19 out of 125) is too few. This reveals that the Azerbaijani population is not generally disinclined to have women in important positions, yet men are still more represented in politics and the labor market.

Surprisingly, just over half of the population thinks that gender equality in Azerbaijan has already been achieved for the most part. However, women are less likely to agree to this statement (45%) than men (59%).

In summary, CRRC data indicates that traditional gender roles persist in Azerbaijan. The findings show that the population’s attitudes towards gender equality are a bit ambiguous. Many people express traditional attitudes about gender roles, division of labor and participation of men and women in domestic and public life. Yet, much of the population also thinks gender equality has already been mostly achieved. This indicates that the perception of gender equality differs from the actual distribution of gender roles.

Georgia: A Liberal or Socially Conservative Country?

How justified is it for Georgian women to bear a child or have sex outside of wedlock? Is the Georgian population tolerant towards homosexuals? What are views on issues such as these in the light of the western-oriented political course of the country? How do men and women compare in terms of liberal attitudes? To address these questions, this blog post presents the results from two waves of a nationwide public opinion survey entitled “Knowledge and Attitudes toward the EU in Georgia” conducted by CRRC in 2009 and 2011. The data indicates that attitudes towards women having sex or bearing a child without being married have slightly changed in a more liberal way over the past two years, yet social conservatism remains deeply rooted in Georgia. Georgians remain generally unaccepting of homosexuality. Also, Georgian women seem to have more conservative attitudes towards particular issues than men.

Social values are quite static and two years is a very short period to speak about value changes. Yet the data still suggests some interesting trends indicating that certain values related to women having sex or bearing a child without marriage are slightly changing in a more liberal way, while other attitudes such as tolerance of homosexuality remain unchanged. CRRC data shows that 50%-64% of Georgians think that it is never justified for an unmarried woman to bear a child or have sex. Also, vast majority of Georgians think homosexuality is never justified.

As the chart shows, the number of Georgians who think that it is always or sometimes justified for a woman to give birth without being married has increased from 30% to 42%, while the number of people who think it is always or sometimes justified for a woman to have sex before marriage has increased from 15% to 28%. When the same question was asked about men in 2011, over half (57%) of the population said that it is always or sometimes justified for man to have sex before marriage. These results suggest that to some, men having sex before marriage is more justifiable in Georgia than woman doing the same. These slight changes within the past 2 years cannot be generalized to the entire range of social questions asked in the survey.  For example, 90% of Georgians think that homosexuality can never be justified and this result has remains unchanged since 2009. This is one indicator that social conservatism is still deeply rooted in Georgia.

Examining the data by gender shows that Georgian men and women equally condemn homosexuality and their attitudes related to woman bearing a child without marriage are also similar. However, there are some differences in values related to people having sex before marriage by gender. 

The data indicates that having sex before marriage is more justifiable for men than for women. 33% of Georgian men think that is always justified for a man to have sex before marriage, while this share decreases to 18% for women to do the same. However, it is also worth noting that 25% of Georgian men say that a man having sex before marriage can never be justified.

When asked about women having sex before marriage 57% of Georgian men think this is never justified and 70% of Georgian women say the same. Thus, Georgian women are even more conservative on this question. Moreover, over half (51%) of Georgian women agree that is always or sometimes (percentages added) justified for a man to have sex before marriage, while only 25% think that this can be justifiable for a woman as well.

The results suggest that even though there is a slight shift towards liberal values concerning women bearing a child or having sex without marriage, social conservatism still prevails. Tolerance of homosexuality remains extremely low over the past two years. Exploring the data by gender shows that while men and women share similar values and attitudes towards certain issues such as homosexuality and woman bearing a child without marriage, Georgian women have more conservative attitudes towards having sex before marriage than men.

The questions discussed in this blog post can be considered sensitive in Georgian society. Yet, these results are a good starting point for a healthy discussion on these issues. Feel free to share your thoughts with us and find out more on this topic via CRRC’s Online Data Analysis tool.

Counting Crowds & Crowds Counting | Jacobs' Method

During the last 25 years Georgian capital has experienced a diverse history of political meetings in its central areas including peaceful demonstrations, rallies with radical political demands, “tent towns” and so forth. The higher the attendance, the more legitimate the protests are often seen to be. As a result, the figures themselves usually are contested, sometimes in significant controversy.

This discussion has now been revived, after the new political coalition around Bidzina Ivanishvili started its full-scale entry into politics by gathering supporters on central Freedom Square of Tbilisi. Widely varying estimates of attendance numbers have been put forward. The Georgian police estimated the size of crowd as 30 000, supporters of Ivanishvili’s Georgian Dream claimed that about 300 thousand people gathered on Freedom square, however, independent observers suggested 80 thousand attendees had come to the rally.

So how does one approach crowd size systematically, short of counting every single head in the crowd? One robust method has been suggested in the 1960s by Berkeley journalism professor Herbert Jacobs who employed this approach to count the number of protesters against Vietnam War at his home university. According to this method, the area should be divided into smaller sections in order to assess how loosely people stand in the crowd. If people stand at an arm’s distance, one person will cover 0.93 square meters. In a second case, when people stand close enough but not pushing each other, the area taken by one person is estimated 0.42 square meters. And finally, in a tightly packed crowd 0.23 square meters are covered by one person, or, putting it differently an estimated four people are in one square meter.

In order to describe how Jacobs’ method is used for crowd estimation, we divided the entire space of Freedom square and neighboring streets into 29 parcels. Then we calculated the areas of the parcels using geographic information systems (GIS) and tried to analyze two photo images taken from Georgian Dream’s official Facebook page. The photos show 13 parcels in the central and southern part of the square and consequently, estimates are done only for these areas.

The analysis is based on visual assessment of density in the parcels, following Jacobs' method. Where people are

• standing tightly we assigned the score 0.23, 
• crowded but not pushing each other, we assigned the score 0.42 
• standing in a distance of one person’s arm, we used the score of 0.93. 

Rough estimates show that in the moment of taking photos there were about 31.000 in 13 parcels alone, with many parcels uncounted. 

Now, several remarks on these numbers:

1. Jacobs' approach only yields rough numbers, +/-20%. 
2. numbers work both ways, as various people have pointed out; it may be worth coming to some sort of consensus in Georgia how many people Freedom Square holds when it's crowded, and then apply that consistently.
3. ultimately, quantity is not legitimacy; a protest that is conducted civilly and that gets people to engage and discuss is plenty legitimate, so the entire numbers game is a bit problematic, and not only in Georgia.

That being said, we think the Jacobs method is as good as it gets, for quick assessments. Since we only counted 13 parcels, out of 29, and want to make this method more broadly available, we encourage our readers to be involved! Crowds can help count crowds.

Use our raw materials to assess the number of attendees. Download the spreadsheet, use the robust Jacobs method, and send it back to us when you are done. Also, feel free to send your comments and estimations, the topic is open for discussion!

Caucasus Barometer data in Slate | Kendzior & Pearce

Sarah Kendzior and Katy Pearce have summarized some of the points they made in their fascinating academic paper on Internet and dissent in Azerbaijan for an article in Slate.

(And we are glad to say they used some of our data.) Katy regularly examines the question on how the Internet impacts various parts of life, and has been great at mining the Caucasus Barometer for interesting insights. Find more of her work on her blog.

The Slate article is definitely worth a read, and right here.

Women in Parliament: How Do Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan Compare to Other Countries?

Expanding on the topic of a previous blog, this post compares statistics on the number of women in national parliaments in the South Caucasus and other areas of the world. The countries of the South Caucasus rank low on women’s participation in parliament compared to many other countries. Introducing quota systems has shown some success in certain countries as it has led to an increase in the number of women in parliament. Yet, such quotas require careful consideration of local resources and cultural factors. According to a recent article in the Economist, women currently hold almost 20% of the world’s parliamentary seats—up from 17.2% in 2007. The Economist provides the following chart based on data from the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

As the chart shows, Rwanda, Sweden and South Africa are leaders in terms of the percentage of women in parliament (well above the world average of about 20%). Brazil, Panama and Egypt have the lowest percentages of women in parliament on the chart, with Egypt having less than 2% women in its parliament. A more comprehensive list of countries can be found here. 

How do Georgia, Armenia and Armenia rank? With 6% of women in its parliament Georgia stands between Egypt and Panama. Compared to Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan have a higher share of women in their parliaments – 9% and 16%, respectively. However, all the three countries of the South Caucasus are well below many European countries—especially the Nordic countries which have the highest percentages of women in parliament (the average is 42%). 

The article in the Economist suggests the effectiveness of a quota system. Last year 17 countries had quotas for women out of 59 countries that held elections. There was about a 10% increase in the number of women in parliament for those countries with quotas compared to those without quotas. However, the institution of a quota system is not without contention. Quotas are related to largely-debated moral or attitudinal issues such as affirmative action. For example, see a critical review of the quota system in Central Asia: “Do Central Asia’s Gender Quotas Help or Hurt Women?” 

Should the South Caucasus follow the example of several other countries and set a quota system? And to be more critical - Are women in the South Caucasus willing and ready to occupy 20% or more of parliamentary seats? 

Bela Tsipuria on the Post-Colonial Aspect of Georgian Literature

In a recent W-i-P seminar, Bela Tsipuria, now Professor at Ilia State University, and previously Deputy Minister of Education and Science, made a compelling case for understanding Georgian literature as a post-colonial phenomenon. Here is a summary of the talk to inspire readers to follow up, even if its brevity will not do full justice to the nuance of the talk.

Georgia is not always described as a classical colony, as it was closely intertwined with Russian and later Soviet elites. Yet, as Tsipuria argues, Georgia had many of the key features of a colony. It lacked sovereignty, had no borders, was administered by a significant non-Georgian elite, with politics and even culture dominated by an Imperial center.

Georgian culture and literature thus developed in response to this colonialism, that arrived at the same time as modernity. As the state could not develop Georgian identity, it was left to culture to define Georgia -- thus the central role of writers, as reflected in street names in cities throughout Georgia. According to Tsipuria, the debate to which extent the state can be trusted to take the lead in society, continues. Eventually Russia became a liminal space, on the side, as Georgians tried to define themselves toward a European vision of modernity, under the theme of "relocating Georgia".

Briefly modernists defined their own space in the First Georgian Republic, as a cultural oasis, bringing together Georgian, Russian, Armenian and even Polish avantgardists. This glimpse of free modernism was post-colonial in various ways, in its assertion of experimentation and freedom. Yet this moment was snuffed out quickly with the Soviet take-over. Seeking to assert its own artistic vision, the Soviet Empire centralized cultural production, suggesting and even enforcing its approach, duplicating via mimicry, and marginalizing alternatives.

The symbolists tried to fight back. Tsipuria highlights how some of the artists used the facade of Socialist Realism to introduce their own national and modernist symbols. While much of that spirit was purged in the 1930s, a double narrative came back after the Second World War, that was both Soviet and personal, characterized by ambivalence. The double narrative created a rich texture, and creative tension, but also, Tsipuria said, created a double discourse, some of which still creates challenges for current debates in the country, in "how to manage the reality that the new freedom grants".

Interested in attending or even presenting in these sessions? The easiest way is to join the Works-in-Progress group on Facebook.

Public Opinion about Women in Parliament in Georgia

Since Georgia’s independence in 1991, the participation of women in Georgian politics has been very low. The number of women in government has diminished since 2004 and currently women comprise only 6% of the Georgian parliament. The reasons behind such statistics can vary from cultural to institutional factors. Cultural factors including gender stereotypes are more fundamental and difficult to change while institutional factors can be constructed through a variety of mechanisms (e.g., introducing quota systems, changing the electoral system, nomination methods within political parties, or increasing political funds for women). This blog looks at public opinion in Georgia on one aspect of women’s participation in Georgian politics--women in parliament. CRRC data from a 2011 survey on Voting and Political Attitudes in Georgia indicates that while just over half of the Georgian population would vote for a woman candidate (all things being equal) and think that men and women perform equally on elected positions, 31% of Georgians still find the number of women in parliament about right. 

The 2011 (September) survey conducted by CRRC on behalf of NDI asked Georgians whether or not women perform better than men. Just over half (56%) of Georgians answered that women and men perform equally and 21% said men perform better than women. Examining the data by gender does not change the general picture much, but it still provides some additional information regarding attitudes.

As the chart above shows, over half of both men and women think that men and women perform equally. However compared to men, women are slightly more likely do so. On the other hand, compared to women, men are more likely to think that men perform better than women. This data indicates that women in Georgia are more likely to think that women and men perform equally in politics while men remain more sceptical towards women in parliament. This trend is supported by answers to the next question.

The general picture is that 68% of Georgians say they would vote for a woman candidate in the next parliamentary elections all things being equal, 15% say no and 17% do not know. However, as the chart shows, women are again more likely to vote for a women candidate (all things being equal) than men.

Even though over half of Georgians (irrespective of their gender) are positive that men and women perform equally and would vote for a woman candidate in the next parliamentary elections, their attitude regarding the current number of women in parliament is confusing. Evidence from CRRC data indicates that 31% of Georgians find the current number of women members of parliament (9 out of 150) about right and 23% do not know whether this is too few, too many or about right. 

Examining the data by gender revealed only one difference in the “too few” category. Compared to men (34%), more women (43%) think that the number of women members of parliament is too few. This fits well into the general trend that compared to men, women are more likely to view men’s and women’s political performance as equal. 

This data shows Georgian attitudes towards women in parliament to be a bit ambiguous. Over half of Georgians think women and men perform equally and they would vote for a women candidate (all things being equal), yet only 31% think that 9 women out of 150 members of parliament are too few. Why do you think this is the case? Is the low level of women’s participation in Georgian politics a matter of institutions or is it culture that determines such numbers? We would like to hear your thoughts.

Interested in finding out more about gender attitudes in the South Caucasus? CRRC has got lots of data on gender related issues and it is available and free for you on our Online Data Analysis tool. Try it out!

Getting information from the internet – how does it affect Georgians’ views?

Many characteristics of the Georgian population are changing, but perhaps none as drastically as internet usage. Looking at data from the Caucasus Barometer, in only three years the estimated proportion of the adult population using the internet at least once a week has grown from an estimated 23% to an estimated 41%: 

Since having access to the internet drastically increases the amount and varies the type of information available to people, the question of political implications naturally follows. As Georgians begin accessing information from online sources, how are their assessments of their governments and others changing?

In order to address this question, we can separate the population into two groups. One group is those people who access the internet at least once per week and report utilizing it for the purpose of searching for information, consuming news, writing or reading blogs, or engaging in forum discussions. The second group is those people who either don’t regularly access the internet, or who use it for purely recreational activities such as online gaming.

Let’s compare the two groups’ views on their government in the 2011 Caucasus Barometer. Here are five questions asked in the survey that measure respondents’ perception of the level of fairness and freedom of information in Georgia:

• Under the present government in Georgia do you completely agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or completely disagree that people like yourself are treated fairly by the government?
• To what degree does the court system in Georgia treat all citizens equally or to what degree does it favor some over others?
• Would you say that the most recent election was conducted completely fairly, to some extent fairly, or not at all fairly?
• In Georgia today, do you think or not that people like yourself have the right to openly say what they think?
• How well do you think TV journalists in Georgia inform the population about what is actually going on in Georgia?

Interestingly, not a single one of these five questions were answered significantly differently by the two groups! This suggests that consuming information from online sources does not paint a substantially different picture of Georgia than that painted by sources available via TV and newspaper. One area where we do find significant differences between those who collect information online and those who don’t, is in their perceptions of Europe. Looking at the most extreme views on EU integration, those who either don’t support integration at all or fully support it, the proportion of the population that gets information online has significantly greater support for integration. 

The same pattern holds with support for NATO integration, but does this trend hold outside of politics? Interestingly, it does. On the subject of inter-ethnic marriages, CB respondents are asked whether or not they approve of women of their ethnic group marrying members of other specific groups. When asked about domestic ethnic minorities such as Azerbaijanis living in Georgia and Armenians living in Georgia, the opinions of those who get information from the internet are not significantly different from those who do not. However, when asked about inter-ethnic marriages with members of European nations, opinions differ significantly. 

 The fact that the approval of interethnic marriages by those who get information from the internet is significantly higher with respect to Europeans but not with respect to domestic ethnic minorities suggests that the issue is not simply one of internet users being less socially conservative. In fact, respondents who got information from the internet were actually slightly more likely to say that both abortion and homosexuality were never justifiable, although the differences were not statistically significant. So, rather than simply being more liberal, it seems that people who get information from the internet are more open specifically to Europeans. 

In summary, the data suggest that while people who get information from the internet do not perceive their own country differently, they do perceive Europe more positively. Why might this be? Could it simply be because they have access to more information about Europe and thus feel more comfortable with Europe as a partner? Or could it be that they are actually receiving more positive messages about Europe via the internet? Or, could it be due to another factor or combination of factors altogether?

One way to look into this question in more detail may be by examining the Media Survey, which CRRC conducted in 2009 and 2011. Both data sets are for download at http://crrc.ge/data/, and for online data analysis at http://crrc.ge/oda/. The survey includes many questions regarding the channels through which respondents receive information, and also includes questions assessing the accuracy of media sources and measuring levels of trust in various governmental and international bodies. 

Readers are invited to respond with their own theories and data analysis to support them, and we’ll publish a blog post on one of the responses. Please send your ideas and preliminary analyses to lucy.flynn@crrccenters.org by Monday, May 21^st, and feel free to contact me sooner if you have any questions.

Political Participation and Democracy in Azerbaijan

For a functioning democracy, democratic attitudes are important as well as basic political rights. Attitudes toward democracy and participation in political life show the extent of a population’s support to and the legitimacy of a democratic system. The 2011 Caucasus Barometer provides insight to what people think about democratic principles and the democratic process in Azerbaijan. The data shows that voting in elections and democracy (as a political regime) both receive approval by over half of the population. However, particular political actions such as participation in protests receive only little affirmation. Furthermore, the current political system in Azerbaijan is not perceived to be an effective democracy by most Azerbaijanis.

The survey shows that institutional forms of participation such as voting in elections are perceived to be important by 64% of Azerbaijanis. In addition to considering voting very important, 62% said they voted in the last national election and 74% said they certainly or most probably would participate if presidential elections were held that following Sunday.

However, less institutional forms of political participation such as protests receive little support. Only 7% of the adult Azerbaijani population strongly agrees and another 21% agree to the statement that, “People should participate in protest actions, as this shows the government that the people are in charge”. In contrast, 16% very strongly agree and another 32% agree that, “People should not participate in protest actions against the government, as it threatens stability in the country”. The data indicates that support for this type of political involvement is rather low in Azerbaijan.

Regarding general attitudes towards democracy, the data reveals that the majority of Azerbaijanis do not perceive their country to be a full democracy. As the chart shows, 14% do not consider Azerbaijan to be a democracy. 30% think that their country is a democracy but with major problems, and 31% believe the country is a democracy but with minor problems. Only 10% think the country is a full democracy.

Even though the general public opinion is that Azerbaijan is not a full democracy today, just over half of the population supports a democratic system. According to the data, 52% of the Azerbaijanis prefer democracy to any other kind of government. In contrast, 14% say there are some circumstances in which a non-democratic government can be preferable, and another 18% say it does not matter what kind of government they have.

Thus, the results indicate that institutional forms of political participation such as voting have more approval than less institutional forms such as attending protest actions. Furthermore, people in Azerbaijan seem to support the idea of democracy although the majority holds that their country is not a full democracy yet.

Ethnic versus European Identity: The Case of Georgia

As Georgia seeks a course of European integration and eventual membership in the European Union (EU), it is important to examine the Georgian population’s understanding of its own identity. CRRC data from a 2011 survey entitled Knowledge and Attitudes toward the EU in Georgia shows that a majority of Georgians (88%) think Georgia should be in the EU. But do Georgians share a European identity in addition to strongly supporting EU membership? The data shows that ethnic Georgian identity remains the prevalent sentiment in Georgia despite strong support for EU membership and the fact that just over half of the population agrees with former Georgian prime minister Zurab Zhvania’s famous phrase -“I am Georgian, and therefore I am European”. 

59% of Georgians in 2011 say they agree with Zhvania’s statement, but the picture changes dramatically when Georgians are asked about how they identify themselves more specifically. Only 16% of Georgians identify themselves as both Georgian and European, whereas over half (60%) identify as their own ethnicity only—a result more or less unchanged since 2009. Moreover, the number of people who identify as both Georgian and European comes quite close to the number of people who identify as their own ethnicity and as generally Caucasian. 

Even though identity is considered to be a relatively static variable, examining the data by age groups offers interesting insights about identity change in Georgia. The analysis shows that compared to older age groups, younger people in Georgia are more likely to both agree with Zhvania’s famous phrase and identify themselves as European. 

Moreover, the proportion of those who identify as both their own ethnicity and European is greater in the age group 18-35 than in older age groups. Even though just over half (58%) of Georgian people aged 18-35 identify only as Georgian, they are more likely to identify as both Georgian and European (25%) and are less likely to identify as both their own ethnicity and as Caucasian. These results indicate that the incidence of Caucasian identity decreases with age among Georgians, while the frequency of claiming European identity increases in younger generation. In other words, a general Caucasian identity is gradually changing along with European identity among Georgians, however ethnic identity still prevails. 

Note: “Don’t know” and “Other” answers have been excluded from the analysis.

CRRC data indicates that over half of the Georgian population identify as their own ethnicity only. Even though many Georgians agree with Zhvania’s phrase, few Georgians actually identify themselves as both their own ethnicity and European. This demonstrates that they may consider these identities to be compatible. Further analysis also indicates that young people in Georgia are the forerunners in adopting European identity. Perhaps the younger generation is more affected by strong socialization agents such as media, advertisements and consumption models that reinforce European identity. What do you think?

Interested in finding out more about Georgian attitudes towards the EU and related issues? You can access the survey’s associated report here. 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.