DOCSLIB.ORG

Survey on Political Attitudes June 2018 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Survey on Political Attitudes June 2018 1 Survey on Political Attitudes June 2018 1. [SHOW CARD 1 (Rotated)] What are the most important national issues facing you and your family? Please name up to three (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 1 Corruption 2 Environment protection 3 NATO membership 4 Pensions 5 Relations with Russia 6 Property rights 7 Fair elections 8 Jobs 9 Court system 10 Freedom of speech 11 Human Rights 12 Poverty 13 Territorial integrity 14 Rising prices / inflation 15 Affordable healthcare 16 Wages 17 Media independence 18 Education 19 EU Membership 20 Crime 21 Prisons / Prisoners 22 Minority rights 23 Restoration of justice 24 Other (Please specify)_________________________ 2. [SHOW CARD 2] There are different opinions regarding the direction in which Georgia is going. Using this card, please, rate your answer. [Interviewer: Only one answer.] Georgia is definitely going in the wrong direction 1 Georgia is mainly going in the wrong direction 2 Georgia is not changing at all 3 Georgia is going mainly in the right direction 4 Georgia is definitely going in the right direction 5 (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 3. [SHOW CARD 3] For each issue, please tell us whether situation is going in the right direction, in the wrong direction or is not changing at all? Going in the right Going in the direction at Not changing all Going in the direction wrong know) (don’t to answer) (refuse 1 Jobs 3 2 1 -1 -2 2 Poverty 3 2 1 -1 -2 3 Rising prices / 3 2 1 -1 -2 inflation 4 Pensions 3 2 1 -1 -2 5 Territorial integrity 3 2 1 -1 -2 6 Affordable healthcare 3 2 1 -1 -2 7 Education 3 2 1 -1 -2 8 Human Rights 3 2 1 -1 -2 9 Crime 3 2 1 -1 -2 10 Fair elections 3 2 1 -1 -2 11 Court system 3 2 1 -1 -2 12 NATO membership 3 2 1 -1 -2 13 Freedom of speech 3 2 1 -1 -2 14 Corruption 3 2 1 -1 -2 15 EU Membership 3 2 1 -1 -2 16 Media independence 3 2 1 -1 -2 4. [SHOW CARD 4] Using this card, please tell me, how would you rate the performance of the current government? Very badly 1 Badly 2 Well 3 Very well 4 (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 5. [SHOW CARD 5 (rotated card)] What are the most important infrastructural issues in your city/village? [Interviewer! Up to 3 answers] (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 1 Trash collection 2 Clean streets 3 Availability of cultural facilities (libraries, museums) 4 Playgrounds 5 Pollution of environment 6 Traffic 7 Parks and green spaces 8 Public transport 9 Roads 10 Sports and leisure facilities 11 Street lights 12 Water supply 13 Gas Supply 14 Electricity supply 15 Sewage 16 Cost of utilities 17 School infrastructure 18 Availability of kindergartens 19 Conditions in Kindergartens 20 Homeless animals 21 Parking 22 Other (Please record)________________________________ Elections 6. Did you vote in October 28 Presidential elections? 1 Yes 0 No (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 7. Did you vote in the run-offs on November 28? 1 Yes 0 No (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 8. [SHOW CARD 8] Could you please tell me, were you contacted in any of the following ways by the candidate or representatives of candidate/political party before the October 28 parliamentary elections or runoff? [Interviewer: Accept all answers] (Don’t know) -1 GO TO 10 (Refuse to answer) -2 I was not contacted at all -5 1 Someone coming to your home 2 Someone coming to your workplace 3 Someone coming to your neighborhood 4 Phone call/text message 5 Fliers, door hangers 6 Mail 7 Email 8 Public meeting 9 Other (Please specify)____________________ 9. If contacted, on behalf of which candidate/party was this contact made? [Interviewer: Do not read. Correspond. Accept all answers.] (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 1 Georgian Dream - Democratic Georgia on behalf of Salome Zourabichvili 2 Salome Zourabichvili’s election staff 3 Grigol Vashadze (United National Movement) 4 United opposition on behalf of Grigol Vashadze 5 David Bakradze (Bakradze-Ugulava - European Georgia) 6 Shalva Natelashvili (Labour Party) 7 David Usupashvili (Free Democrats) 8 Zurab Japaridze (New Political Center - Girchi) 9 Kakha Kukava (Free Georgia) 10 Other (please specify)_____________________________ Ask question 10 and 11 only to those who voted on October 28st and/or runoff elections. In question 10, ask 1st and 3rd to those who voted in the first round, and 2nd and 4th to those who voted in the second round. 10. For each please tell me if you agree or disagree? Agree Disagree (Don’t (Refuse to know) answer) I was enthusiastic about the choice I made 1 0 -1 -2 on election day in the 1st round I was enthusiastic about the choice I made 1 0 -1 -2 on election day in the 2st round I voted against rather than for someone in 1 0 -1 -2 the 1st round I voted against rather than for someone in 1 0 -1 -2 the 2st round 11. Thinking back to the situation when you voted in the polling station/place (either in the 1st or 2nd round), please say whether you agree or disagree with the following? Agree Disagree (Don't (Refuse to know) answer) It was well ordered 1 0 -1 -2 It was overcrowded 1 0 -1 -2 It was intimidating 1 0 -1 -2 The election officials were well 1 0 -1 -2 prepared 12. Thinking back to election day, have you noticed candidate activists/coordinators near the voting district recording voters’ or asking for voters’ personal information? 1 Yes 0 GO TO 14 No (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 13. If yes, for each of the following tell us if you agree or disagree: Agree Disagree (Don't (Refuse to know) answer) This creates intimidating 1 0 -1 -2 environment for voters This influences citizens vote choice or 1 0 -1 -2 intent to vote This did not affect the voters 1 0 -1 -2 Such activities encourage people to 1 0 -1 -2 participate in elections 14. [SHOW CARD 14] Using this card how do you think the first round of October 28 presidential election was conducted/managed by the election bodies (CEC, PEC, DEC)? Very well 5 Well 4 Average 3 Badly 2 Very badly 1 (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 15. [SHOW CARD 14] Using this card how do you think the runoff presidential election on November 28 was conducted/managed by the election bodies (CEC, PEC, DEC)? Very well 5 Well 4 Average 3 Badly 2 Very badly 1 (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 16. [SHOW CARD 16] How confident are you that the votes across the country were accurately counted in the 1st round? Very confident 4 Somewhat confident 3 Not too confident 2 Not at all confident 1 (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 17. [SHOW CARD 16] How confident are you that the votes across the country were accurately counted in the 2nd round? Very confident 4 Somewhat confident 3 Not too confident 2 Not at all confident 1 (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 18. For each please tell us whether it occurred or not during the election process: Yes No to know) (Don’t (Don’t (Refuse (Refuse answer) 1. People voting more than once (including 1 0 -1 -2 Carousel voting) 2. Intimidation of voters or party 1 0 -1 -2 representatives 3. Use of administrative resources to 1 0 -1 -2 benefit a campaign 4. Bribing of voters 1 0 -1 -2 5. Pressure to donate or not donate to 1 0 -1 -2 certain candidate/party 6. Mobilizing state employees to participate 1 0 -1 -2 in campaign/vote for certain candidate 19. [SHOW CARD 19] Thinking about Georgia's new president, please tell me, to what extent do you agree or disagree with following statement? ) ) agree Don’t know Don’t to answer Refuse Completely agree Somewhat Somewhat disagree Completely disagree ( ( New president will positively represent 4 3 2 1 -1 -2 Georgia on international stage New president will try to find consensus 4 3 2 1 -1 -2 between various political and social groups New president will have no impact in general 4 3 2 1 -1 -2 as s/he has limited power New President will put forward/raise issues 4 3 2 1 -1 -2 that matter to people like me New President will use Presidential fund to 4 3 2 1 -1 -2 carry out useful projects 20. [SHOW CARD 20] Please, tell me, which statement do you agree with? [Interviewer: AFTER THE RESPONDENT CHOOSES THE STATEMENT, ASK: “Do you agree with this statement or do you agree very strongly with this statement?” ACCEPT ONLY ONE ANSWER.] Statement 1: The president should be directly Statement 2: The president should be elected elected by Georgian citizens. by those who are elected by people (for example, Sakrebulo members, parliamentarians) Agree very strongly Agree with Statement 1 Agree with Statement Agree very strongly with Statement 1 2 with Statement 2 1 2 3 4 [DO NOT READ] Agree with neither 5 (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 Democracy 21. [SHOW CARD 21] Overall, how important or unimportant is it for you to live in a democratic country? Not important at all 1 Not important 2 Important 3 Very important 4 (Don’t know) -1 (Refuse to answer) -2 22.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proverb As a Tool of Persuasion in Political Discourse (On the Material of Georgian and French Languages)
    ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 632-637, June 2020 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1006.02 Proverb as a Tool of Persuasion in Political Discourse (on the Material of Georgian and French languages) Bela Glonti School of Arts and Sciences, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia; The Francophone Regional Doctoral College of Central and Eastern Europe in the Humanities (CODFREURCOR), Georgia Abstract—Our study deals with the use of proverbs as a tool of persuasion in political discourse. Within this study we have studied and analyzed the texts of Georgian and French political articles, speeches and proverbs used therein. The analysis revealed that the proverbs found and used by us in the French discourses were not only of French origin. Also, most of the proverbs found in the French discourses were used as titles of the articles. As for the Georgian proverbs, they consisted mainly of popular proverbs well known to the Georgian public. Georgia proverbs have rarely been cited as an article title. According to the general conclusion, the use of proverbs as a tool of persuasion in the political discourse by the politicians of both countries is quite relevant. It is effective when it is persuasive and at the same time causes an emotional reaction. Quoting the proverbs, the politicians base their thinking on positions. The proverb is one of the key argumentative techniques. Index Terms—proverb, translation, culture, argumentation I. INTRODUCTION The article is concerned with a proverb, as a tool of persuasion in Georgian and French political discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Prisoners in Post- Revolutionary Georgia
    After the rose, the thorns: political prisoners in post- revolutionary Georgia Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, spirit of brotherhood. Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3: Everyone has be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the the right to life, liberty and security of person.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relevance of the Actual Values of the Political Actors of Georgia with the Ideologies Declared by Them
    The Relevance of the Actual Values of the Political Actors of Georgia with the Ideologies Declared by Them Dr. Maia Urushadze1, Dr. Tamar Kiknadze2 1Caucasus International University 2Head of the Doctoral Program in Political Science, Caucasus International University Abstract The permanent ideological impact of the propaganda narratives of powerful political entities on the international community is perceived as one of the most important challenges of the 21st century. The international agenda is full of controversial interpretations, produced by powerful international political actors. As a result, the international media agenda is getting like the battlespace for the struggle of interpretations, where the ruthless kind of "frame-games" between the strongest global agenda-setting political entities takes place. The information field is open for all countries, including the small states, where political parties are not strong enough to have their propaganda to resist the ideological pressure from outside. Due to this, the societies of these countries are still easily influenced by the narratives of global political actors creating a suitable psychological environment for internal conflicts in societies. We consider Georgia among these states. Therefore, our research aimed to study the relevance of the actual values of local (Georgian) political actors with the ideologies declared by them. In this regard, our primary objective was to understand the specifics of strategic communication of local political actors, then, to compare their narratives with the rhetoric of international actors, and finally, to determine the strength of local society's resistance to these narratives. We hope that in this way we can assess the long-term impact of global actors’ propaganda communication could have on a small country.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Elections in Georgia: at Long Last, Stability?
    Recent Elections in Georgia: At long Last, Stability? DARRELL SLIDER G eorgia held its fourth contested parliamentary elections 31 October 1999 (the fifth, if one includes the 1918 multiparty elections that produced a Social Democratic government that was forced into exile by the Red Army in 1921) and its fourth presidential election on 9 April 2000. Press reports emphasized the endorsement the elections provided to President Eduard Shevardnadze and his party, the Citizens' Union of Georgia, which won a clear majority in the parlia- ment. At the same time, both the parliamentary and presidential elections were marred by heavy-handed manipulation of the political atmosphere preceding the balloting. The parliamentary elections also continued a troubling trend in Geor- gian politics: the exclusion of significant segments of the political spectrum from representation in the legislature. Perhaps more than any other former Soviet republic, Georgia has emphasized the development of political parties. Party list voting is the chief method for choosing members of parliament: lince 1992, 150 of 235 parliamentarians have been chosen by proportional voting.' The remainder, just over one-third, are cho- sen from single-member districts that correspond to Soviet-era administrative entities.2 Each election, however, has taken place under a different set of rules, which has had a major impact on the composition of the parliament. The party list system was also employed in November 1998 to choose local councils. In theory, a party list system should contribute to the formation of strong par- ties and a more stable party system. In practice, however, Georgian political par- ties remain highly personalized and organizationally weak.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse, Presidential Elections 2018
    Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse Presidential Elections 2018 Author: Tina Gogoladze Editor: Tamar Kintsurashvili Monitoring by Tamar Gagniashvili, Khatia Lomidze, Mariam Tskhovrebashvili, Sopo Chkhaidze Designed by Mariam Tsutskiridze The report Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse has been prepared by the Media Development Foundation (MDF) within the USAID-funded Promoting Integration, Tolerance and Awareness Program in Georgia (PITA), implemented by the UN Association of Georgia (UNAG). The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or UNAG. 1 Methodology The present report provides the results of monitoring conducted by the Media Development Foundation (MDF) ahead of the 2018 presidential elections. The monitoring was carried out on the cases of hate speech and discrimination on various grounds expressed by electoral subjects and political parties, as well as hate speech used against presidential candidates and political parties. The report involves only the cases of discrimination on ethnic, religious, racial and gender grounds, as well as the cases of encouraging violence; it does not provide insulting comments made by political opponents against each other. The monitoring covers the period from 1 August 2018 to 15 October 2018. The subjects of monitoring were selected from both mainstream and tabloid media. The monitored subjects were: ● News and analytical programs of five TV channels: Georgian Public Broadcaster (Moambe); Rustavi 2 (Kurieri; P.S.); Imedi (Kronika; Imedis Kvira); Maestro (news program) and Obieqtivi (news program). ● Talk-shows of five TV channels: Rustavi 2 (Archevani); Imedi (Pirispir); Iberia (Tavisupali Sivrtse); Obieqtivi (Gamis Studia, Okros Kveta); Kavkasia (Barieri, Spektri). ● Seven online media outlets: Sakinformi, Netgazeti, Interpressnews, Georgia and World, PIA, Kviris Palitra, Marshalpress.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Private Dialogue Quality Tracking Ppd Quality Tracking System Implementation Report
    PUBLIC PRIVATE DIALOGUE QUALITY TRACKING PPD QUALITY TRACKING SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION REPORT USAID GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA 14 SEPTEMBER 2016 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. PUBLIC PRIVATE DIALOGUE QUALITY TRACKING PPD QUALITY TRACKING SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION REPORT USAID GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA CONTRACT NUMBER: AID-114-C-14-00007 DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP USAID | GEORGIA USAID CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE: REVAZ ORMOTSADZE AUTHOR(S): INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (IDFI) PPD TRACKING: 1500 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH 14 SEPTEMBER 2016 DISCLAIMER This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 1 USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA PUBLIC PRIVATE DIALOGUE QUALITY TRACKING DATA Reviewed by: Malkhaz Nikolashvili, Natalia Beruashvili, Nino Chokheli, Tamar Kapianidze, Michael Martley Project Component: Support Inclusive Public Private Dialogue Practice Area: PPD Tracking Key Words: PPD, Quality, Tracking 2 USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G)
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Election Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report
    TECHNICAL ELECTION ASSESSMENT MISSION: GEORGIA 2020 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION INTERIM REPORT TECHNICAL ELECTION ASSESSMENT MISSION: GEORGIA 2020 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION INTERIM REPORT International Republican Institute IRI.org @IRI_Polls © 2020 All Rights Reserved Technical Election Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report Copyright © 2020 International Republican Institute. All rights reserved. Permission Statement: No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without the written permission of the International Republican Institute. Requests for permission should include the following information: • The title of the document for which permission to copy material is desired. • A description of the material for which permission to copy is desired. • The purpose for which the copied material will be used and the manner in which it will be used. • Your name, title, company or organization name, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and mailing address. Please send all requests for permission to: Attn: Department of External Affairs International Republican Institute 1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] IRI | Technical Electoral Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report 3 INTRODUCTION In June and July of 2020, the government of Georgia adopted significant constitutional and election reforms, including a modification of Georgia’s mixed electoral system and a reduction in the national proportional threshold from 5 percent to 1 percent of vote share — presenting an opportunity for citizens to pursue viable third-party options and the possibility of a new coalition government after decades of single-party domination.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia's Political Development
    1 The Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia’s Political Development Tbilisi 2007 2 General editing Ghia Nodia English translation Kakhaber Dvalidze Language editing John Horan © CIPDD, November 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or oth- erwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor. CIPDD welcomes the utilization and dissemination of the material included in this publication. This book was published with the financial support of the regional Think Tank Fund, part of Open Society Institute Budapest. The opinions it con- tains are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the position of the OSI. ISBN 978-99928-37-08-5 1 M. Aleksidze St., Tbilisi 0193 Georgia Tel: 334081; Fax: 334163 www.cipdd.org 3 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................ 5 Archil Abashidze .................................................................................. 8 David Aprasidze .................................................................................21 David Darchiashvili............................................................................ 33 Levan Gigineishvili ............................................................................ 50 Kakha Katsitadze ...............................................................................67
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion Survey Residents of Georgia March – April 2016 Detailed Methodology
    Public Opinion Survey Residents of Georgia March – April 2016 Detailed Methodology • The survey was conducted by Dr. Rasa Alisauskiene of the public and market research company Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of the International Republican Institute. The field work was carried out by IPM Research, Ltd. • Data was collected throughout Georgia (except for the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) between March 12 – April 2, 2016, through face-to-face interviews at respondents’ homes. • The sample consisted of 1,500 permanent residents of Georgia older than the age of 18 and eligible to vote. It is representative of the general population by age, gender, education, region and size/type of settlement. • Multistage probability sampling method was used with the random route and next birthday respondent selection procedures. • Stage one: All districts of Georgia are grouped into 10 regions plus Tbilisi city. The survey was conducted throughout all regions of Georgia, except for the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. • Stage two: The territory of each region was split into settlements, and grouped according to subtype (i.e. cities, towns and villages). • Settlements were selected at random. The number of selected settlements in each region was proportional to the share of population living in a particular type of the settlement in each region. • Stage three: primary sampling units were described. • The margin of error does not exceed plus or minus 2.5 percent. • Response rate was 72%. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • The survey was funded by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Residents of Georgia August 4-21, 2020 Detailed Methodology
    Public Opinion Survey: Residents of Georgia August 4-21, 2020 Detailed Methodology • The fieldwork was carried out by the Institute of Polling & Marketing. The survey was coordinated by Dr. Rasa Alisauskiene of the public and market research company Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of the Center for Insights in Survey Research. • Data was collected across Georgia between August 4 and August 21, 2020 through face-to-face interviews in respondents’ homes. • The sample consisted of 1,500 permanent residents of Georgia aged 18 and older and eligible to vote. It is representative of the general population by age, gender, region and size of the settlement. • A multistage probability sampling method was used with the random route and next birthday respondent’s selection procedures. • Stage one: All districts of Georgia are grouped into 10 regions. All regions of Georgia were surveyed (Tbilisi city – as separate region). • Stage two: selection of the settlements – cities and villages. • Settlements were selected at random. The number of selected settlements in each region was proportional to the share of population living in a particular type of the settlement in each region. • Stage three: primary sampling units were described. • The margin of error does not exceed plus or minus 2.5 percent and the response rate was 75 percent. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • The survey was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. 2 Frequently Cited Disaggregates Disaggregate Disaggregation Category Base Male n=691 Gender Female n=809 Age 18-29 n=299 Age Groups Age 30-49 n=567 Age 50 and older n=635 Secondary/Incomplete secondary n=714 Education level Vocational n=223 Higher/Incomplete higher n=557 Rural n=634 Settlement type Urban (excluding Tbilisi) n=414 Tbilisi n=452 *Cited bases are weighted.
    [Show full text]
  • Gender and Society: Georgia
    Gender and Society: Georgia Tbilisi 2008 The Report was prepared and published within the framework of the UNDP project - “Gender and Politics” The Report was prepared by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) The author: Nana Sumbadze For additional information refer to the office of the UNDP project “Gender and Politics” at the following address: Administrative building of the Parliament of Georgia, 8 Rustaveli avenue, room 034, Tbilisi; tel./fax (99532) 923662; www.genderandpolitics.ge and the office of the IPS, Chavchavadze avenue, 10; Tbilisi 0179; tel./fax (99532) 220060; e-mail: [email protected] The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations or UNDP Editing: Sandeep Chakraborty Book design: Gio Sumbadze Copyright © UNDP 2008 All rights reserved Contents Acknowledgements 4 List of abbreviations 5 Preface 6 Chapter 1: Study design 9 Chapter 2: Equality 14 Gender in public realm Chapter 3: Participation in public life 30 Chapter 4: Employment 62 Gender in private realm Chapter 5: Gender in family life 78 Chapter 6: Human and social capital 98 Chapter 7: Steps forward 122 Bibliography 130 Annex I. Photo Voice 136 Annex II. Attitudes of ethnic minorities towards equality 152 Annex III. List of entries on Georgian women in Soviet encyclopaedia 153 Annex IV. List of organizations working on gender issues 162 Annex V. List of interviewed persons 173 Annex VI. List of focus groups 175 Acknowledgements from the Author The author would like to express her sincere gratitude to the staff of UNDP project “Gender and Politics” for their continuous support, and to Gender Equality Advisory Council for their valuable recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Elections in Georgia: 2017 Municipal Elections Frequently Asked Questions
    Elections in Georgia 2017 Municipal Elections Frequently Asked Questions Europe and Eurasia International Foundation for Electoral Systems 2011 Crystal Drive | Floor 10 | Arlington, VA 22202 | www.IFES.org October 21, 2017 Frequently Asked Questions Who will Georgians elect on October 21, 2017?........................................................................................... 1 Why are municipal elections important? What is at stake? ........................................................................ 1 What are the changes to the municipal elections of 2017? ......................................................................... 2 What is the current political situation in Georgia? ....................................................................................... 3 What is the state of political parties in Georgia? .......................................................................................... 3 When will the results be announced? .......................................................................................................... 4 What laws regulate the self-government elections in Georgia? ................................................................... 4 What political parties are registered for the 2017 municipal elections? .................................................... 5 Who is running to be the next mayor of Tbilisi? ........................................................................................... 5 What is the election management body? What are its powers? ................................................................
    [Show full text]