MASARYK UNIVERSITY
Department of International Relations and European Studies
Faculty of Social Studies
“The democratization process of Georgia and governments attitude towards mass media” MASTER’S THESIS
Bachana Kuprashvili
Supervisor: Mgr. Hubert Smekal, Ph.D
UČO: 432430 Study Field: European Politics Year of enrolment: 2014
Brno, 2017
I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own independent scholarly work. All references contained within it have been correctly cited and the original authors acknowledged. No material other than that listed has been used.
Brno, 2017 Bachana Kuprashvili ………......
Annotation
The following paper sets out to make research about the democratization process of Georgia and the attitude of Mikheil Saakashvili’s government towards media. Despite the fact that Saakashvili was the starting point of democratic transition of Georgia, we must highlight the strong censorship and control of media during his presidency. During the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze who is known to be a non-democratic president, mass media was much freer than during the presidency of Saakashvili who created democratic institutions in the country and according to the many surveys, he was the creator of the first democratic steps in Georgia.
The research question of my master’s thesis is: Can Mikheil Saakashvili be viewed as a fully democratic president considering media freedom in Georgia during his presidency?
To better understand how the situation in the country has changed in past years, I will also review and analyze the attitude of Saakashvili's predecessor, Eduard Shevardnadze, towards media. My consideration is that due to the non-democratic political situation in Georgia and the non-existence of democratic institutions there, Shevardnadze’s main tactic was to ignore criticism of his practices, while in case of Mikhail Saakashvili the process of democratic transition, the existence of new democratic institutions and the goal of strengthening of international prestige stipulated the activation of strong censorship of mass-media as it was directly linked to domestic and international prestige and therefore to his portrayal as a competent leader.
Key words: Democratization, Democracy, Georgia, Mass media, Media freedom, Saakashvili
Contents
1 Introduction ...... 6
2 Research Methodology ...... 8
3 Freedom of Speech as a normative principle of media activities ...... 9
4 Relationship between free media and liberal democracy...... 12
4.1 Indications of free media in a democratic country ...... 13
5 Mind Control Theories ...... 16
5.1 Walter Lippmann ...... 16
5.2 Edward Bernays ...... 17
5.3 Sergei Guriev, Daniel Treisman ...... 19
6 Media market of Georgia ...... 20
6.1 Imedi ...... 20
6.2 Rustavi2 ...... 20
6.3 Other TV channels ...... 20
7 Georgia before the Rose Revolution ...... 22
8 The Rose Revolution in 2003 ...... 26
9 Georgia after the Rose Revolution ...... 29
10 Freedom of the media in Georgia ...... 34
10.1 Government of Georgia’s violent dispersal of Imedi Television ...... 37
10.2 Media Freedom Index ...... 40
11 Further media transformation during Saakashvili’s period ...... 43
11.1 Media picture construction of Eduard Shevardnadze and Mikheil Saakashvili ...... 46
11.2 Main instruments used against media ...... 50
11.3 Does Mikhail Saakashvili still interfere media? ...... 51
12 Interview with former State Minister of Georgia, Guram Absandze ...... 54
13 Media-censorship and its effect on domestic and international prestige as well as public opinion on government’s shortcomings ...... 57
14 Conclusion ...... 61
15 Annex ...... 64
16 List of References ...... 65
17 List of Graphs ...... 77
1 Introduction
“The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that is power. Because they control the mind of the masses”, - (Malcolm X, 2010, p. 199).
The media plays an important role in the political life of society. The role of media in a democratic political system is determined by how well it can understand and analyze the current processes and ensure the transparency of government’s activities. Currently in Georgia, mass media is one of the most important social institutions, therefore it ideally should contribute in the development of democratic steps of the country.
After the Rose Revolution, Mikheil Saakashvili and his young government began the country’s development. They are known as starting point of democratic transition of Georgia (Tatum, 2009). It seems to be mostly true in some aspects, but ultimately fails to be so as the government later started to control national media and imposed censorship on its content (Papava, 2006). As a result, many people were harmed as they tried to oppose the censorship and other undemocratic practices (Human Rights Watch, 2007). For a democratic country it is necessary have the freedom of speech and unbiased media (Barendt, 2005).
However, Saakashvili has used different approaches, which did not fall within the scope of democracy. November 7, 2007 is a clear example of Saakashvili’s government of Georgia not hesitating to violate freedom of the speech in the country by dispersing independent media channel “Imedi”, which used to serve as the main avenue for criticism of Saakashvili's policies. It is obvious that his party, “National Movement” has played significant role in the development of some liberal institutions and managed to change many things that led to the country’s prosperity. But, if we talk about the media and freedom of speech, in this regard the government acted undemocratically.
During the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze, situation was very different. He was known as corrupted and non-democratic president who has created the system which was anti-liberal (Stefes, 2008). Economically, country was in difficult situation and had a high rate of unemployment. It should be emphasized that country had several media channels and the government was trying to have an influence on it to cover the shortcomings of their political behavior. As we have already mentioned media was not free, but there were fewer incidents of violence against media representatives than during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili, who was called to be a starting point of democratic transition of Georgia (Kokashvili, 2014). For 6 this reason, I want to examine to which extent can be Mikheil Saakashvili viewed as a democratic president considering the media freedom situation during his presidency.
Great political and historical figures think, that those who control the media, control the whole country. Indeed, modern politics is connected to the mass media and they may influence each other (Street, 2010; Chomsky, 2002). Media creates a unique space for monitoring the political processes, so that is why it played an important role in the development of the country, especially after the “Rose Revolution”.
The thesis can be perceived as a review and research of both government’s actions in terms of democracy and freedom of media. I will start my work with a discussion of the importance of free media in liberal democracy. In like manner, I will name some of the theories which aim to form the opinions of country’s citizens and by doing so to control them. All of that by manipulating media and utilizing propaganda. In the second part of my thesis, I will discuss various media outlets in Georgia because it is necessary to have a general idea about those which had the biggest impact on the country’ society and were targeted as a result. Hereafter, I will speak about the Rose Revolution and post-rose revolution period that is considered a new stage of democracy. That is because Mikheil Saakashvili and his team of young fellow politicians were able to bring down the corrupted government of Eduard Shevardnadze and the successes they managed to achieve.
I will also speak about the government of Eduard Shevardnadze who was called to be a corrupted president of Georgia. I find it interesting to clearly reflect the reality of what was happening during that time. Additionally, we will look into how media transformed in the post- revolution period under the influence of the new government.
Another important part of thesis is the chapter utilizing an interview with the former state Minister of Georgia during Saakashvili period, Guram Absandze, who was also the Minister of Finance during the first president of Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Description of his experience is helpful in understanding the political situation in Georgia during the periods of both Shevardnadze as well as Saakashvili as he was still politically involved during these times.
I will try to analyze above mentioned facts and situation from the prism of democratic transition and media freedom.
7
2 Research Methodology
As it is indicated above, the main aim of my paper is to review and analyze the media situation in Georgia during the periods of Shevardnadze and Saakashvili. My research question of paper is: Can Mikheil Saakashvili be viewed as a fully democratic president considering media freedom in Georgia during his presidency?1
In order to make research I will use qualitative research methodology. I will analyze the importance of media freedom and freedom of speech for liberal democracies. In addition, I will identify the factors which are generally associated with liberal democracy to later compare them with the events in Georgia.
In the same fashion, I will utilize several of mind control theories to show the possible practices such as propaganda and censorship in mass media which lead to undemocratic situations in a country and connect those to the past political situation in Georgia. Informational theory of Guriev and Treisman (2015) will be of a particular importance for our research. I will try to test the theory by applying it to the situation of Georgia.
Additionally, I will analyze which media outlets were of the biggest importance during the periods of Shevardnadze and Saakashvili and whether some of those were under the influence of the government and in which way. I aim to depict in detail any evident manipulations and changes in media independency during these periods with an emphasis on the period of Saakashvili which was considered a starting point of democracy in Georgia.
Similarly, I will compare these two recent periods of Georgia in terms of their established level of democracy and media freedom by using data obtained from international non-governmental and nonprofit organizations such Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders or The International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX).
In addition to the objective data, I will try to gain more insight about the past political situation in Georgia by interview the former Minister of Finance during Gamsakhurdia’s period and the former State Minister of Georgia during the presidency of Mikhail Saakashvili – Guram Absandze. This interview will give me the chance to make comparison of two different periods from the person who was the participant of the most active political processes.
The abovementioned research methods will allow me to show to the readers the realistic state of media freedom in years 1995-2012 and explain them why it was more restricted during the presidency of Saakashvili rather than the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze.
1 A fully democratic president is the one who never during his rule violated any of the basic principles of democracy. In my thesis, I will focus mainly on the media freedom situation in the country. 8
3 Freedom of Speech as a normative principle of media activities
In order to better understand the specific problems, which Georgia experienced in terms of Media Freedom during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili, there is a need to highlight the meaning and importance of freedom of speech for its country in general.
There were several approaches established in XVII—XIX centuries, which emphasized that freedom of speech and the press should be the guardian of the interests of the citizens, not to allow the government to come up with a repressive mechanism. That time independent press has started to express the public opinion and to protect it from the government.
To elaborate on such approaches, we will highlight and discuss the representatives of early liberal theories, where the following authors provide us with arguments of the historical development of freedom of speech:
In XVII century, English polemicist and poet John Milton (1608 – 1674) made a theological argument for freedom of speech. God has given every person the possibility of independent thought. The limitations and restrictions caused by the censorship are against to God-given ability to choose independently evil or good. It is John Milton’s contents such as: market of ideas or the returning process to the truth. Anyone who has something to say should express freely and government shouldn’t interfere with this flood of opinions. It is possible that false opinion might obtain a temporary victory, but finally common sense will become a winner (Milton, 1918). Milton’s approach towards freedom can be explained by the great authority of religion during his period.
John Locke (1632 – 1704) was an English physician and philosopher who claimed that freedom of speech is very important. He has developed the theory of government’s division, which means that government is divided into executive, legislative and judicial branches. According to Locke, the will of people is the center of power and not the government. Humans are free to implement their rights. One of the natural right is freedom of the press and media (Tuckness, 2002, pp. 117,118,119).
We also need to mention an English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) who developed the first systematic account of utilitarianism. If we speak about the Utilitarianism in ethical- philosophical concept, we can say that the best are those governments and laws, which result in a happy life of its citizens. One of the important achievements of this tool is the press, which
9 is against the oppressive rule, controls elite’s activities and encourages government to create laws beneficial for people (Jeremy & Mill, 1987).
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) were both English philosophers and they both played a key role in the development of liberalism. Mill has named three reasons why there should be a free media in the country. Firstly, the information which is considered false by the government can be based on real facts, therefore censored information is “potential truth” carrier. Secondly, false information itself carries the seed of truth so that in order to find out the truth, it is necessary to fight with opposite opinion, which is not possible without free media. Finally, if truth is missing the criticism, it after some time will turn into a “superstition”. That’s why the media is an ally of the truth and cannot be censored (Cartwright, 2003).
The American founding father and the second president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826), has led above mentioned arguments to the source of North American states constitution, which is an example of liberalism. He considered a primary task of government to be establishing an atmosphere, in which person could implement the set of such objectives. In his opinion, some people might elude the truth but most of them will find a reasonable solution. It will happen, if the public is informed and developed. Thomas Jefferson considered media to be a main instrument of education and information. In 1787 he made a statement: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them” (P. Boyd, 1955, pp. 48-50).
These famous historical and political figures believed that the possibility to express personal opinion via media is the necessary condition in order to spread of public opinion. Despite their different arguments and their different backgrounds when it comes to religious or philosophical and political beliefs, they all agree that freedom of speech and independent press is a must. According to them, the society needs to have the option to decide themselves what is good or bad, therefore the pool of opinions should not be restricted by the government. Press should be the powerful tool of citizens for controlling the activities of the government, but not the other way, i.e. for government to manipulate their opinions. Because it is the educated citizens who should be in the center of power.
10
Although it is clear that this principle is beneficial for its country, leaders of some countries do not always share this belief. In this thesis, we will review the violation of this natural right and its possible exploitation by economically successful and seemingly democratic former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili. However, before we do so, we should better examine the role of free media in liberal democracy.
11
4 Relationship between free media and liberal democracy
Liberal theorists are of the view that democracy can thrive well if independence of press and print media is assured. Media has a central role toward generating freedom of expression. This aids in strengthening government’s accountability. A pluralist platform is provided by the free media where multiplicity of groups as well as interest is assured (McFaul, 2005).
In democracy basic guarantee of freedom of expression is given central importance. It is considered a basic human right. Everyone in a democratic system has a right of freedom of expression. Media is also free to hold opinions by receiving, seeking and imparting different kinds of information. The ideas of media are presented in a way that does not follow boundaries and frontiers. When transition from autocracy to democracy occurs, the focus is placed on the role of media. Press and television channels are given to private ownership and a great exposure to different kinds of cultural products is achieved. Multiple radio and television channels are encouraged with the diffusion of technology. Access is assured though various resources. When media liberalization is achieved second stage of democracy becomes stronger. Facilitation of greater transparency is seen in accountability if governance is assured. Media serves as a watch- dog to discourage malfeasance. Civic actors get a chance to express their opinion through multiple channels. This is the reason for which most of the observers are of the view that free press is valuable for good governance that goes hand in hand with liberal democracy (Burgess & Besley, 2001).
The role of free press in liberal democracy has been emphasized by a number of scholars including Besley and Burgess and Amartya Sen. In this context Amartya Sen writes that responsiveness of government toward public problems increases when media is free to report major incidents. On the other hand, restricted reporting makes this unclear. Government does not give special attention to public problems. Sen presents this argument by exemplifying the terrible story of famines. Countries with free media do not witness such famines. Higher newspaper circulation and a greater accountability make government conscious about current events. In liberal democracy when media is free the chances of responsiveness of government to the events of corruption and natural disaster are bigger. However, there are opposite examples as well. For instance, the impact of structure of media and the way it is practiced in a society is also of great importance. Cross national work on democratic institutions give rise to classic constitutional arrangement. Impact on party and electoral system is created. Several times role of institutions and media is neglected and information sharing is not done openly. Comparable
12 evidences are not brought in place. More than six dozens nations where democracy is prevalent strict rules are passed. Recent developments in statuary provisions in some countries limit the promotion of free media. Requirements of license registration and strict laws that govern ownership of television or radio channel have been brought in place. However this has negatively affected the patterns of information reach and availably of information (Sen, 1999).
In addition, democracy is dependent on citizens being able to shape the society in which they live and for this reason it is necessary for them to have the option to express themselves. The media is recognized as important and essential element of the democratic process. As we have mentioned above, media has an important democratic role in society, which means that precondition for the media in order to fulfill this function is independence from government control. It can also function as a watchdog, promoting transparency of the government and public analysis of those with power by bringing to light maladministration, corruption and corporate wrongdoing, which occurred during the presidency of Shevardnadze and mostly during the presidency of Saakashvili, because it was seen as a threat towards the government (Balkin, 1999).
Free press is needed to assure liberal democracy that is at the core of equitable development in a country. People who do not have a right of free expression will not be heard by anyone. Media is like a search light on corruption, a watchdog ensuring transparency, but it also might cover up such issues. Several case studies have also placed emphasize over the importance of free media and the way it helps countries move from autocracy to liberal democracy. Famous examples include countries like Georgia and Ukraine. Independent media remains the key component of liberal democracy. News is highlighted about several issues such as rigid voting, opposition movement and popular protests in the country. Internal community helps in strengthening the process of democratization through free media. Donor agencies, popular commentators and international community members are guided by media that help in establishing a liberal democracy (Belyakov, 2009).
4.1 Indications of free media in a democratic country To be able to make educated evaluation of Georgian governments’ approach towards media in their so called democratic transition of the country, we shall discuss some of the indicators of free media. According to European Commission the following media environment should exist in democratic society:
13
The media must be independent – it can be understood in different ways. For example, freedom from economic or political interests. Independence can be found in media which is public owned and which is with a clear public service remit and with an independent managing board.
- Media diversity and plurality – Citizens should have access to a different types of media, offline and online as it is the plurality of different choices and media platforms that prevents certain group in society monopolizing the expression of freedom. - Access to media – it terms of development context it is particularly important. It should be emphasized that marginalized and poor people must have an opportunity to communicate amongst themselves. We should make sure that information reaches as many people as possible and that these people have chance to use media channels that give them the voice (European Commission, 2012).
But, power of the media can be also enhanced if they have enough support from society. It suffers if a large amount of people are inaccessible to the media. According to Coronel, there are some initiatives which contribute to creating an environment which gives an opportunity to the media to be useful agent for deepening democracy:
1. Protection of Journalists – Journalists should be protected by laws. Courts should defend journalists’ rights to express freely, and adequately punish everyone who tries to harm them. There are several international groups who stress to defend rights of journalists for example: Article 19, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters sans frontières, the International Freedom of Expression Exchange and the International Federation of Journalists. They do their best to protect press rights. 2. Democratic Access – As we have already mentioned in order to make media effective, it should be accessible to a wide section of the citizens, in other case the only worsen the marginalization of social sectors. 3. Enhancing Media Accountability – The credibility of media as democratic institution is strengthened if it is accountable for public, ensure that professional and ethical standards are upheld and acknowledge their mistakes. 4. Building media capacity – In most of the countries, which have passed the democratic transition, it is widely understandable that the main factor that hobbles development of the media is the lack of skills. It should be emphasized that journalists have to learn how to write with insight and depth (CORONEL, 2003).
14
Finally, mass media should be independent from the government and should have liberal values, but a large number of capital is being contributed to the accumulation of a new, completely different mechanisms which impacts the relation of government’s power and media. This is different from the traditional meaning of the word “Media”. Thus, governments interfering in media activities is not the only problem, but it is also the uncontrolled growth of private capital in Media (Webster, 2004).
To sum it up, freedom of the speech is critically important for media activities and consequently for the democratic state of a country. When we talk about democratic country, it should be highlighted that here media plays a significant role. A role, which should be based on liberal values. If freedom of the speech is limited or totally restricted in a society, it means that country is not ready to be democratic entity. Georgia’s example will show that previous governments had different approaches towards the media. More precisely, it is necessary to describe the importance of this issue in details, which requires to use of variety of further facts and theories.
15
5 Mind Control Theories
Mass media has significant impact on society. The attitudes and moods of people are influenced by statements and messages, which are delivered through media channels. Television has been called to be the most influential media outlets in Georgia, which reflects culture of the country (Transparency International Georgia, 2009). It is interesting to find out how Saakashvili managed to restrict media. However, let’s discuss firstly what could be the main reasons that any government would intervene in media freedom at all.
Nowadays, in many countries that have passed a democratic transition, the media is very important in politics. Politicians often threaten journalists, not to broadcast their shortcomings and illegal actions such as the abuse of power and corruption, especially those uncovered. Sometimes they also take radical steps, using violence mechanisms, because in case of bad press, it might mean the end of politician’s career.
Mass media is the most powerful engine, which was used to some extent depending on the regime by the previous governments of Georgia to manipulate the masses. It influences and shapes attitudes and opinions and defines what is acceptable and normal. Mass media is designed to achieve the largest audience, which includes movies, radio, newspapers, books, magazines, video games, internet and of course television.
We have already discussed and agreed on the issue that freedom of media and freedom of speech is necessary for democracy. In fact, the country can’t be democratic if it will not have free media.
Mind control theories fit well to the topic of media freedom in Georgia. Thus, I will try to provide and compare the major thinkers of this theory to see which author’s opinion is the most suitable for the topic of the thesis and therefore explains my research question.
5.1 Walter Lippmann Walter Lippmann (1889 – 1974) was an American intellectual, reporter and writer who was one of the most respected political columnists in the world. He wrote a very influential and important book called “Public Opinion’’ (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, 2012).
In his book he compared crowd to a “great beast”, who needed to be managed by the government, elite class, which consisted of bureaucrats, experts and specialists.
Lippmann (1997) describes propaganda as a group of individuals who can block free access to the event. In order to suit their purpose, they are seeking to arrange the news of it. There should 16 be some kind of barrier between the people and the event to conduct a propaganda. There should be a limited access to the real environment. According to the author, propaganda and mass media are instruments which should be used by the government (elite), in order to rule the people, without any physical pressure.
Walter Lippmann presented an important concept called “Manufacture of consent’’. Which basically means a control of public opinion to accept the government’s agenda. This book is critical towards democratic government, often egotistic, social understanding that influence individual behavior.
He thought that the most of the crowd is not qualified to decide and to reason on important issues and that’s why it is important for governments to make a decisions themselves and then provide them to the public. This book shows that the specialized knowledge which is necessary for effective political decisions and increased power of propaganda have made impossible the notion of democracy (Lippmann, 2004).
5.2 Edward Bernays Edward Bernays (1891 – 1995), was called to be the “father of public relations’’. Indirect use of “third party authorities’’ was one of his favorite techniques for manipulating opinion of the public (New York Times, 1995).
According to Bernays (1928), manipulation of society was important and necessary. He agreed on Walter Lippmann’s opinion, where he considered general population to be dangerous and irrational as a result of herd behavior. The herd behavior means how group of people may behave collectively, without centralized direction (Trotter, 1921). Bernays argued that the invisible government must manipulate the masses in order to insure the survival of democracy:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country (Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, pp. 92,93).
He wrote a book about “Propaganda’’, where he argued that elite society should regiment the public mind. The responsibility of media, universities, and schools is to manipulate the opinions. In book it is mentioned that leaders don’t know how to lead and this can be considered as a big political problem in modern democracy. The mind of people is expressed by the voice
17 of the people and luckily, the clever and sincere political figure can, by the way of propaganda, to form and mold the will of the people. (Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, pp. 92,93).
According to the author, politicians understand the public. They know what the public will accept. Determining the objectives should be the first step in a political campaign. Every leader must be sure that he is an honest platform. Public must not consider lightly their promises and campaign pledges. If we talk about the media everything which presents words or pictures that people may see, all that demonstrates sounds which are intelligible, can be utilized in one way or another. During that time the author thought that politicians used the press, radio as means for furthering their ideas. Nowadays, television and the internet play important role as well.
He also provides the example of Czech-Slovakia, which instead of Sunday became a free state on Monday in 1918. Edward Bernays explains it that Masaryk understood that people would be more receptive to the announcement of freedom on Monday rather than on Sunday. They would receive more information on that day, because journalists would be more concentrated and willing to devote their time (Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, p. 108). Nothing similar happened in Georgia, because in my opinion politicians and journalists never paid much attention to the weekday.
The above-mentioned authors expressed their own media theories, which are unique and are based on reality that reigned in 20th century’s world. It should be emphasized that even nowadays, these theories do not lose its relevance and they fit well the most of government’s attitude towards media. It is well-known that in 20th century media outlets were limited, which means that it was still fresh in worlds market, but authorities have analyzed the fact that how important it is for them to manage and manipulate people. Although the reasons behind the manipulations back then might have been different than nowadays, it can be still well used for other reasons and to achieve different goals.
Ideas of these authors were groundbreaking and are still taught in schools. Because of the time which has elapsed since they published their books, we can see the difference between the politics of the 20th century and that of today. Nowadays, most of the countries are based on democratic values, which means that modern and democratic governments should allow media freedom and they should not stress to control public opinion as it was mentioned by Bernays and Lippmann. Generally, if the government presents a useful action plan to lead the country, if it has ambitious to bring success to the country and promote it internationally as a democratic state, then it should not have will to control the media. When media freedom is restricted, it
18 means that something is wrong. However, it is interesting to investigate the reasons behind the failure, because those mistakes give authorities a reason to restrict freedom of media by various means.
In 20th century, it was different, because democratic values were not presented as priority. This may explain the fact that above-mentioned authors considered Propaganda as necessary in order to manipulate the public opinion. Yet, it is still in conflict with the democratic and liberal values as viewed by for instance John Locke, Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill and as we view them nowadays.
5.3 Sergei Guriev, Daniel Treisman It is also interesting to introduce the ideas of recent scholars that are more relevant to the affairs in the 21st century. According to Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman (2015), a key point for a dictator to survive is to convince the public, that he is competent. If people think that their leader is incompetent, they will try to make a revolution and overthrow him. Nowadays, leaders can invest in censoring independent media, making convincing state propaganda or equipping police to repress attempted uprisings.
Besides blocking of specific programs and articles, censorship can include the control of the internet, hiring hackers to attack unwanted opposition websites, bribing media representatives to censor themselves and prosecuting those who refuse to do so.
Guriev and Treisman show us that incapable leaders might survive by manipulating the information atmosphere so long as economy is not in very bad condition in the country. Sometimes in information-based dictatorships, violence is a last resort when anything else failed. This is explained by incompetency. The competent leaders do not need to use repression. In case of repression, it ultimately results in his downfall (Guriev & Treisman, 2015).
Above-mentioned authors have expressed proper explanation for why the governments need to control media and public opinion. Based on those theories, especially the informational theory of Guriev and Treisman, we can explain many things in the behavior of Mikhail Saakashvili. However, in order to be able to answer my research question it is necessary to describe more of useful facts about Georgia such as its media market, history and media freedom to finally draw the parallels.
19
6 Media market of Georgia
TV market of Georgia is dominated mainly by Imedi and Rustavi2. These two television stations are the most viewed in Georgia. They take 80 – 85 % of all TV advertising revenues. We might partly explain the popularity of Imedi and Rustavi2 by their technical capability to reach approximately 96% of all Georgian citizens (Transparency International Georgia, 2016). Accordingly, we will begin the description of the media market in the country with these two.
6.1 Imedi TV Imedi was founded by businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili in 2003. During the anti- government events, which were happening in 2007, the channel was the most watched one in whole Georgia, because it was often criticizing former president Mikhail Saakashvili. After November 2007, it was expropriated from legal owner. From 2008, the channel was controlled by the government and Badri Patarkatsishvili’s family was returned the property in 2012 (ZOURABICHVILI, 2009).
6.2 Rustavi2 Rustavi2 was founded in 1994 by David Dvali, Erosi Kitsmarishvili, Nika Tabatadze and Jarji Akimidze. It was often criticizing the government of Eduard Shevardnadze and was the important media source used by the opposition in 2003, during the rose revolution. 10 years later in 2004, it was bought by Kibar Khalvashi, but that did not last long. Rustavi2 was again sold in 2006 to a Member of Parliament, David Bezhuashvili (Civil Georgia, 2007). Currently, the director of the station is Nikoloz Gvaramia, who was the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili.
6.3 Other TV channels The Georgian Public Broadcaster (TV channel 1) takes the third place. This channel has lack of financial and political independence, so that is the reason it is ineffective of actually serving the citizens as they are unable to provide them with unbiased and critical information and reporting.
There are many small TV channels, but the most popular in terms of political shows are Maestro and Kavkasia TV which can be broadcasted only in capital and maybe in few other towns (Transparency International Georgia, 2016).
20
To better understand the influence, which the previous governments had on media, and to be able to compare the influence between Shevardnadze’s and Saakashvili’s period, we will briefly discuss Georgia’s recent history and development.
21
7 Georgia before the Rose Revolution
Samuel Philips Huntington, a famous political scientist has written the book “Third wave of democratization in the late 20th century’’, where he outlined several democratization steps in world history:
1. The first wave of democratization started in the 19th century, which separates classical democratic countries: UK, North America, etc. 2. The second wave of democratization started in middle of 20th century. Which outlined the following countries: Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. 3. The third wave started in the end of 20th century, where we can see the post-soviet countries. Georgia is included in this wave (Huntington, 1991).
It should be emphasized that Georgia has faced many challenges to achieve the level of democracy that country has nowadays. Freedom and independence has always been a main priority.
Eduard Shevardnadze was elected as a president of post-soviet Georgia in 1995. His career as the second president of Georgia was definitely more challenging than his previous post as the minister of Soviet Foreign, because he had many enemies. When he resigned as Minister of foreign affairs, he played a key role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, but Shevardnadze was powerless to quell rebellion of Abkhazian separatist as countries local difficulties spread out its borders. The economy of the country, which was successful during the Soviet Union, weakened and it came close to collapse. At the same time, corruption and crime appeared which was devastating for everyone. Because of difficult economic background, people were facing lack of money, electricity, sometimes lack of water as well (Cohen, 2004).
At this time, Shevardnadze’s family became visibly richer and people saw this. As he had a lot of enemies, there was several assassinations attempts against him, but he survived (Daily Telegraph, 2014).
Eduard Shevardnadze influenced on Media, several TV channels were controlled by the government, where journalists faced self-censorship. Those that were privately owned stations were often threatened by the law enforcements. There were several violent facts, but none of them has been as serious as during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili, but I can also provide an example, which happened in 2001. The anchor of Rustavi2, Giorgi Sanaia was found killed under controversial circumstances. He was investigating corruption facts in Georgia. It was
22 widely believed that the case was politically motivated. That time Eduard Shevardnadze’s government promised to find the killer and later one citizen, Giorgi Khurtsilava, was arrested, but many Georgians and family members of the killed anchor were dissatisfied, because there was no true motive for this murder established by the court and there were many unanswered questions (Civil.Ge, 2003).
According to a report published by Amnesty International, reaction from official side before Mikheil Saakashvili’s period, i.e. during the time of Shevardnadze was not very prominent. They mainly adopted the tactics to ignore these people who kept opposite opinions. However, there were other instances when media personnel were harassed in response to the specific criticism they placed over government as well. Leading officials and most importantly president Shevardnadze was perceived as being hostile toward the media. Later in 2001, large demonstrations took place after the raid on Rustavi2 TV broadcasting station that was directed by Ministry of Security Georgia (Amnesty International Public Statement, 2017).
Because of the fact that people assumed that it was a political assassination, Eduard Shevardnadze made a statement in state radio saying: ”What we have here is a thoroughly out and targeted provocation, the goal of which to provoke instability, fear, distrust in society’’ (DOUGLAS, 2001, p. par. 4).
One might think that the murdering the journalist was planned in order to hide the crimes committed by public officials.
As for the foreign relations of the country, the first steps that led the further relations between NATO and Georgia was in 1994, when Georgia joined PFP program (NATO partnership for peace). Very soon Eduard Shevardnadze visited United States of America and implemented initial contacts with IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank. It should be emphasized that 1999 year was the period of important political achievements and developments. That time Georgia became the member of the World Trade Organization and the Council of Europe. Soon there was a Helsinki European Council meeting where there was a discussion about the possible inclusion of Romania, Turkey and Bulgaria in European Union, which meant that they were slowly considering the region of Black Sea as the territory of EU. During the OSCE summit meeting in Istanbul, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia have signed an agreement on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to transport the oil from Caspian region. Georgia also reached consensus with Russia, which meant that Russia took away its border guards from country. Georgia is a small country and it was very important to achieve political
23 and economic stability. It was also important to achieve internal social cohesion. In order to make effective foreign policy of the country, above mentioned preconditions are necessary. There were internal contradictions and weaknesses which made a huge negative impact on foreign policy. In order to have successful foreign policy, stable internal atmosphere is very important (Rondeli, 2001, pp. 198,199).
During the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze, when the different media channels and newspapers were spreading negative information against politicians, there was no significant reaction from government’s side except for the attempt to shut down independent and anti- government Rustavi2 and the suspicious death of Sania. Shevardnadze himself has not criticized nor responded to them. Everything suggest that government’s main tactic was to ignore the criticism. We should highlight that there were some examples of journalists being harassed, but concerted persecution campaign took place. However, as the government’s notoriety was diminished, president and other authorities turned hostile towards the media. In 2003, Rustavi2 TV channel, which was criticizing often the government, was targeted by a campaign of government for discretization (Kokashvili, 2014).
Mass media’s political spectrum aimed to gravitate towards two political poles, executive and legislative authority. Executive authority was often under the critics of media and legislative had more sympathy of the media.
Eduard Shevardnadze made the following statement in 1999:
“Georgia’s one of the biggest achievements has been free mass-media. I am the guarantor of the constitution and democracy as the president of the country, and I will not give an opportunity anyone to put pressure upon the mass media’’ (Kokashvili, 2014, p. 221). Yet he had said that, as shown above two years later in 2001, his government was under suspicion because of the unclear murder of Rustavi2 anchor, Sanaia (Civil.Ge, 2003). Despite this fact, Shevardnadze continued his policy to ignore the criticism which eventually led to his downfall in 2003. The informational theory of Guriev and Treisman (2015) can explain this downfall as a result of Shevardnadze’s non-restrictive approach to media and his belief that media should be free. Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for the nation of Georgia, Guriev and Treisman correctly assumed that if incompetent leader does not interfere with media outlets and freedom of speech, the citizens will try to overthrow him. Finally, it did happen. Jeremy Bentham might think it had happened because citizens only view the best governments as those which result in their
24 happy life (Jeremy & Mill, 1987). Moreover, the option for people to read and hear about the activities of Shevardnadze contributed to this downfall.
The media, especially Rustiav2 were clearly pointing out Shevardnadze’s government shortcomings and inability to lead the country so it would prosper as it could have. This was in sharp contrast with the fact that Shevardnadze himself was actually getting richer while the citizens poorer (Daily Telegraph, 2014). All of this escalated in 2003 during the election period. At that point, if should he had followed the opinions of Lippmann (1997) and Bernays (1928) and stepped in to control the “beast” by controlling the media he might have sustained his position for a bit longer. However, he chose to not interfere with natural right that people should have the God-given ability to choose themselves evil or good as described by Milton (1918). The nation of Georgia chose to go for potentially better government led by Mikheil Saakashvili.
25
8 The Rose Revolution in 2003
Mikhail Saakashvili was the third president of Georgia from 2004 till 2007 and from 2008 till 2013. In 2000, he became the Minister of Justice and one year later came into direct opposition with Eduard Shevardnadze. Consequently, a new political party called United National Movement was founded by Saakashvili, which started an active campaign against Shevardnadze’s government (Fuller, 2015).
In order to better understand the impact of Saakashvili’s government on media and democratization process in the country, we should start our discussion with a peaceful change of government which happened in November 2003. A change which is called the Rose Revolution.
We should emphasize that in 2003 people in Georgia were not satisfied with Shevardnadze’s corruption facts and results of parliamentary elections. The results of the elections, which were announced before the mass protests were following: Eduard Shevardnadze and his bloc took the first place and National Movement got the second one. It should be highlighted that Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe was one of the main monitoring representative, which announced information regarding the violation of facts and aimed pressure on the media. Rustavi 2 was the independent TV channel in 2003, which was a key media ally for the National Movement party. This channel was often criticizing the regime of Eduard Shevardnadze and it was recognized as the most important and popular media tool in Georgia at that time (Anable, 2006; Civil Georgia, 2003).
The main question is: Why has this channel started antigovernment campaign? We might think that the reason was regime of Shevardnadze’s corruption and unfair practices, such as unclear investigation of the murder of the Rustavi2 anchor, Sanaia. We have already discussed this case in previous chapter of my paper, where we talked about possible motives, which can be considered a main reason of murdering the journalist. That is why Rustavi2 is called to be one of the main factors, which helped opposition parties to reach their goal by using their coverage to spread antigovernment announcements and investigative shows, which influenced on people and finally affected Eduard Shevardnadze’s regime.
It should be emphasized that despite the fact that Shevardnadze’s main tactic was to ignore the criticism, government still tried several times to make some influence on this channel. It managed to survive, because this channel was operated out of Tbilisi. The Eurasia Foundation and U.S. Agency for international development sometimes protected and financially supported
26 the channel. As for the other TV channels such as “Mze” and “Imedi”, they were spreading political processes of Georgia more objectively (Anable, 2006).
Rose Revolution in 2003, is considered to be a democratic transition period. It was the first bloodless change of power in Georgia, factors some of which were already discussed above. Nevertheless, to sum up everything, these are the key factors:
• The regime: Tolerant to the medias presentation of government issues, Unpopular and visibly weak. • The elections: Transparent Fraud • Leaders of opposition: United, credible and decisive • External pressures • Security forces were passive (Welt, 2005, p. 1)
The ruling party of Georgia was very weak, thus was not able to prevent the revolution. It was facing criticism from local media, performed very poorly and there were allegations that they manipulated the election results. Eduard Shevardnadze’s government had a lack of will to have a different approach rather than ignorance, for example, he did not use force against political opponents and protestors in 2003. The elections were one of the main reasons which led to the collapse of the government. Mikheil Saakashvili and his supporters got the possibility to rush the parliament building and force Shevardnadze to resign. This revolution emphasized a central paradox of electoral breakthroughs and the lesson is the following: Revolutions which are democratic need the emergence of conditions properly within the country, as much as they need the revolutionaries who are dedicated to their mission (Welt, 2006).
In 2003, Georgian mass media became deeply involved in political events, which meant abandoning its role of a neutral observer. As we have already mentioned, the opposition representatives were using television broadcast as a tool to get some political support from people. After the parliamentary and presidential elections, almost all mass media revealed external guiding hands or political allegiances (Sumbadze, 2009; Lincoln, 2004). It should be emphasized that immediacy of coverage of events and passionate focus of attention produced an impact on the political outcome and a massive public response. Georgian government became more repressive against the media because the elections were approaching. That time the number of attacks, abuses or similar incidents on Media representatives increased. The broadcasts of political debates were proposed to be banned 50 days before the Election Day by the Central Election Commission. It should be emphasized that during the same year, three new
27
TV channels were launched: TV Imedi, TV 202 and TV Mze. The competition for viewers immediately increased. It was obvious that these TV channels were established to shape public discourse before the elections. TV channel Mze established later but before the election, which had pro-government programming (Kokashvili, 2014).
As the parliamentary and presidential elections were under its way, more than 250 foreign journalists covered the elections. It was noted that in the electronic and print media, attention was mainly focused on Mikheil Saakashvili. Georgia’s television channels increasing political militancy was visible on the election’s development. When there were last days of opposition, the leader of “National Movement”, Mikhail Saakashvili blocked the building of Channel 1. His official demand was that everything what was happening at the house of government should have been broadcasted live. Georgia mass media, TV channels, newspapers, radios became so active in the political processes that traditional role of a neutral observer was almost abandoned. All political, opposition leaders used TV channels as a tool to have communication with public. The live broadcasting of events had significant impact on the political outcome (Kokashvili, 2014). The outcome was that the nation of Georgia chose seemingly competent and democratic leader Mikheil Saakashvili followed by his party.
28
9 Georgia after the Rose Revolution
Following the revolution, Georgia’s relation with the Russian Federation turned strained, because Saakashvili’s government wanted to build a state based on democratic values. They wanted to resolve the conflicts with Russia and aspired to become the member of NATO. It should be emphasized that the success and security of Georgia was very important for western countries, especially for the United States because even this small country presents a strategic key in the possibility of transporting energy resources of Eurasia. Georgia is also an access for western countries to Afghanistan and Central Asia (Cornell, 2007).
After the Rose Revolution, expectations were high as it was perceived as a fresh start for country to build on democratic values. It was a hope of economic and social development and freedom. First few years were known as the period of active reforms and radical changes, which has caused positive and also negative effects on the country. According to Tsikhelashvili (2007), the following were the major achievements of the new government, some of which were also supported by the West:
• Fight against the corruption, crime and smuggling • Reforming the educational system, which was old Soviet-Styled • Increasing and modernizing the national army • Reform of Police • Stable energy supply was provided • Roads and infrastructure were repaired • Started new era of economic reforms • Liberalization by lowering taxes • Turn atmosphere suitable for foreign investments
As we can see, the first start can be considered full of successful steps by the government which positively affected on Georgia’s democratization process. Indeed, Saakashvili’s government has made the country stronger than it was during the period of Eduard Shevardnadze.
Moreover, the improvement of the economic situation in the country can be seen in the following graph, which consists of data obtained from (World Bank, 2017):
29
Figure 1 - World Bank GDP per capita in Georgia
9000 8026 8000 7315 6598 7000 582661566054 6000 4985 4365 5000 3808 3456 4000 3012 246525872793 3000 22252341 16731943 2000
GDP per capita (USD) capita per GDP 1000 0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Year
Shevardnadze Saakashvili
According to this graph, Georgia’s economy had a significant increase during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili. This indicator was the highest in 2012, but it also should be noted that the annual growth decreased slightly during years 2008 and 2009, which was likely due to the global economic crisis. As we can see above, although there was not a decrease in GDP during the period of Eduard Shevardnadze, the GDP was growing only slowly.
It should be highlighted that there was implemented easier permitting and licensing procedures. It was very easy to start a new business as government was providing low taxes and less procedures. The country also gained some new international partners. One of the most important one was the United States, which helped country to promote the democracy. The former president of United States, George Bush always supported Georgia’s integration in NATO.
New political elite has formed one of the youngest governments and started to build and modernize the country. Young leaders, because of their luck, skills and excellent PR have managed to promote country in international level. The main aim was to be the member of European Union and NATO, but it was not that easy. Despite the fact that government’s goals were acceptable for the most of Georgian citizens, changes have caused negative results. For example Mikheil Saakashvili was dismissing and appointing ministers very often, almost every month, which caused negative impact on long-term goals. The government’s security and state institutions have been weakened.
These were mostly the major positive steps of the government of Georgia. However, we should also have a look at the level of democracy in country during the period of Mikheil Saakashvili.
30
There is a democracy index of Georgia provided by Freedom House. It is determined by the following areas: Electoral Process, National Democratic Government, Civil Society, Independent Media, Corruption, Local Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence. You can see the statistic of the following years (1999-2012) below (Freedom House, 2017):
Figure 2 - Democracy Score of Georgia 7
6 4,96 4,93 4,93 4,83 4,83 4,86 4,68 4,79 4,86 4,82 5 4,58 4,17 4,17 4 3,5
3
2
1
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 DemocracyScore (1 = Best,Worst) 7 = Year
Shevardnadze Saakashvili
Unfortunately, Freedom House do not have a data about Georgia until 1999, but it still covers 5 years of Shevardnadze’s presidency. As we can see, according to this graph (Figure 4), which is provided above, Georgia hasn’t made any significant changes in its way of democracy throughout the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili. However according to these scores, Shevardnadze’s period has been given better points than Saakashvili’s. This country is called to be a hybrid regime, which second name is illiberal or partial democracy (Rekhviashvili, 2012).
Despite the fact that during those years there were no significant changes in the road of democracy, we can say that it was still successful for Georgia. That is because if we compare it to previous regimes, situation has significantly improved.
During the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili, we will show that authorities were always somehow trying to own and control Georgian media in order to control public opinion. The ideas behind manipulating people’s opinion and the possibility to do so were already depicted in anti-democratic approaches to media by Lippmann (1997) and Bernays (1928). Saakashvili’s government thus correctly realized that media could have significant impact on society and
31 oppositions could use it for their personal aims. The media is always influential, especially during the pre-election period. We can say that media was polarized.
That can be shown on the most popular TV stations, Imedi and Rustavi2. “Imedi” since acquisition by Georgian government in 2008 as well as “Rustavi2” were pro-governmental tools, which were nationwide and TV Maestro and Kavkasia were called to be opposition- oriented stations, but they have not hade nationwide coverage, which positively affected on Georgian government, because they did not want whole Georgia acted under the influence of opposition. This is in conflict with the media environment which should exist in a democratic country as discussed above. That is, according to European Commission (2012) and Coronel (2003), all citizens should have access to variety of media channels to prevent one certain group from monopolizing the freedom of expression.
Another TV channel was Georgian Public Broadcaster which consisted of “independent” Board of Trustees and these people were appointed by the president Saakashvili but majority of them were pro-governmental representatives. I would like to share my personal experience with this channel. I was working there as a journalist in 2010, when I came across a lot of injustice. Every week we had to prepare the youth TV show on various topics, but we were never allowed to prepare show about the politics or about the issue, which would harm the government. Once we asked our producer what was the reason of this. Her answer was the following “Bachana, I am pretty sure that you want to work with us for a long time isn’t it right’’?
I have understood everything from her words, that Georgian Public Broadcaster, which should have been independent, was influenced by the government and from that day our team was making TV shows, which covered all the issues except politics. Furthermore, before the show, our producer always carefully monitored video materials. They wanted to make sure that everything was fine and there was nothing which would harm the prestige of the government.
Professor Nino Shoshitashvili (2010) describes Government’s successful or unsuccessful actions with respect to the television:
Successful actions:
1. Reorganization of ‘Public Broadcasting’: “First Channel” was transformed into a public television. It was composed of independent Board of Trustees Experts, however of a small size. Gia Chanturia was appointed as Director.
32
2. TV channel “Maestro” was granted the license to broadcast political programs after its ban in 2007. 3. Step by step, political talk shows started to restore. 4. “First Caucasian Channel” was created.
Unsuccessful actions:
1. After the rose revolution, 11 televisions out of 12 (except “Caucasus channel”) have been deprived of broadcasting license or their owners were changed. Holders were replaced by those people who were close to the government. 2. The influence on televisions was established by the government. 3. National Regulatory Commission has become too politicized. Their decisions were politicized and completely biased. 4. All actions which were taken towards the TV channel “Imedi” were unsuccessful 5. Media pluralism was reduced. 6. The investigative political programs were cancelled. 7. TV channels have not highlighted the issues which weren’t politically profitable for the government (Shoshitashvili, 2010, p. 100).
President Mikhail Saakashvili started his democratic movement by pledging that his government would protect freedom of press within the country. Georgia has a conservative view of media and most of the media houses and television station are state owned. Many of them are for profit and are in desire of good ties with the government. During the first period of presidency, Mikhail Saakashvili showed his will to give protection to media and argued that anyone putting pressure on media would be regarded as his own enemy. The central point of his reforms was press and electronic media’s autonomy. Media should give authentic a comprehensive and true picture to people. New mass media reforms of Saakashvili created environment where journalists could disclose secrets and stimulate change in existing social system. However, this happened to swing the other way in the following years with its major turning point in 2007 (Human Rights Watch, 2016).
33
10 Freedom of the media in Georgia
According to Freedom House (2017), the statistic is following:
Figure 3 - Press Freedom in Georgia 100 90 80 70 60 60 59 56 57 57 55 60 53 54 54 52 49 47 48 50 40
30 Press Press Freedom Score 20 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year
Press Freedom Score (0 = best, 100 = worst)
Figure 4 - Political Enviroment in Georgia 40 35 29 27 27 28 Score 30 26 26 23 25 22 21 21 20 20 18 19 20 15 10
PoliticalEnviroment 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year
Political Enviroment (0 = best, 40 = worst)
Despite the fact, that press is not fully free in Georgia, but actually only “partly free” as per Freedom House, it counts to be the freest in the south Caucasus. It should be emphasized that political influence still has been a major problem (Freedom House, 2017).
34
In the above-shown charts (figure 1 and figure 2), we can see the statistics of freedom of the press as measured by Freedom House, an independent organization with a goal of expansion of freedom and democracy in the world. For example, in 2002-2003, during the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze, index had a better indicator than Saakashvili’s period. What we can explain is that media was less pressured by the government. After 2003, which is the year when Mikheil Saakashvili was elected president of Georgia, we see how the index deteriorates.
The worst situation was in 2007, 2006 and 2009. The political crisis which was in 2007 negatively affected on Georgia’s democratic image. The environment of media was politicized and pro-government channel like Rustavi2 was providing positive coverage of Mikhail Saakashvili. It used to show rather positive facts about Saakashvili than his shortcomings. Control over the media increased by the government in 2008. At that time, TV Imedi was already under the influence of Mikhail Saakashvili after its expropriation from its legal owner. Then, he started to influence on other channels as well. For example, Maestro channel, which was covering only the capital of Georgia and nearby cities, was banned to make any political programs. Despite the fact that Maestro won the court, it still was not making any news programs till the end of the year. Another TV channel, Georgian Public Broadcaster was governed by the board which was adopted by the parliament (Freedom House, 2017; Transparency International Georgia, 2016).
Saakashvili announced a “new wave of democratic reforms’’ in 2008, because he acknowledged that the lack of media freedom is a huge challenge for democracy of the country. He emphasized that government would not influence on private TV channels (Transparency International Georgia, 2016).
After 2009, we see that Press Freedom and Political environment scores are improved, but it does not necessarily mean that authorities were not making pressure towards media. It should be highlighted that improvement was evident, which meant that government tried not to take any radical decisions regarding media and they tried to show less violence towards journalists. Despite the fact that during the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze, authorities were also trying to influence on media, we see the above mentioned data that press freedom and political environment score was better in his period than during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili.
As I have already mentioned, many times the government of Mikheil Saakashvili was trying use more radical measures for example: Raiding Televisions or intimidation of journalists (Mchedlidze, 2008). They were generally against all media such as newspapers, Radios, TV
35 channels and so on, but the authorities were particularly cruel towards TV channels. As for the newspapers, Georgian press has been always freer than television. During the regime of Saakashvili and Shevardnadze, most of the newspapers were untouched and they were spreading fair and objective information across the whole country. The focus on TV broadcasting can be explained by the fact that it is actually considered to be the most influential mass media outlet in the country (Transparency International Georgia, 2009).
Correspondingly, in 2009, Caucasus research resource center confirmed the unique role of television in the life of Georgians. They made an important and in-depth research of Georgian media, which aimed to study the citizen’s attitude towards all kinds of media. According to their data, 47% of respondents in Georgia partially or fully trust the media. By comparison, 43% trust the media in Azerbaijan and 39% in Armenia. Most importantly, Georgians are considerably active consumers of news programs. 84% of respondents watch TV news every day, most of them from half an hour till 2 hours. Despite the fact that TV is the most important source to gain the information, 86% of respondents are reading daily newspapers at least once a month, while 80%, magazine. In addition, 33% receive information from radio and 12% from internet (Caucasus Research Resource Center, 2009).
As we have already mentioned this research was made in 2009, when president Saakashvili was ruling the country. After that situation internet usage has significantly improved. Internet access has streamlines communication and access to information. According to data which was provided by the Caucasus research resource center in 2012, it is increased the number of people living in the capital and villages who use the internet on a daily basis (Turashvili, 2013).
It has been long time since the Georgian media has been the part of intense debates and presented a political controversy. As we have already mentioned, according to ‘Press freedom index’, this country has the best indicator in region, but there are still many major problems in this area. The president Saakashvili, during his presidency, emphasized that situation in Georgian media was a big challenge and also Western politicians, who were visiting the country always mentioned and advised to strengthen the independence of Media (Civil.Ge, 2008).
Georgian media landscape is varied and rich with events. Very often it is perceived as a conductor of biased sources of information of a particular political group and not as an impartial provider. It has a long story in Georgia, where the television channel Rustavi-2 is seen as the most important factor of 2003 Rose Revolution. Later, when there was a political crisis in 2007, television channel Imedi was in the epicenter of political events.
36
That is in line with the research outcomes of Transparency International Georgia and the Caucasus research resource center depicting TV as the most influential and important tool of Georgian media. As we have learnt previously, free media and their outlets voicing shortcomings of Shevardnadze led to his downfall and now there was TV Imedi in the epicenter. According to Guriev and Treisman (2015), an undemocratic leader should step in to preserve a positive image of himself as competent even if that should include equipping police to repress attempted uprisings. So as happened in November, 2007.
10.1 Government of Georgia’s violent dispersal of Imedi Television Imedi Media Holding, which consists of a television as well as radio, were founded in 2003 by Georgian businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili, who later became involved in active political activities and opposed the government of Michael Saakashvili. That time Imedi channel was the major outlet for criticism of the former government (Transparency International Georgia, 2016).
It should be emphasized that Badri Patarkatsishvili used his wealth to support the candidacy of Michael Saakashvili in 2003, during the rose revolution, because he saw that Eduard Shevardnadze’s grip was decreasing. A few years’ later relations between Saakashvili and Patarkatsishvili deteriorated and they became bitter opponents. Former president claimed that the businessman was attempting to have control over business sphere in Georgia. Patarkatsishvili believed that the reason for Saakashvili making such statements was the TV Imedi, which was giving coverage to opposition parties of Georgia (Daily Telegraph, 2008).
The situation in country was escalating. Demonstration began in September 2007 without any major complications between police and protesters. This demonstration was organized by the alliance of opposition parties. Their demand was early elections and justice in politics (Walker, 2007).
On November 7 police started to ask citizens to clear the street. In case of disobedience, they would use all legal measures. Following the warning, riot police started to violently disperse the demonstration. At first, they started firing bursts of water, which was not enough to break up the demonstration, because people there were courageous, dedicated and motivated enough to defend their interests. Soon the riot police began to use more violent methods. They were firing teargases and rubber bullets into the people. It should be emphasized that rubber bullets might have deadly affect and according to UN basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officers, ”law enforcement officials mustn’t use firearms against persons
37 except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury” (Human Rights Watch, 2007).
Following the use of rubber bullets and tears gas, police immediately started to disperse protestors on Rustaveli Avenue. They started to smash the cameras, especially they tended to smash the cameras of Imedi TV. They were using threatening language, which were directed to Badri Patarkatsishvili, because he was financing many opposition parties in Georgia. For example, Levan Tabidze, journalist of Imedi TV was attacked by the law enforcements and they were shouting at him that the reason was that he was the employee of Imedi (Human Rights Watch, 2007).
It was approximately 20:45, when hundreds of police officers armed with automatic guns went to conquer Imedi TV. They had received this order from the government. It should be emphasized that at that time there was a live transaction of news program and frightened journalists were waiting for law enforcements during the live program. The entire Georgia was watching it and everyone were shocked.
Soon hundreds of troops forcefully entered the building and detained some representatives from parliament who were preparing for live broadcast. They have also detained approximately 300 staff members of Imedi TV, entered into a room, where journalist Giorgi Targamadze was having a live broadcast and forced the station off the air. (Human Rights Watch, 2007)
Before police entered the room, Giorgi Targamadze, anchor of TV Imedi, managed to ask government not to be any violence from their side, because journalists were not going to maintain resistance. He also asked international organizations and embassy’s to do their best to give an opportunity to Georgian citizens to allow them to live a normal life. As soon as he finished this sentence, troops entered the room and turned off the air. (Palitra TV, 2012)
Soon journalists were forced to leave the building, but soon after riot police started to launch tear gas and shot rubber bullets. One of the famous anchor of Imedi, Inga Grigolia was running with her colleagues towards the hospitals. They have found a random apartment building, where people helped them to call an ambulance. Inga Grigolia spent whole night in the hospital (Human Rights Watch, 2007).
The announcement, which was made by the Ministry of Interior, caused irritation among the people. In their statement, it was obligatory to make the dispersal of crowds. According to the
38 government, those who were gathered outside represented a threat because the people would begin attack on government buildings (Dolidze, 2010).
Seventh of November, 2007 was the day of government’s inability to create a safe environment for its citizens. On that day, Georgia’s prestige as a democratic country was significantly undermined. There were cases of violating human rights, banning the freedom of speech and literally those values, which are directly related to democracy were significantly shaken. This has proved that the government is unable to steer the democratic mechanisms in the country.
In my opinion, every state should be able to maintain balance and do their best not to harm its own citizens. I have witnessed this dispersal and things that were going on Rustaveli Avenue were indeed terrible. Police had lost humanity. They treated their own citizens, like enemies. The biggest irritation was caused by Rustavi 2 which was controlled by the government. The TV was doing their best to “color’’ the truth. Many violence facts were not shown and remained hidden.
After the dispersal, Imedi TV was shut down for several weeks because government has suspended its license. Rustavi 2 has taken advantage of this moment, which meant the following, within next few weeks they were trying their best to spread information which was in favor of the government. Their main target were those people who lived in regions, because many people living there have not had access to the internet and more or less had a lack of resources to learn the truth. Such practices can be explained by Guriev’s and Treisman’s (2015) idea that the leaders should engage in deceiving the large public by investing in propaganda to portray themselves as competent leaders and convince the public about that to prevent their downfall.
In like manner, we should emphasize that government illegally confiscated Badri Patarkatsishvili’s Imedi Television in 2007 and his family was returned the property only 5 years later in 2012, when a new government was elected in Georgia. His family made the following statement: “we are very glad to have reached an agreement with current owners of Imedi TV to transfer the ownership to us. We will do our best to make this television highly professional and fair’’ (Tabula, 2012, p. Par:2).
During the period of 2008-2012, media holding “Imedi’’ was controlled by the government.
39
10.2 Media Freedom Index In order to discern how free, the media was during Saakashvili and Shevardnadze’s rule, it is necessary to show and discuss the facts and researches that reflect the situation of these former presidents of Georgia.
One study is presented by “Reporters Without Borders (RSF)” that promote and protect freedom of the press and freedom of information. Since 2002 this organization has started to publish an annual ranking of countries, The Press Freedom Index, that give us the general picture about the state of Georgian media in throughout different years. It is determined by pooling the responses of experts to a questionnaire prepared by “Reporters Without Borders”. This analysis includes quantitative data on facts of violence against media representatives during the period evaluated. It is based on the following indicators: Pluralism, environment and self- censorship, Media independence, Transparency, legislative framework, abuses and infrastructure. (Reporters Without Borders, 2002).
Figure 5 - The media freedom index of Georgia 100 90 80 70 60 50 38 40 31,25 27,5 30 25,17 27
MEDIA FREEDOM INDEX FREEDOM MEDIA 21 20,33 17,33 18,83 20 10 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011-2012 YEAR
The media freeom index of Georgia (0 = best, 100 = worst)
Figure 5 - The media freedom index of Georgia (2003-2012) (Reporters Without Borders, 2003-2012)
Unfortunately, “Reporters Without Borders“ do not have a data about Georgian press freedom until 2003 which was the last year of Eduard Shevardnadze’s presidency during the 8-year long period. According to this graph, the best media freedom index was actually recorded exactly in 2003, when the Rose Revolution took place in Georgia and Mikheil Saakashvili came to rule
40 the country in the following year instead of Shevardnadze. This can be explained by the “Rose Revolution” which occurred in November 2003, when media channels/press, especially Rustavi2 were independent and supported Saakashvili and his party. According to this graph since 2003, when Mikheil Saakashvili was already a president of Georgia, index rate had a highest indicator which means that media started to be less free. The worse situation was in 2011 and 2012, which was the last years of Saakashvili’s presidency.
It needs to be emphasized that after the elections, during the Rose Revolution period, media did not suffer from harassment from the authorities. As there is no evidence of the same restrictive practices, we can say that it was significantly freer and Eduard Shevardnadze did not try to restrict the freedom of speech. We can say that the media were the main contributor to the Revolution as you can see in the following statements about the Revolution and the media’s role in it (LINCOLN, 2004).
According to Georgian social scientist, Ghia Nodia: “One can say in an assured manner that there would have been no Rose Revolution without media freedom.” (Nodia, 2004, p. 120).
Similarly, then president Mikheil Saakashvili gave credit to the role of media as well: „Rustavi- 2“Channel was very important and instrumental…Majority of students who came out on the streets were influenced by this channel.” (Saakashvili, 2005, p. 25)
After 2003, the Press Index has grown significantly in the following year of 2004, however it kept decreasing a year by year. It is important to highlight the situation of 2007 when Georgian Demonstrations took place in Tbilisi. We will speak about it in details in another chapter, but it is necessary to note that this event was during the year when Saakashvili’s government showed the most cruelty towards mass media. It was for example a violent dispersal of protestors in Tbilisi using water cannons and gas equipment and a raid on Imedi Television by shutting down their broadcasting (Human Rights Watch, 2007). This can be counted as a main reason that Reporters Without Borders assessed Georgia’s index as 20.83.
The following year of 2008 was the year when Russia-Georgia conflict happened, which was likely to have serious effects on security dynamics in the country and beyond. During this period, media was free and intact. There was no need to influence the media’s content as they focused on the common enemy, i.e. Russian invaders. In August, Russia started air attacks throughout Georgia and their troops moved to and started the occupation of South Ossetia (Nichol, 2009).
41
As we can see from the graph above, 2009 was the year when Mikheil Saakashvili’s government had the lowest Index indicator during his presidency. This can be explained by the fact that the country was not in a war with Russia anymore and at the same time political tension within the country occurred again. In order to prevent the public from learning about these issues, the government continued to have an impact on the news media (Reporters Without Borders, 2009).2
2 Because of the fact that there is no Media Freedom Index until 2003, it is difficult to make certain conclusions about Shevardnadze’s period. In order to show the reader what was the situation of media during his presidency, I decided to make a survey that will help us to better understand this issue. It is very important to examine the people’s opinion when it comes to what they think about freedom of media during Shevardnadze’s period. More than two hundred (N = 202) citizens of Georgia participated in this survey by submitting their answers via Facebook as well as Gmail. They have been asked the same question: What do you think, in what period was the Georgian Media Freedom Index higher?
According to the survey, absolute majority 158 (78.2%) out of 202 people think that during the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze Media Freedom Index was higher than during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili. These people were also asked to name one fact that made the most negative impact on media freedom. The majority of them named the November 7 event that occurred in 2007, when Saakashvili’s government made a violent dispersal of protestors and raid on Imedi Television. It needs to be highlighted that closing TV Imedi was a violation of Georgia’s commitments to guaranteeing freedom of expression (Human Rights Watch, 2007).
42
11 Further media transformation during Saakashvili’s period
As long as media freedom is concerned, in former socialist’s countries including Georgia socialist’s letter of law prevails. According to this, media had some conscious obligations toward public and society at large. Even in democratic countries it is well established that media has to carry-out its activities in a responsible and conscious manner. However, in many western democratic states this issue has been highlighted several times. There media does not always meet the demands of policy makers and political personalities. Several times their scandals are shared and serious economic and political developments are discussed. Criticism is also directed openly toward leading authorities in these countries. According to Amnesty international report (2017), if it is said that media is completely independent and free in post revolution Georgia then it would not be true. There are other influences as well. Market consequences seem to be in action and government’s regulations are sometimes considered illegal. What succeeds in profit terms is not emulated if actions are shaped according to already set rules. As the market economy of Georgia has remained unsettled, mass media also has struggled finding media and people who are interested in watching television shows and reading newspapers. This has given rise to the trend of ‘commissioned journalism’ where journalists are paid and given a chance to discredit opponents. In such a situation it is not difficult to find environmentally directed publication that is politically frustrated at the same time. In this scenario media is able to sustain public options according to their will while completely ignoring certain important events. Here, the chances of comparison of point of views of both parties without bias are low. Media is unable to settle social, economic and political realities in Georgia even after privatization of some media resources (Amnesty International, 2017).
A series of journalist scandals became in the limelight that also included the arrest of co-owner of 202 Tv Channel Shalva Ramishvili in 2005. He was accused of beating journalist Saba and doing controversial investigation of city of Goris. Both of these incidents were brought in the limelight more by opposition newspapers. Additionally, it was presented as a fault of inquisitive journalists and tolerance of government toward them which allowed this to happen. However, on the other hand, observers believed that most of the blame goes to owners of newspapers (U.S. Department of state, 2006).
When revolution in Georgia took place Saakashvili party put a great deal of emphasize over media freedom. Campaigns were launched against high-ranking officials of Shevardnadze’s time and public support was sought. Although no physical violence was observed against media
43 officials, most of the journalists and reporters were of the view that they had to face pressure from authorities:
It was public support that catapulted Mikheil Saakashvili to power in the Rose Revolution. Soon, however, Saakashvili moved to form a centralized government. He listened to what a small group of policymakers – not the Georgian people themselves – had to say. And Saakashvili changed the rules of the game… there is no need for a robust and active media – journalists should remain quiet and obedient. (Lomjaria, Kordzaia, Gobronidze, & Kemertelidze, 2006, p. 9).
Media outlets would not dare to criticize government and its representatives. This also resulted in events when media officials were denied access to public briefings. Financial tax investigators and financial pressure were used to regulate media channels. However, if current situation is compared to 2003 the instances of media harassment are quite less. Now self- censorship has increased to some extent. But, at the same time there are concerns that diversity of media has been negatively affected. Now most of the channels that were previously connected to opposition parties have started to support government. This resulted in a pro- government orientation of the entire system. In addition to this, most of the media channels are pro-government because of their financial dependency over the system. They have to reflect opinions of officials in a positive way in order to maintain a good relationship with them. But, whenever opposition is getting weaker it is not in favor of a democratic development in country. Some critics believe that this will give worse results than in the past (U.S. Department of State, 2015).
Much of the lifeblood of media comes from government-funded commercials. Georgia’s television market is also being fed and influenced by recent rating systems. During the presidency of Saakashvili, advertising revenue also motivated Mze TV’s merger with Rustavi2 that were previously independent. While as a matter of fact Davit Bezhuashvili, the brother of foreign minister of Georgia is the owner of Mze television. Such mergers are regarded as an attack on the freedom of journalists and mass media by media activists. They believe that government’s influences over media will result in jeopardizing of journalists leading to reduced freedom of speech. Current media groups do not have real powers and journalists are working on government based agenda now. In this context, owner of 202 channel David Kokhreidze's speaks about the arrest of his brother saying that his anti-government programming resulted in this initiative at the part of the government and he was under pressure from the officials. Although he did not name specific people, he believed that one day he will be able to expose 44 those individuals in public. Public defenders are of the view that David Kokhreidze's brother case was a criminal prosecution as he was involved in broadcasting programs that were presenting a wrong picture of government to public (Rimple, 2012).
After presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili, a serious blow to the media pluralism of Georgia media was witnessed because of the change in editorial policy of channel Rustavi-2. This has resulted in reduced access of public to the views of opposition. Media freedom is said to be threatened by this initiative. Now judicial inquiry is demanded to assure that standards of clarity are met in future. Critical opposition of media is important in a democratic system. The ownership dispute of Rustavi-2 has given rise to new questions. Criticism from international partners and Georgian human rights groups has been witnessed. Clear support of court is said to be needed to solve this issue. In addition to this, domestic observers are also not sure about the impartiality and independence of judges involved in this case. Strong allegations from Nika Gvaramia the director of Rustavi-2 also complicated the situation. He said that he was threatened about the leakage of his personal video if he did not stay aside from the entire matter. Then in a few days after this, a video on online channels appeared where Gvaramia was taking to Saakashvili via phone and was receiving instructions from him to get ready for physical confrontation with authorities in order to defend the station (Deutsche Welle, 2012).
Lack of independence and professionalism is seen because most of the reporters do not have to work for public instead they consider media owner’s satisfaction to their first priority. On the other hand, opposite views are also present. Some people still believe that despite being under pressure these journalists have to speak the truth on some concrete issues because they cannot deceive public at large. A journalist in Rustavi-2, Akaki Gogichiashvili who was a famous anchor of the television news channel in Georgia, expressed that even after revolution, the relationship of media with government matters to some extent. After Saakashvili’ election, the management of television stations showed very less interest in journalism that was directed to ‘real investigation’. Owners of these media channel maintained very friendly relationship with government authorities. They got exclusive pieces of information and stories about criminal happenings that other television channels cannot receive as they are not pro-government. Their business interests would be challenged if they start to criticize government authorities and they do not want so (Deutsche Welle, 2012).
To sum it up, media freedom has been a prominent part of the agenda of government of Saakashvili after revolution. The reality was that media was being dictated by government.
45
Major media outlets have to spend more money than they actually generate and the reality is that they are being financed by a third authority with whom they would never want to deteriorate their relationships. Media owners look at government’s relations as a side business tool. Freedom of media has been affected a lot although it is difficult to interpret. It is not easy to combat such thing as media itself is not in a position to combat them. The above study has shown that financial dependency of media of Georgia is one of the main issues. Excessive commitment of media officials to government has given rise to a system where it seems that everything is going well but inside stories might be different. The opinions of opposition were not reflected as well as criticism toward government was not seen. In true democracy, opposition is strong and free to speak. However, the past situation in Georgia did not reflect so, and hence it can be said that a lot was needed to be done in Georgia to make media truly free (Rimple, 2012; Deutsche Welle, 2012).
11.1 Media picture construction of Eduard Shevardnadze and Mikheil Saakashvili Media has a pivotal role to play in a democratic system. Understanding and analysis of current democratic and political movement is done by media. Transparency of government activities can be ensured if media is unbiased and presents clear picture of political leaders. Unfortunately, based on the research it seems that this was not the case in Georgia. Mass media in Georgia is the main institute that can help in development of personalities of democratic leaders because about 90 percent people in this country rely on television news for information gathering. Country’s development to democratic transition began during the time when Mikhail Saakashvili took over Georgia. Initially, his government took initiatives to strengthen democracy, but soon started a strict control over media again and the issue maintained. Censorship of media also resulted in negative effects over information sharing. Although freedom of speech is critical to be assured in a democratic environment, it was not ascertained in Mikhail Saakashvili’s time. Several new approaches of media control were introduced that could not help the country and opinions could not grow in an open and unbiased manner. Independent media channels were dispersed by the government and freedom of speech was curbed (Civil Georgia, 2007) .
Edward Bernay (1928) states that media is used by political parties for creating specific opinions and intents amongst masses. For this sake propaganda tactics are used. Three main kinds of propagandas are common including white, grey and black propagandas. White propaganda means truth along with accurate elements is depicted and a positive view of a 46 political leader is maintained. On the other hand, grey propaganda is done without sourcing information for appropriate sources. The agenda is made in such a way that television preachers are given money for creating specific image of a personality. Finally, in black propaganda big lies are used. People do not know the fact that they are getting wrong information. Stories are made for the success and failure of a particular political individual or party (Bernays, Propaganda, 1928).
In order to see the change of situation over the years it will be important to see how changes have taken place in different time periods. The main goal of Saakashvili’s government was to highlight the process of democracy in his country and strengthen his prestige. This was made possible with the help of strong censorship of media. This democratic transition also helped during the entire political process through which Saakashvili’s gained his influential position in the political system of the country.
The aim of the present research is to identify actions of government of Georgia in terms of media control. It will be seen how political figures have got a chance to maintain international prestige with the help of media. At various instances, opinions and points of view are generated most of which are in favor of the ruling party. The final purpose is to control the opinions of citizens and gain a greater support from them. However, during this time period the importance of free media and speech is completely ignored. Independence and democracy is not practiced in it real means when dictators in the form of super political figures take over the perception.
In order to develop a better understanding of the entire political change, it will be important to see how situation altered from Saakashvili’s time to Shevardnadze’s period. Non-existence of democratic institution during the time period of Saakashvili’s motivated him to maintain strong censorship and control over media. On the other hand, Shevardnadze’s main process was ignorance of the criticism. Several times he was called non-democratic and corrupt, but he did not try to change this perception built by the media. During his time the level of unemployment was also high. He never tried to influence anything with his political behavior. During Shevardnadze’s time incidence of violence against media were quite less as compared to those which happened during Saakashvili’s time (CRRC, 2009).
According to (Freedom House, 2017), If we compare periods of Saakashvili and Shevardnadze in terms of Independent Media, we will see the following results:
47
Figure 6 - Independent Media Score of Georgia 7
6
5 4,33 4,25 4,25 4,25 4,25 4,25 4,25 4,25 4 4 4 3,75 3,75 3,75 4
3 Worst)
2
1 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
IdependentMediaScore (1 Best, = 7 = Year
Shevardnadze Saakashvili
As I have already mentioned Freedom House do not have a data about Georgia until 1999, but it still gives us a general picture of what the media situation was during Shevardnadze’s time. From this graph it seems that from the 5 years period of Shevardnadze’s presidency, the indicator of 4 years was higher than any year of Saakashvili’s total presidency.
When Saakashvili and his political allies tried to take control over the political activities and corrupt government of Shevardnadze they had intention to give rise to democratic institution. However, during their ruling, these institutions remained even more politicized. They were unable to protect democratic values at large. People in front of the parliament were raided and many of them were sent to jails because they spoke against government. Independent television channels were also raided by the government and many private channels either decided to work according to policies of government or remain silent (Human Rights Watch, 2007).
Various theories have been put forward by scholars to show how opinions of masses are controlled and manipulated with the help of media campaigns. Political leaders get a chance to make themselves popular with various tactics. The effect of media on society is evident from previous researches that have been done in the same area. In this context ‘mind theory’ is of critical importance. This theory explains how desires, perceptions, ideas and intents are changed with the help of specific propagandas. Word of mouth is used and people are made to think in a specific way. Modern political movements are full of such examples where leaders developed their positive image and gained control over others emotions and understandings. Similarly, Saakashvili was able to do so and was perceived by the people to be a democratic leader,
48 although his manipulation and control of media is in incompatible with the meaning of the word
‘democratic’ as perceived nowadays (Tatum, 2009).
Nowadays media is considered an important tool within the political sphere. Several superior titles are used for leaders in order to enhance their image. Great political figures are of the view that if they start to control media they will be able to monitor the entire political situation. Similar contribution of media has been seen in the political process of Georgia. Important changes in statements were seen when Saakashvili’s party was ruling then the use of media created a great political space from where development of the image of the leader of country was monitored.
Lack of editorial independence has been proven by coordinated news coverage at various instances during the time of Mikhail Saakashvili. On the contrary, Shevardnadze who was known to be less democratic than Mikhail Saakashvili was more liberal. Independent journalists and major broadcasting agencies always favored Shevardnadze because of his positive attitude toward freedom of speech. Mikhail Saakashvili maintained close ties to private media channels and most of these channels were involved in presenting a positive picture of this leader. New programs were started nationwide in order to give positive impression of his personality. Negative news was never broadcasted against him. He was also shown participating in ribbon cutting ceremonies and making speeches (Kvesitadze, 2013).
A survey that was conducted by Caucasus Research Resource Centers (CRRC) has indicated that people also believe that during Saakashvili’s time most if the media stations were under the great influence of government3. Many of the respondents in the CRRC survey showed their distrust toward government controlled media including Imedi and Rustavi 2 channels. Media reforms had been a prominent issue during the time period of Saakashvili. Most of the channels kept showing reforms done in the economic areas and the way country was doing progress. But, the freedom index fell from 66 to 105 after 2007 (Khudson, 2008). In contrast, Shevardnadze who was a strong supporter of political and democratic reforms in Georgia set media free. He created some agencies that worked in collaboration with central Georgian communist party in order to analyze changing opinion of public. Regular interviews of this political leader were shown on television. They were also shown live where he answered questions of people. Shevardnadze strongly criticized the idea of flattery Georgia and said that he was ready to
3 Which is in line with my online survey among more than 200 hundred Georgians who believed that Press freedom index was lowest during Saakashvili. 49 receive both positive and negative comments about the activities of his government. He also stood against the rising power of Mikhail Gorbachev's in order to assure that he is able to stand with the supporters of democracy (CRRC, 2009).
Saakashvili considered media to be the main source of information. When he took over in 2007 social media was also not very active in the country. It was the best time to cook up stories in favor of the ruling party and make people believe them by spreading the word of mouth. Looking for the truth in such a situation is a challenging thing. Government can dictate news and control freedom that is guaranteed by the law. Media freedom in Georgia has become a serious issue during last few years because most of the people started to show their hatred toward media control channels. There are only two small television channels that were involved in capturing true picture of the government activities but according to Saakashvili, these television channels Maesto TV and Kavkasia TV were working on the political agenda of opposition by showing their negative views (Kostanyan & Tsertsvadze, 2012). Saakashvili‘s government and his allies in the ruling party started to present polarized picture as their personal opinions were portrayed as facts. Free political reviews that were made by fine and balanced reporters were kept hidden. However, what could not have been kept hidden was an incident from November 7, 2007 in which Saakashvili’s image of a great leader was damaged.
11.2 Main instruments used against media It should be noted that Saakashvili had several means to restrict the media. We have already discussed above some of his ways of restriction, but it is better to sum up everything here to have a better understanding about this issue:
According to Shoshitashvili, during the Saakashvili years influence was established by the government. For example, 11 televisions out of 12 (except “Caucasus channel”) have been deprived of broadcasting license or their owners were changed. TV Holders were replaced by those people who had a close relation to the government. When we talk about the license it was often done with the help of the National Regulatory Commission; whose decisions were politicized and completely biased. Their one of the main responsibility was to issue a license for televisions (Shoshitashvili, 2010). As for the changing the TV holders, we can provide example of Rustavi 2 which was sold many times and it was always owned by the person close to the government (Bilefsky & Schwirtz, 2008; Civil Georgia, 2007), or Imedi TV, when its director was replaced in November 7, 2007 (BBC News, 2007). This day was the biggest
50 mistake that Saakashvili’s government has committed against the media. That time Imedi channel was the major outlet for criticism of the former government (Transparency International Georgia, 2016). By the order of the government, troops forcefully entered the channel building and detained approximately 300 staff members and some members of parliament who were preparing for live broadcast. They have entered into a room where Journalist was having a live broadcast and forced the station off the air. After that, journalists were forced to leave the building, but soon after riot police started to shot rubber bullets and launch tear gas which was against the basic principles of United Nations on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officers (Human Rights Watch, 2007).
Those televisions which were under influence of the government had a method of specific functioning, which included for example the closure of investigative political talk shows, because it was unfavorable to the Saakashvili. TV news programs were trying to ignore if there were any wrong or unpleasant acts by the government. They tried to focus only on goodness of the government (Shoshitashvili, 2010). Currently there is a similar or even worse situation in Russia, where Putin’s government controls the media and provide different information to the public. According to Freedom House, media outlets of Russia are incorporated into the policy efforts of Kremlin’s (Freedom House, 2015; Gordts, 2015).
11.3 Does Mikhail Saakashvili still interfere media? In 2012, political party coalition “Georgian Dream” has won the parliamentary elections. As for the presidential elections, it was held in 2013, where the member of “Georgian Dream”, Giorgi Margvelashvili became fourth president of Georgia (Government of Georgia, 2013).
As a result, Mikhail Saakashvili and his government moved to the opposition. They had been ruling the country for 9 years. It should be emphasized that very soon, new government began to restore justice in the country, which was the will of people. The aim of “Georgian Dream” was to improve the shortcoming of previous government. These mainly included: Freedom of the speech, Independent business atmosphere, Ensure constitutional rights of citizens etc. (Georgian Dream, 2012). The first step taken by the new government was that TV Imedi returned to its original owner, Patarkatishvili’s family. This was a positive step towards the media and democracy, because this channel has finally became independent. It should be highlighted that Rustavi2 remained still under the influence of Saakashvili and government could not do anything about it, because formally, everything was within the law.
51
New government has begun to restore justice in the country, which was also reflected in the fact that they decided to investigate all suspicious and unfair cases that were concealed by the previous government. That is why they started to arrest former officials, who were known to be guilty. It should be emphasized that Mikheil Saakashvili was announced guilty, because of November 7, 2007 event (Raid of protestors and Imedi TV), but police was unable to take him into custody as he was out of the country, in Ukraine (Civil Georgia, 2014).
Ukraine refused to extradite him and after several months, he was even announced as a governor of the Odessa region by the president of Ukraine (Interpressnews, 2015). Surprisingly, despite the fact that Saakashvili has started to continue his political career in another country, he still tried to intervene in Georgian media’s activities directly from Ukraine. For instance, in 2015 after Ukrainian web site uarevo.in.ua released a phone conversation between Mikheil Saakashvili and Nika Gvaramia, a director of Rustavi2 as appointed by Saakashvili in YEAR. According to the record, the former president was telling Gvaramia to manage journalists in order to maintain the influence. Together they were planning the future of Rustavi2. It should be emphasized that Nika Gvaramia was the Justice and later also Education minister of Georgia during the presidency of Saakashvili. Accordingly, this television has served and nowadays still serve the former government of Georgia. During the conversation Saakashvili was offering Gvaramia to make barricades around the television and also called for the revolution. As he said “There will be a bloodshed for sure” (Kvirispalitra, 2015).
Regardless of the fact that Saakashvili is currently in Ukraine, he still tries to influence on media. It is well known that for him media is very important tool to gain the power. The lessons learnt in the past have not affected on his approach towards the democracy. According to above- mentioned recording, he wanted to have a bloodshed and another revolution, which is direct threat for the democracy. The Rose Revolution 2003, was necessary in order to start the democratization process of Georgia. That time Shevardnadze’s government have not used any brutal force to disperse the protestors. Mikheil Saakashvili is always trying to show his power by a force, which is unacceptable for democratic society.
In addition, there is another example of media importance for Saakashvili. As we have already mentioned he was announced as a Governor of Odessa in Ukraine. He always tries to be under the spotlight. For example, when Saakashvili wanted to give the warning to someone or eliminate corruption, he uses the media for it. More specifically, he gives orders and warning to people in front of the cameras, which then of course is shared in internet or television. Thus, the former president of Georgia and current Governor of Ukraine is quite clever and works hard 52 to make PR for himself. Using media for above-mentioned purposes might be understandable, but using media for other purposes such as, Bloodshed or direct control of it is threat for democracy.
To sum it up, it appears that there was always some kind of influence on media from the authorities, especially during Saakashvili’s presidency. Some of the journalists would openly express their concerns regarding the government’s approach. Some believe that it was expected from the media in the country to only picture the positives of the government’s actions. Some also believe that they did not have a choice as their business would have been threatened if they did not cooperate with the government. That is because the government would be willing to provide them with exclusive information for instance about criminal happenings in return (Deutsche Welle, 2012; Lomjaria, Kordzaia, Gobronidze, & Kemertelidze, 2006; Kvesitadze, 2013).
In addition, if they did not comply with the requests of the officials it might escalate even further. For example, owners of some televisions were replaced or changed during the presidency of Saakashvili so the new owners would be more closely related to the government. Moreover, mergers of different TV stations occurred and it was believed that it resulted in limited media freedom. In addition, high media officials would also face pressure as one of Georgian TV stations, for instance, expressed his personal experience of his family member being arrested for streaming anti-governmental programs. Almost all television stations were deprived of broadcasting license or its owners were changed and investigative political talk- shows were dismissed because of their content not supportive of Saakashvili’s government (Rimple, 2012; Shoshitashvili, 2010). Finally, his government ultimately failed to protect democratic values when they openly raided TV Imedi in 2007 (Human Rights Watch, 2007). As Amnesty International (2017) concludes, the media indeed were not completely free and independent after the Revolution.
53
12 Interview with former State Minister of Georgia, Guram Absandze
When discussing two different governments, it is suitable to learn about the opinion of current or former politicians, especially those politically active during both of these periods. Therefore, I have decided to contact and record an interview with Guram Absandze, a person who often had to work in politics in the 90’s and also during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili.
Before we continue with the description of the interview, I want to briefly introduce you Guram Absandze. During the presidency of Zviad Gamsakhurdia (The first president of Georgia), Guram Absandze was the Minister of Finance and later he also became the deputy Prime Minister of Georgia. He was a very active follower and supporter of Gamsakhurdia. It should be emphasized that Absandze was often accused of financing terrorist attack against Eduard Shevardnadze. After the Rose Revolution, he became the State Minister of Georgia and in 2005, he left politics. As for today, Absandze lives in Russia with his family. Despite the fact that he already excluded himself from politics, sometimes current state authorities still contact him, in order to get some useful advice.
In his interview, Mr. Guram Absandze said that in the early 90th, when Zviad Gamsakhurdia and his authorities were in power, the first democratic signs were already seen. Generally, that period of time was quite different from nowadays. The Soviet Union had not been collapsed yet. Only the Baltic countries were out of the Soviet Union and 12 union republics remained part of it. Mr. Gorbachov was the head of the government at that time and he began new democratic movement called Perestroika “restructuring". On 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia declared independence. At that time, Zviad Gamsakhurdia and his party won the first democratic elections in Georgia. It happened in October, but shortly after the elections, in January, his government was deposed in a bloody coup from 22 December 1991 to 6 January 1992. The coup was instigated by part of the National Guards and a paramilitary organization called "Mkhedrioni". They overthrew the legal and democratic government. Mr Absandze mentioned in his interview that all that period of time when Zviad Gamsaxurdia was in power, Media was free from all kind of political leverage and pressure.
People could express their own ideas without fear, there were mass rallies and Mr Absandze is proud, when he says, that Georgian democracy started to develop exactly at that time. He also emphasizes that nowadays, democratic institutions are more developed than before, because Georgia is trying to become the part of EU.
54
When talking about the period after the coup and about Mr, Shevardnadze, Mr. Absandze said that that period of time was not democratic at all. Firstly, Mr Shevardnadze came in power without democratic elections. The Military council asked Mr Shevardnadze to return to Georgia and to become the head of the government. According to Mr Absandze, the rallies were dispelled and there exist a lot of documents that prove these actions. While comparing those two periods of time from the nearest history of Georgia, Mr Absandze said that in 2003, Shevardnadze was deposed by the Rose Revolution, and after Mr. Saakashvili came in power, democracy began to develop and the idea of democracy in the country became more achievable.
To the question about free media in Georgia, Mr Absandze replied that there had never been free and independent media in the country. Generally, media has a great influence on citizens and on public opinion, and as Mr, Absandze says, it is unfair and wrong to say, that Media was freer from pressure during Mr. Shevardnadze’s governing than during Mr. Saakashvili’ time in power. He remembered the case of Rustavi 2 and also the case that was connected with the journalist George Sanaia. Mr. Shevardnadze did not need free media, but the violence on media was less that time than during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili. During the period of Shevardnadze, only 2-3 televisions existed, but then Rustavi 2 appeared and everything was changed. Mr Absandze declared in his interview that if there was no support from Rustavi 2, Saakashvili would never win the elections. After Saakashvili came in power, more televisions appeared and Mr. Saakashvili’s big mistake, as Mr, Absandze thinks, was that he tried to control all of them. However, then what happened with the television Imedi, everyone knows.
In addition, while comparing these two periods, he says, that during Mr.Saakashvili’s governing Media was more controlled and it was under the influence of the authorities than it was before. Mr. Absandze said that he was the state minister in Mr Saakashvili’s government and he knew how all these things were developed. He said that with the help of Rustavi 2 Mr, Saakashvili was propagandized and all the televisions at that time were on that level. They made the public opinion. “Imedi” was exception.
Then Mr. Absandze recalled the 7th of November. He said that it was crime and that Mr Saakashvili also admitted this. The government has no right to block the television. In addition, Imedi was under the influence of other opposite powers and that’s why the 7th of November happened. According to Mr Absandze, all the international organizations, the European Union, the United States of America disapproved Mr. Saakashvili’s action towards Imedi television. And that’s why Mr. Saakashvili had to leave his post and pre-term elections were held.
55
Mr. Absandze added that all the authorities that fought against media were defeated. He said that people always were on the side of free media. Mr.Absandze hopes that in Georgia there will be a time when the independent and objective media will exist as it is in Europe and in the USA. He also mentions that the television should inform objective news and the citizens should decide themselves what is right and what is wrong. Mr. Absandze is unhappy about that fact that nowadays all the televisions in Georgia are under somebody’s influence. Rustavi 2 is controlled by Saakashvili and other televisions are controlled by authorities or other opposite powers.
Finally, the last question for Mr. Absandze was whether he thought that Mr Saakashvili could be able to return to Georgia and become the head of the country again with the help of media. To this question Mr Absandze replied that it would be difficult for Saakashvili to return but it is not impossible. It is difficult because nowadays Saakashvili is the citizen of Ukraine. Mr, Absandze doubts that the national party, as well as Saakashvili have a chance to return in power. But at the same time he thinks that if they win the elections, they will be able to return their leader. He does not believe that they will manage to win though. Although Saakashvili is a very active political figure, he always propagandizes his actions and he may achieve more success in Ukraine either. Especially if Rustavi 2 continues to operate this way, it will react on the public opinion, and everything might change. Mr. Absandze hopes that this will not happen, and he is sure that the next elections will be democratic and that Georgian people will make the right choice (Absandze, 2016).
56
13 Media-censorship and its effect on domestic and international prestige as well as public opinion on government’s shortcomings
In order to answer my research question, we will highlight the main points which confirms Saakashvili’s or his government’s manipulation of national media. Firstly, the important tool for government was Rustavi2 that was most of the time supporting the party with its positive presentation of government. This is understandable because after the “Rose Revolution” it was sold several times. For example, during the first years of Saakashvili’s presidency (2004-2005), the owner of this channel was a famous businessman Kibar Khalvashi. It is known fact that he had close ties with Irakli Okruashvili, who was a defense minister of Georgia. After that, in 2006 it was sold to a Member of Parliament as well as member of “National Movement”, David Bezhuashvili who was also a brother of the Foreign Minister of Georgia (Bilefsky & Schwirtz,
2008; Civil Georgia, 2007).
Furthermore, after the rose revolution, 11 televisions out of 12 (except “Caucasus channel”) have been deprived of broadcasting license or their owners were changed. Holders were replaced by those people who were close to the government. TV channels used not to highlight the issues which were not politically profitable for the government except for Rustavi2 (Shoshitashvili, 2010). It was for instance for example TV Channel 202 which was closed in 2006 and its owner, Shalva Ramishvili was arrested. It was believed that functioning of this channel was not acceptable by and was not in favor of the ruling party (Lomjaria, Kordzaia, Gobronidze, & Kemertelidze, 2006).
Additionally, according to new law which was made and adopted by the government in 2004, the national TV channel and radio corporation was transformed into “Georgian Public Broadcasting”. Georgian Public Broadcasting was governed by a board whose members were appointed by the parliament. Naturally, at that time the majority of members of parliament were pro-governmental representatives, i.e. members of Saakashvili’s “National Movement” (Freedom House, 2007). Hence, it was believed that there will be influence from government and that the board members will remain loyal to the authorities (IREX, 2004).
It is important to mention that it was not until 2004 that the government would take such actions allowing them to gain control over national TV channels. Summing up, it can be said that this step was a calculated attempt to take over media in order to maintain the positive image of their leaders. This is in line with my personal experience, when I worked for this television as journalist in 2010. Our producer always carefully monitored video materials. They wanted to
57 make sure that everything was under control and there was nothing which would harm the prestige of government.
In the same manner, the violent dispersal of TV Imedi in 2007 was another example of the government’s efforts to gain full control over the national media4. Furthermore, possibly in order to prevent possible future inconvenience caused by the TV Imedi’s broadcast, the government stepped in and replaced its owner (Human Rights Watch, 2007). Similarly, in Qatar a director of popular and successful TV channel Al Jazeera has been replaced by a member of the Royal family. It needs to be emphasized that some believe that it might have been an attempt by the country’s government to control channel coverage during a problematic period (Pulliam, 2013).
Correspondingly, the press freedom score was generally higher (higher means worse) during the period of Saakashvili (m= 56.7) as compared to the period of the former president Shevardnadze (m= 53.5) and to the current president Giorgi Margvelashvili (m= 48.6), see Figure 1 (Freedom House, 2017). Furthermore, Independent Media Score as measured by Freedom House as well shows that media were on average less independent (higher means less independent) in Saakashvili’s times (m=4.2) than in Shevardnadze’s times (m=3.9), see Figure 6. Furthermore, RWB (2012) statistics show that media were much freer (higher score means less free) in 2003 during the presidency of Shevardnadze and the Rose Revolution (m=17.3) rather than during the presidency of Saakashvili (m=26.1) in the following years, see Figure 5. Finally, general evaluation of the democracy in Georgia by Freedom House (2017) describes the period of Saakashvili being on average less democratic (m=4.85; higher means worse) then his predecessor Shevardnadze (m=4.25), see Figure 2.
When it comes to increase in Saakashvili’s domestic prestige, we need to remember the “Rose Revolution” and Rustavi-2’s significant contribution to it. This channel supported Saakashvili by providing a forum for non-governmental organizations and opposition parties critical of the government. Saakashvili used this opportunity to present himself as a competent leader while at the same time criticizing the government. Given these point, we can say that Rustavi-2 played a key role in spreading anti Shevardnadze’s announcements and investigative shows which influenced on public and finally ended the regime of Shevardnadze. As a result, Saakashvili
4 Moreover, as reflected in my personal web survey, many people (more than 52 % in the survey) believe that the actions taken against TV Imedi on November 7, were one of the main threats to media freedom in Georgia. 58 won the following elections and became a president of Georgia (Sumbadze, 2009; Lincoln,
2004).
Equally, according to my interview with Absandze, he also believed that if there was no support from Rustavi-2, Mikheil Saakashvili would never win the elections. With the help of the channel, Saakashvili propagandized and almost all televisions at that time were on that level. They made the public opinion (Absandze, 2016).
Similarly, President Mikheil Saakashvili made the following announcement: „Rustavi- 2“Channel was very important and instrumental…Majority of students who came out on the streets were influenced by this channel.” (Saakashvili, 2005, p. 25). Following years, the Saakashvili’s government gained huge popularity among Georgians (Lincoln A., 2009).
All things considered, it appears that the Saakashvili’s influence on national media helped him to increase the domestic prestige of himself as well as his party.
However, Saakashvili did not focus only on his prestige among Georgians. He also wanted to change how other nations view the country. For instance, when “National Movement” came to power, they had a will to gain a domestic and international popularity (Lincoln A., 2009). It needs to be highlighted that tourism is very important and essential to economic growth of Georgia. We can say that because of increased investment in infrastructure, including transport and hotels, growth was at its highest since 2005. The main reasons were the active government campaign abroad to promote tourism and the fact that countries economic and political stability was recovered (Kotulewicz & Kozłowska, 2015).
In addition, another important component for Georgia’s economy is agricultural export, especially wine industry, which started significant growth during the government of “National Movement (von Cramon-Taubadel, 2014).
Mikheil Saakashvili has often made a statement that it is necessary to popularize Georgia and its products abroad. For example, once he toured one of the wine factories in Georgia where he instructed Ambassadors of Georgia to promote Georgian wine abroad (Georgian Wine News, 2012). He had a strong will to popularize the country and attract more investments that would made a positive impact on economy (Georgian Journal, 2012).
As for the shortcomings of Saakashvili that lead him to restrict the media, we may start with some of the uninvestigated cases. That was for example the case of Sandro Girgvliani, the young victim of a government-sponsored murder plot in 2006. It was a big scandal, showing
59 everyone that Mikheil Saakashvili failed to deliver on the promises of peace, government accountability and transparency made after became a president of Georgia (NINOSHVILI, 2012).
In addition, there was Amiran Robakidze’s murder case from 2004. He was killed by a police on November 23 because of alleged presence of Kalashnikovs in his car. It was also presented by the police that Amiran was a terrorist and they used Rustavi-2 to picture the victim this way for the rest of the nation. However, according to Civil.ge (2006), the further investigation shown that the crime scene evidence was fabricated and the guns were put in the car after murdering him. It is believed that the policeman shot the victim accidentally and then they tried to cover the wrongdoings of the police. It was done so with the assistance of higher authorities of the government. The usage of media to manipulate the masses was evident (Natsvlishvili, 2009; Civil Georgia, 2006).
Coupled with the facts that the TV Imedi was airing the shortcomings of the government in detail at that time as well as the demonstrations against their regime and that they subsequently faced an unprecedented attack from the government in November 7, 2007 as well as its director has been replaced, it appears that Saakashvili has done so to stop the disapproving opinions from spreading among other citizens (BBC News, 2007). Along with other facts mentioned earlier, this also provide us the answer to our research question.
Given these points, it makes sense that he wanted to stop the media from picturing him and his government as incompetent leaders. He knew what had happened to his predecessor Shevardnadze when the media especially Rustavi-2 was presenting him as a corrupted and not democratic president. It created an opportunity for himself to replace Shevardnadze and become the president of Georgia.
60
14 Conclusion
To conclude, can Mikheil Saakashvili be indeed viewed as a fully democratic president considering media freedom in Georgia during his presidency? In the research we learnt that freedom of speech is considered a basic human right which is indispensably connected to free media and these are one of the unconditional principles of democracy. We also discussed how certain manipulation techniques such as propaganda can be used to manipulate the masses, to form their opinions and thus control their behavior.
We also found out that the most powerful and influential media outlet in the country was television as almost everyone would watch TV news on a daily basis. Different scientists and political figures or the leaders themselves confirmed that TV channels always played a crucial role in modern politics of Georgia whether it was during significant events such as upcoming elections or when malfeasance occurred.
Not to mention, TV industry in Georgia is influenced by the economic and political factors, which means that the content of the TV character is determined by the interests of their owners. In independent countries media is practically independent of political authority, but in Georgia it is constantly under pressure from the economic point of view. Most of the media is operated under the influence of economic power. Owners of large corporations purchase media corporations in order to provide a high degree of control. It is often gathered in one union different means of mass communication (television, radio, newspaper) and they are all directed towards propaganda.
Edward Bernays agreed on Walter Lippmann’s opinion, that most of the population is dangerous and irrational as a result of herd behavior. Bernays emphasized that indirect use of “third party authorities” is necessary in order to manipulate the public opinion.
Additionally, Guriev and Treisman believe that incompetent leaders have to control the media to portray themselves as actually competent heads of the country. If they did not do so, the power of the will of the people would result in a revolution and their downfall.
Taken into account the opinion of Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann as well as the duo of Guriev and Treisman, it makes sense that Mikheil Saakashvili was afraid that the shortcomings of his democracy would cause dissatisfaction among Georgian citizens, hence he decided to take control over media. Money and power contributes to the governor to provide the desired information to the audience. It means that people see and understand the information, which is
61 provided by the ruling authority. Mikheil Saakashvili and his government had a lot of flaws, as we have already mentioned, there were a lot of uninvestigated cases and people were interested to find out the truth. The popular media outlets, i.e. televisions, were very keen on broadcasting these flaws and failures of the newly elected democratic president. These might have been the main reasons why Saakashvili started strong censorship and control of the media, because he was afraid of losing the power. The same power which his predecessor Shevardnadze lost with a significant contribution of the very media. As it was mentioned by Bernays and Lippmann, population can be dangerous especially when they see injustice and any kind of threat against democracy.
In the period of Saakashvili’s presidency, several events presented the threats of democracy, each of them to a different extent. In brief, it was for instance, expropriating television channel from its legal owner and replacing with someone else, depriving television channels of their broadcasting licenses, forming new public broadcasting channels formed with supports or members of the ruling party and finally closing the private television after the raid on Imedi TV on November 7, 2007.
All of these, coupled with the strategies to manipulate the media, reflect on the various data produced by different international non-governmental and nonprofit organizations such Freedom House, IREX or Reporters without borders. Although the difference might not be always significantly big, the data generally show that the Saakashvili’s time in power was actually associated with lower media freedom and independency. On the same note, some journalists did not hesitate to voice their concerns about the government’s expectation of them to remain silent and obedient.
If we talk about Eduard Shevardnadze, he did not pay attention on media like Saakashvili. Of course, we cannot say that media was totally free, but it had less pressure from the government. All areas were corrupted during the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze, therefore using violent methods against media was no longer needed. If he wanted to maintain the power, he might have used force in 2003, but he did not.
According to Freedom House (2017), Georgia is called to be a hybrid regime, which can be also described as illiberal or partial democracy. It was the same during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili as well as his predecessor Shevardnadze. We can say that he was partly democratic president, because of the successes he helped Georgia to achieve, such as increase
62 of economy (GDP), reduce of crime and corruption, reform of police, new infrastructure and so on.
But, on the other hand he failed to be fully democratic as already shown above. Saakashvili’s actions during his presidency resulted in restriction of the freedom of the speech, media censorship and on some instances also violation of human rights. All of these are the main components and principles of democracy. Therefore, Mikheil Saakashvili should not be viewed as fully democratic president.
63
15 Annex
Interview with former State Minister of Georgia, Guram Absandze
Time of Interview: 26 April, 2016
Place: Brno, Czech Republic
The way of interview: Skype call
Transcript of questions, Georgian as original language and direct English Translation:
1. ბ ა ტონ ო გ ურა მ , თქ ვ ე ნ ი ყ ა ვ ი თ ფი ნ ა ნ ს თა მ ი ნ ი ს ტრი სა ქა რთველოს პ ი რვ ე ლი პრეზიდენტის , ზვ ი ა დ გამსახურდიას დროს და ა ს ე ვ ე შ ე მ დგ ომ ს ა ხ ე ლმ წ ი ფო მ ი ნ ი ს ტრი სააკაშვილის ხე ლისუფლების დროს , როგ ორ დაახასიათებდით ვ ი თა რე ბ ი ს ც ვ ლილე ბ ა ს დემოკტა ტიის კ უთხ ი თ ამ პ ე რი ოდი ს განმავლობაში ? 1. Mr Guram, You have been the Ministry of Finance during the first president of Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia and later the State Minister of Georgia during the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili. How would you describe the situation changes in terms of democracy? 2. თქ ვ ე ნ ი ა ზრი თ რა მ დე ნ ა დ დი დი გ ა ვ ლე ნ ა ა ქ ვ ს მ ე დი ა ს ქ ა რთულ სა ზოგადოება ზე ?
2. In your opinion, how much of impact the media has on society?
3. რი თ ა ხ ს ნ ი თ ი მ ა ს , რომ შ ე ვ ა რნ ა ძ ი ს დროს უფრო ნ ა კ ლე ბ ი ზე წ ოლა ი ყ ო მ ე დი ი ს მ ი მ ა რთ?
3. How can you explain the fact that Shevardnadze’s government had less pressure on media?
4. რა მ დე ნ ა დ ა ქ ვ ს ს ა ა კ ა შ ვ ი ლს შ ა ნ ს ი , რომ ი ს ე ვ მ ოვ ი დე ს ხელისუფლება ში და რა მ დე ნ ა დ დი დი ა მ ე დი ი ს როლი ა მ ა შ ი ?
4. Does Saakashvili have chance to come back into power and how big is the role of media in that way?
64
16 List of References
Absandze, G. (2016, April 26). Interview with former State Minister of Georgia, Guram Absandze. (B. Kuprashvili, Interviewer)
Amnesty International. (2017). Georgia 2016-2017. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/georgia/report-georgia
Amnesty International Public Statement. (2017). TV-Channel ownership distribution threatens media freedom in Georgia. AI Index: EUR 56/5833/2017.
Anable, D. (2006). Role of Georgia’s media – and Western aid – in the Rose Revolution. USA: Harvard University.
Balkin, J. (1999). How Mass Media Simulate Political Transparency. Faculty Scholarship Series.
Barendt, E. (2005). Freedom Of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press.
BBC News. (2007, November 03). Mass protest in Georgian capital. Retrieved from bbc.co.uk: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7074585.stm
Belyakov, A. (2009). The Influence of 'Censorship by Money' on Freedom of Speech in Ukraine. Critique.
Bernays, E. (1928). Propaganda. New York: Horace Liveright.
Bernays, E. (1928). Propaganda. New York: Horace Liveright.
Bilefsky, D., & Schwirtz, M. (2008). News Media Feel Limits to Georgia’s Democracy . The New York Times.
Biography.com Editors. (2016, April 16). Carl Jung Biography. Retrieved from The Biography.com website: http://www.biography.com/people/carl-jung-9359134
Burgess, R., & Besley, T. (2001). Political agency, government responsiveness and role of the media. European Economic Review, 45 (4-6): 629;640.
Cartwright, W. (2003). John Stuart Mill on Freedom of Discussion. University of Essex: Richmond Journal of Philosophy. Retrieved from Richmond Journal of Philosophy: http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp5_cartwright.pdf
65
Caucasus Research Resource Center. (2009). Comprehensive Media Research of Georgia. Tbilisi: CRRC.
Civil Georgia. (2003, November 21). OSCE Parliamentary Assembly President Visits Georgia. Retrieved from Civil.Ge - Daily News Online: http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=5576&search=
Civil Georgia. (2006, August 10). Policeman Jailed for Murder. Retrieved from Civil.ge Daily News: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=13291
Civil Georgia. (2007, October 28). Patarkatsishvili Pledges to Finance Protest Rallies. Retrieved from Civil.Ge - Daily News: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=16119
Civil Georgia. (2007, November 25). Saakashvili resigns, Parliament set the date of elections. Retrieved from Civil Georgia: http://www.civil.ge/geo/article.php?id=16788&search=
Civil Georgia. (2007, December 17). TVs Submit Ownership Papers. Retrieved from Civil Georgia: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=16597
Civil Georgia. (2007, December 17). TVs Submit Ownership Papers. Retrieved from Civil.Ge/Daily News Online: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=16597
Civil Georgia. (2007, December 17). TVs Submit Ownership Papers. Retrieved from Civil.ge daily news: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=16597
Civil Georgia. (2014, July 28). The prosecutor's office announced Mikheil Saakashvili as guilty. Retrieved from Civil.Ge - Daily News Online: http://civil.ge/geo/article.php?id=28536
Civil Georgia. (8, November 2007). Koba Davitashvili: ,,I was kidnapped and beaten''. Retrieved from Civil.Ge - Daily news online: http://www.civil.ge/geo/article.php?id=16604
Civil.Ge. (2003, July 9). Sanaia’s Murderer Sentenced to 13 Years. Retrieved from Civil.Ge: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=4534&search=Sanaia
Civil.Ge. (2008, September 16). Saakashvili Speaks of ‘New Wave’ of Democratic Reforms. Retrieved from Cvili.Ge - Daily news online: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19526
Cohen, A. (2004). Shevardnadze's Journey. US: Hoover Institution.
66
Cornell, S. (2007). GEORGIA AFTER THE ROSE REVOLUTION: GEOPOLITICAL PREDICAMENT AND IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY. USA: U.S. Government .
CORONEL, S. (2003). THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN DEEPENING DEMOCRACY. Retrieved from Unites Nations: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan010194.pdf
Corso, M. (20, March 2007). Murdoch-Affiliated Broadcaster in Georgia Generates Controversy. Retrieved from EurasiaNet: eurasianet.org/departments/civilsociety/articles/eav032107.shtml
CRRC. (2009). Comprejensive Media Research of Georgia. Tbilisi: Caucasus Research Resource Center.
Daily Telegraph. (2008, February 14). Badri Patarkatsishvili. Retrieved from The telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1578596/Badri-Patarkatsishvili.html
Daily Telegraph. (2014, July 7). Eduard Shevardnadze - obituary. Retrieved from Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10950980/Eduard- Shevardnadze-obituary.html
Deutsche Welle. (2012). Little media freedom in Saakashvili's Georgia. Retrieved from www.dw.com: http://www.dw.com/en/little-media-freedom-in-saakashvilis-georgia/a- 15830166
Dolidze, N. (2010, November 2). We do remember November 7. Retrieved from Informational portal Ambebi.ge: http://www.ambebi.ge/sazogadoeba/27777-chven-gvakhsovs-7- noemberi.html
DOUGLAS, F. (2001, August 12). Killing Touches a Nerve in Ex-Soviet Land. Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/12/world/killing-touches-a-nerve- in-ex-soviet-land.html
Escote, A. (2008). Limited Effects. Nostable.
European Commission. (2009, June 9). Commissioner Reding welcomes New European Charter on Freedom of the Press. Retrieved from European Commission: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-09-891_en.htm?locale=en
67
European Commission. (2012). FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION MEDIA AND DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS. Brussels. Retrieved from Freedom of Expression, Media and Digitan communications: file://nfs6.ucn.muni.cz/profiles/432430/Documents/Media_study_-_Key_issues.pdf
Freedom House. (2007). Nations in Transit 2007 - Democratization from Central Europe to Eurasia. Budapest: Freedom House.
Freedom House. (2015). Russia. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2015/russia
Freedom House. (2017). Freedom of the press in Georgia. Retrieved from Freedom House: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2008/georgia
Freedom House. (2017). Georgia. Retrieved from reedomhouse.org: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2003/georgia
Fuller, E. (2015, January 01). Mikheil Saakashvili - President of Georgia. Retrieved from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Mikheil-Saakashvili
Georgian Dream. (2012). Founding declaration of political coalition "Georgian Dream". Tbilisi: Sulakauri Press.
Georgian Journal. (2012, October 23). Mikheil Saakashvili – Georgia Has One of the Lowest Taxes which is Impossible to Reduce. Retrieved from https://www.georgianjournal.ge/component/content/article/9-news/11423--mikheil- saakashvili--georgia-has-one-of-the-lowest-taxes-which-is-impossible-to-reduce.html
Georgian Wine News. (2012, September 05). President Saakashvili instructed Georgia's Ambassadors to promote Georgian wine abroad. Retrieved from http://news.hvino.com/2012/09/president-saakashvili-instructed.html
Global Compaign for free expression. (2007, November 8). DEMONSTRATIONS AND MEDIA REPORTING REPRESSED IN GEORGIA. Retrieved from Artcile 19: https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/press/georgia-demos-and-media.pdf
Gordts, E. (2015, October 24). Putin’s Press: How Russia’s President Controls The News. Retrieved from huffingtonpost.com: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vladimir- putin-russia-news-media_us_56215944e4b0bce34700b1df
68
Government of Georgia. (2013). Giorgi Margvelashvili - President of Georgia. Retrieved from The president of Georgia: https://www.president.gov.ge/ge/President/Biography
Gugushvili, B. (2012). Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Tbilisi: Grifon.
Guriev, S., & Treisman, S. (2015). How Modern Dictators Survive: An Informational Theory of the New Authoritarianism. Cambridge, US: NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH.
Human Rights Watch. (2007, December 19). Georgia’s Violent Dispersal of Protestors and Raid on Imedi Television. Retrieved from hrw.org: https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/12/19/crossing-line/georgias-violent-dispersal- protestors-and-raid-imedi-television
Human Rights Watch. (2007, December). Georgia's violent dispersal of protestors and raid on Imedi television. p. 33.
Human Rights Watch. (2016). Georgia events of 2015. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/georgia
(12, November 2007). Human Rights Watch Interview with Tinatin Khidasheli.
Huntington, S. P. (1991). The third wave, democratization in the late 20th century. Norman: University of Oklahoma press.
Chomsky, N. (2002). Media control: The spectacular achievements of propaganda. US: Seven Stories Press.
Chomsky, N. (2002). Media control: The spectacular achievements of propaganda. Vol. 7. Seven Stories Press.
Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Interpressnews. (2015, May 23). Mikheil Saakashvili as Governor of Odessa. Retrieved from Interpressnews.ge: http://www.interpressnews.ge/ge/msoflio/332241-mikheil- saakashvili-odesis-gubernatorad-dainishna.html?ar=A
IREX. (2003). MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2003. Retrieved from irex.org: https://www.irex.org/sites/default/files/pdf/media-sustainability-index-europe-eurasia- 2003-georgia.pdf.pdf
69
IREX. (2004). Media Sustainability Index 2004. Retrieved from IREX: https://www.irex.org/sites/default/files/pdf/media-sustainability-index-europe-eurasia- 2004-georgia.pdf
Jeremy, B., & Mill, J. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. UK: Penguin.
Jugheli, M. (2008). Democratizaiton of Georgia. Tbilisi: Bakur Sulakauri.
Jung, C. (1959). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. New York: Bollingen foundation.
Khudson, J. W. (2008, January). Jefferson and the Press: Crucible of Liberty. Retrieved from Humanities and Social Sciences online: http://www.h- net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=14032
Kokashvili, M. (2014). The Role of the Media in Georgia's transition to Democracy. Retrieved from http://bundesheer.at: http://www.bundesheer.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/10_wg11_chapt10_110.pdf
Kostanyan, H., & Tsertsvadze, T. (2012). The Fading Rose of Georgia’s Revolution: Will elections bring fresh hope? . CEPS Commentary.
Kotulewicz, K., & Kozłowska, M. (2015). TOURISM AS THE PRIORITY FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN GEORGIA. Poland: Argumenta Oeconomica Cracoviensia.
Kvesitadze, E. (2013, April). GEORGIAN MEDIA: NEW CHALLENGES AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES. Retrieved from OSCE.ORG: http://www.osce.org/fom/19477?download=true
Kvirispalitra. (2015, November 2). ,,There will be a bloodshed'" -Telephone records of Mikheil Saakashvili, Sopho Nizharadze and Nika Gvaramia. Retrieved from Kvirispalitra.ge: http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/politic/27024-qsto-proq-siskhlisghvra-iqnebaq-mikheil- saakashvilis-sofo-nizharadzisa-da-nika-gvaramias-akhali-satelefono-chanatserebi.html
Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and Function of Communication in Society. New York: Institue for Religious and Social Stidies.
70
Lasswell, H. (2012, July 3). The Theory of Political Propaganda. Retrieved from Colectivo Novecento: https://colectivonovecento.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/lasswell-the- theory-of-political-propaganda.pdf
Lincoln A., M. (2009). Compromising democracy: state building in Saakashvili's Georgia. New york: Columbia University.
Lincoln, M. (2004). "Georgia's Rose revolution." CURRENT HISTORY-NEW YORK THEN PHILADELPHIA. New York.
LINCOLN, M. (2004). Georgia’s Rose Revolution. Retrieved from Columbia University Academic Commons: https://doi.org/10.7916/D8V414QM
Lippman, W. (1997). PUBLIC OPINION (1921) . USA: Free Press; Reissue edition.
Lippmann, W. (2004). Public Opinion. New York: Dover Publications.
Lomjaria, N., Kordzaia, T., Gobronidze, N., & Kemertelidze, N. (2006). FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. Tbilisi: The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association.
Malcolm X. (2010). The Chosen Few. In J. D. King, The Awakening of Global Consciousness: A Guide to Self-Realization and Spirituality (p. 199). Bloominton, US: AuthorHouse.
McFaul, M. (2005). Transitions from post-communism. Journal of Democracy, 16 (3): 5-19.
McLeod, S. (2014). Carl Jung. Retrieved from simplypsychology.org: http://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-jung.html
Mchedlidze, D. (2008, October 7). Georgian media is experiencing a lack of democracy in Georgia. Retrieved from Media.Ge: http://www.media.ge/ge/portal/articles/6562/
Mills, C. (1956). The power of Elite. Oxford Press.
Milton, J. (1918). Areopagitica. UK: Cambridge University.
Mirvanidze, A. (2012, November 7). IMEDI TV interview with Mirvanidze Amiran. (Imedi TV, Interviewer)
Natsvlishvili, A. (2009). LICENSE TO KILL. Tbilisi: THE HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER (HRIDC).
71
New York Times. (1995, March 10). Edward Bernays, 'Father of Public Relations' And Leader in Opinion Making, Dies at 103 . Retrieved from Nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/08/16/specials/bernays-obit.html
Nichol, J. (2009). Russia-Georgia Conflict in August 2008: Context and Implications for U.S. interests. Congressional Research Service.
NINOSHVILI, L. (2012). “Wailing in the Cities”:Media, Modernity, and the Metamorphosis of. MI: Michigan Publishing: University of Michigan Library.
Nodia, G. (2004). "The parliamentary and Presidential Elections in Georgia, 2003-2004". International IDEA: Election Assessment in the South Caucasus.
P. Boyd, J. (1955, June 29). The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 11, 1 January–6 August 1787. Princeton: University of South Carolina Press. Retrieved from National Archives: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0047#normal_view
Palitra TV. (2012, October 17). Disconnected live broadcasting and riot policy in TV imedi. Retrieved from Palitra TV/Radio: http://www.palitratv.ge/akhali- ambebi/politika/22577-shetsyvetili-pirdapiri-etheri-da-specrazmi-qimedshiq-2007- tslis-7-noembris-kadrebi.html
Papava, V. (2006). The political economy of Georgia's Rose Revolution. Elsevier Limited.
Paradashvili, T. (2013, February 24). Giorgi Sanaia’s family requests repeated investigation of his murder. Retrieved from Media.Ge: http://www.media.ge/en/portal/news/300322/
Patrick, B. (2012). The ten commandments of Propaganda. London: Arktos.
Pulliam, S. (2013). Qatar’s Foreign Policy: Building an International Image. Khamasin: University of Cairo.
Radio Free Europe. (12, December 27). TV Imedi temporary stopped broadcasting. Retrieved from Radio Free: http://www.radiotavisupleba.ge/content/news/1555810.html
Rekhviashvili, L. (2012). Georgia's democratic development. Tbilisi: Center of social sciences.
Reporters Without Borders. (2002). RSF. Retrieved from world press freedom index: https://rsf.org/en/world-press-freedom-index
Reporters Without Borders. (2003-2012). RSF. Retrieved from WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX: https://rsf.org/en/ranking_list/archive
72
Reporters Without Borders. (2009). World Press Freedom Index 2009. Retrieved from RSF.ORG: https://rsf.org/en/world-press-freedom-index-2009
Rimple, P. (2012). Who owned Georgia 2003-2012. Transparency International Georgia.
Robakidze, S. (2017, 10 05). Phone Interview with Soso Robakidze. (B. Kuprashvili, Interviewer)
Rondeli, A. (2001). The choice of independent Georgia. UK: Oxford University press.
Saakashvili, M. (2005). Interview at Blair House,Washington, D.C. (Z. Karumadze, & J. Wertsch, Interviewers)
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.
Shoshitashvili, N. (2010). The freedom of media and independence in post-revolutionary Georgia . Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University.
Socor, V. (21, December 2007). The Jamestown Foundation. Retrieved from BADRI PATARKATSISHVILI: FROM RUSSIAN BUSINESSMAN TO GEORGIAN PRESIDENTIAL CLAIMANT (part two): http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=33267#. VvwGXuKLSUm
Sputnik International. (2007, September 26). Why did Okruashvili "attack" Saakashvili? Retrieved from Sputnik news: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20070926/81123901.html
Stanford University. (2009, March 27). The History of Utilitarianism. Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/utilitarianism-history/
Stefes, C. (2008). Governance, the state, and systemic corruption: Armenia and Georgia in comparison. Caucasian Review of International Affairs.
Street, J. (2010). Mass media, politics and democracy. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sumbadze, N. (2009). Saakashvili in the public eye: what public opinion polls tell us. Tbilisi: Institute for Policy Studies.
Tabula. (2012, October 16). Imedi has returned to Patarkatsishvili's family. Retrieved from Tabula.ge: http://www.tabula.ge/ge/story/62212-telekompania-imedi-patarkacishvilis- ojaxs-daubrunda
73
Tatum, J. (2009). Democratic transition in Georgia: Post-Rose Revolution internal pressures on leadership. Caucasian Review of International Affairs.
Tatum, J. (2009). Democratic transition in Georgia: Post-Rose Revolution internal pressures on leadership. Frankfurt: Caucasian Review of International Affairs.
The Economist. (2016). Democracy index of Georgia. Retrieved from www.eiu.com: https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. (2012). Walter Lippmann. Retrieved from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Walter-Lippmann
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. (2016, April 18). Harold Dwight Lasswell. Retrieved from Encyclopædia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Harold-Dwight- Lasswell
The Vigilant Citizen. (2010, April 28). The Vigilant Citizen - Symbols rule the world. Retrieved from Mind Control Theories and Techniques used by Mass Media: http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/mind-control-theories-and-techniques-used- by-mass-media/
Transparency International. (2013). Reform or Retouch? Georgia's "New Wave" of democracy. Tbilisi: Irish Aid and British Embassy in Georgia. Retrieved from Transparency International.
Transparency International Georgia. (2009). Television in Georgia – Ownership, Control and Regulation. Tbilisi: TI Georgia.
Transparency International Georgia. (2016, 02 05). A new reality at Maestro – timeline showing the changes in the TV Company’s ownership and management. Retrieved from http://www.transparency.ge/en/blog/new-reality-maestro-timeline-showing-changes- tv-company-s-ownership-and-management
Transparency International Georgia. (2016). Television in Georgia – ownership, control and regulation. Tbilisi: TI Georgia.
Transparency International Georgia. (2016). The Georgian Advertising Market. Tbilisi: TI Georgia.
Trotter, W. (1921). Instincts of the herd in peace and war. London: London : T. F. Unwin ltd.
74
Tsikhelashvili, K. (2007). GEORGIA FOUR YEARS AFTER THE ROSE REVOLUTION. Tbilisi: Ilia Chavchavadze State University.
Tuckness, A. (2002). Locke and the Legislative Point of View. UK: Princeton University Press.
Turashvili, T. (2013). The development of electronic communication in Georgia - Internet availability. Tbilisi: Institute for development of freedom of information (IDFI).
U.S Agency for international development. (1999, June). The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic. Retrieved from U.S Agency for international development: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2496/200sbc.pdf
U.S. Department of state. (2006). Country Report on Human Rights practicies in Georgia. US.
U.S. Department of State. (2015). Georgia Human Rights Report. United States.
Verdzeuli, N. (2014). Unknown facts of Giorgi Sanaia. Tbilisi: Sulakauri. von Cramon-Taubadel, S. (2014). Georgia’s agricultural exports. Berlin/Tbilisi: German Economic Team Georgia.
Waldman, S. (2011). Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a broadband age. US: DIANE Publishing.
Walker, S. (2007, September 29). Huge protests in Tbilisi demand election after corruption claims. Retrieved from The independent (London): http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3010190.ece
Walter, S. (1976). C.G. JinTG'S THEORY OF THE C0LLECTI7E UNCONSCIOUS: A RATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION. Florida: University of Florida.
Webster, F. (2004). The Information Society Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Welt, C. (2005). Causes of the Rose Revolution. USA: USAID.
Welt, C. (2006). GEORGIA’S ROSE REVOLUTION: From Regime Weakness To Regime Collapse. USA: Stanford University.
World Bank. (2017). GDP per capita, PP. Retrieved from The World Bank: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?end=2012&locations=G E&start=1995&view=chart
75
ZOURABICHVILI, S. (2009, April 3). A Fresh Start in Georgia. Retrieved from International New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/opinion/04iht- edzourabichvili.html?_r=1
76
17 List of Graphs
Figure 1 – World Bank GDP per capita in Georgia ...... 30 Figure 2 – Democracy Score of Georgia ...... 31 Figure 3 – Press Freedom in Georgia ...... 34 Figure 4 – Political Enviroment in Georgia ...... 34 Figure 5 – The Media Freedom Index of Georgia ...... 40 Figure 6 – Independent Media Score of Georgia ...... 48
77