Civic Engagement in Georgia: Explaining lack of political participation of young people Tamar Khoshtaria, Tinatin Zurabishvili, CRRC-Georgia 11 th ESA conference August 28-31, 2013, Turin

The Context Lack of (democratic) electoral traditions and highly polarized political climate; Disillusionment in politics and lack of trust to major political institutions; Lack of civic engagement traditions and low level of civic engagement.

The question What are the main factors that explain (non-)participation of the young people?

Expected explanations Fear of the consequences of political activism, leading to self-censorship (Noelle-Neumann, 1974; Hayes et al., 2006). Distrust in efficacy of activism, i.e. belief that activism/engagement makes no sense (Rogers et al., 1975). Personal motives (shyness).

MYPLACE project (Memory, Youth, Political Legacy and Civic Engagement) A FP7 EC project, exploring how young people's social participation is shaped by the shadows (past, present and future) of totalitarianism and populism in Europe. Employing both quantitative and qualitative data collection approaches in 14 partner countries. Current presentation based on Work Package “Measuring Participation” – Survey.

Partner countries Croatia Denmark Estonia Finland Georgia Germany – East / West Greece Hungary Latvia Portugal Russia Slovakia Spain UK

Measuring Participation Two contrasting locations selected in each country. Common questionnaire developed for all partners, with a few country-specific variables. Approximately 600 young people (16 to 25 years old) interviewed in each location. Results representative for the two locations, but NOT representative nationwide.

Fieldwork in Georgia Survey locations: Kutaisi and Telavi. – Differences between the locations to be explored. Fieldwork conducted by CRRC-Georgia. Fieldwork dates: October 10 – November 18, completed interviews. Response rate: 91.3%. Results not weighted.

Respondents’ characteristics Participation in elections; Membership in a political party; Level of trust to major political actors; Assessments of how much human rights are respected in the country; Knowledge of basic political figures.

Analysis Based on questions about 20 possible forms of social activism, a new ‘civic engagement’ variable was computed, measuring ‘overall’ civic engagement. Logistic regression analysis with the computed ‘civic engagement’ variable as a dependent variable and a set of (a) basic demographic variables and (b) social factors as independent variables.

Model 1 KutaisiTelavi BSEORBSEOR Constant *** *** Gender Female-.502 * (Base=male) Education Higher.923 ** Incomplete higher1.048 *** Secondary technical Secondary * (Base = incomplete secondary) Employment Employed-.872 * (Base = unemployed)

KutaisiTelavi BSEORBSEOR Constant *** *** Gender (Base=male) Female-.558 * Education (Base=incomplete secondary) Higher Incomplete higher Secondary technical Secondary * Employment (Base=unemployed) Employed ** Voting behavior (Base=did not vote) Voted in the last elections * Feeling close to a political party ? (Base=no) Yes *** Interest in LGBT rights.086 * ** Political party membership (Base= not a member) Member2.127 ** * Volunteered for a political party (Base=did not volunteer) Volunteered2.004 * ** Friends having different political views (Base=none) One1.282 *** * Two1.093 ** Tree or more1.271 *** Talking with grandparents about the past (Base=never) Occasionally Regularly1.017 * ***

Discussion Low important of socio-demographic variables, after other variables were added; The most surprising finding is about the importance of discussing the past with grandparents, as it increases of chances of being politically active; Still significant difference between the locations that we need to explain in the future.

Thank you