Citizens’ Attitudes toward Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Civic Activism/ 2011 Public Opinion Survey Results

7/29/2019 Citizens Attitudes toward Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Civic Activism/ 2011 Public Opinion Survey Results

1/23

1

Civic Responsibility

Professionalism

Citizens Attitudes toward Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)and Civic Activism

2011 Public Opinion Survey Results

I. Introduction

Upon first glance, the civil society sector in Georgia seems weak, with only one percent ofthe Georgian population currently reporting membership in a non-governmental organization(NGO), and the number of people who distrust NGOs (23%) outweighing those who trustthem (18%). Yet, these statistics present only a surface level understanding of civic

engagement in Georgia. Results from a new survey undertaken by G-PAC on this topic showthat while formal engagement with the NGO sector is low, informal norms of civicengagement are widespread in Georgian society. The following report uses the results fromthe G-PAC survey to point out the obstacles to and opportunities for bridging the gapbetween formal and informal forms of civic engagement in Georgia

Charged with the task of providing grants and technical assistance to think tanks andadvocacy organizations in Georgia, G-PAC, a four-year program funded by the US Agencyfor International Development (USAID) and implemented by the East West ManagementInstitute (EWMI) decided to carry out the nationally representative survey on civicengagement in Georgia (G-PAC collaborated with Eurasia Partnership Foundation to carryout the survey. The survey was developed and conducted by the Caucasus Research ResourceCenters). Hoping to better understand how Georgian citizens perceive NGOs, what they likeand do not like about them, and to identify the drivers of civic engagement, G-PAC aims touse the results of the survey to enhance the quality of its grant programs and its advice tolocal NGOs on how to engage citizens and serve their interests more effectively.

The comprehensive survey posed in-depth questions about the Georgian populations currentlevels of civic engagement, attitudes toward and perceptions of NGOs, willingness toparticipate in NGO campaigns, current membership in organizations and political values. Itthen went a step beyond the necessary but predictable questions about the formal NGO sector

to assess social attitudes, altruistic behaviors, religious engagement and relationships amongfamily, friends and neighbors that could be acting as obstacles to, or present unseenopportunities for, formal civic participation. The survey was administered to a nationallyrepresentative sample of 2,509 speakers of the Georgian language in face-to-face interviewsthat took place between July and August 2011.

The EWMI G-PAC survey results reveal a deep discrepancy between the Georgian publicslow levels of formal engagement with the civil society sector and high levels of informalengagement with family, friends, neighbors and other citizens. Following from this, the G-PAC survey data indicate that the five major obstacles to civic engagement in Georgia are: 1)the publics fundamental lack of understanding and knowledge of what an NGO is and does,

2) a mismatch between the issues that deeply concern citizens and the issues that NGOs mostoften address, 3) dependence on family and friends as a form of informal insurance thatsubstitutes for engagement with NGOs, 4) the currently challenging economic environment


2/23

that creates a lack of resources for participation, and 5) a lack of institutionalization ofinformal engagement so that pro-social behaviors are often one-off rather than regular events.

More optimistically, the survey results suggest the six following opportunities for thedevelopment of civic engagement in Georgia: 1) positive impressions of NGOs and NGO

workers once questions are more specific, 2) high levels of willingness to participate whenNGOs take up issues that resonate with citizens, 3) more widely held democratic politicalattitudes than the Soviet legacy would predict, 5) openness to building new relationships and6) respect for community activists.

The following report presents an overview of the EWMI G-PAC survey data. It begins withan assessment of the Georgian publics low levels of engagement with the forma l NGO sectoras juxtaposed with the Georgian societys more widespread forms of informal civic

engagement. It then lays out the above-mentioned five obstacles and six opportunities for thedevelopment of the Georgian NGO sector. The report concludes with preliminaryrecommendations intended to serve as a basis for discussion with the broader international

donor community and Georgian NGOs themselves regarding their efforts to more effectivelyengage citizens and increase civic participation in Georgia.

II. Confirming the Contradiction: Formal versus Informal Civic Engagement

The Dismal Formal Side

Current levels of public engagement with NGOs, and civic activism more broadly, are verylow among the Georgian population. The EWMI G-PAC survey data shows that in a countrywhere international donors have devoted millions of dollars to civil society development overtwo decades, only 4.5 percent of the Georgian population have attended a meeting organizedby an NGO, 3.5 percent have participated in a training sponsored by an NGO, 2.2 percenthave called or visited the office of an NGO and5.9 percent have had someone from an NGOcome to their door over the last two years.Moreover, there is broad overlap in thesepopulations. When taken separately, peoplereporting active engagement with an NGOaccount for 206 responses, but in total they areonly 121 unique members of the 2,509 personsample, or 4.8% of the population. On average,while these people are equally distributed acrossrural and urban Georgia, they are significantly

more educated, and those who have attended atraining or meeting are more likely to beemployed.

Rates of political activism in Georgia are also currently quite low. Over the last six months,9.6 percent of the population have attended a public meeting, 3.3 percent have called orwritten to a newspaper, TV or radio program, 1.7 percent have attended a political rally, andover the last two years, 5.7 percent have signed a collective letter addressing a specific issue.The population of people who are engaging in political activism overlaps somewhat with thepopulation of people engaging in NGO activism. This leaves us with a small pool of activelyengaged citizens in Georgia.

Membership statistics are even worse. While a surprisingly low 1.7 percent of the populationreport that they belong to a political party, an even smaller 1.0 percent of the population, (23respondents in total) report membership in an officially recognized NGO or professional


3/23

union, and only 0.77 say percent that theybelong to an official cultural or sportsunion. When criteria were loosened toinclude membership in less formallydefined clubs or associations, such as book

clubs, sports teams or even online groups,membership statistics rose only to 5percent. Members of political partiestended to be older and better educated,while the only common link betweenmembers of NGOs and professional unionswas that they tended to be employed, 20percent of them by the NGOs in which

they reported membership.

In the background of these low rates of formal civic engagement is a climate of mistrust both

toward other members of the Georgian public generally and toward NGOs specifically. 41percent of the population agree that you cannot be too careful in dealing with people inGeorgia versus only 23 percent who feel the opposite that generally, most people in

Georgia can be trusted. Only 7

percent report the highest level oftrust for the rest of the population,while 25 percent report the highestlevels of distrust. Meanwhile, thereis worse news for the NGO sector.Levels of trust in the Georgianarmy, police and president reach ashigh as 82 percent, 62 percent and54 percent respectively, but only18 percent of the population trustNGOs. And while levels of distrustare low for the army, police andpresident, nearly a quarter (23%)of the population distrust NGOs.

Out of all of the demographic data collected on the respondents, only being more religious

predicts more trust in NGOs. Knowledge of the English language, contact with foreigners,

internet usage and time abroad does not correlate with higher levels of trust for NGOs. Evenmembership in an NGO does not predict higher levels of trust in NGOs. This suggests thatsome, if not many, of the people who have the most contact with NGOs are skeptical of them.Georgian NGOs often claim that citizens do not support them because the media does notcover their activities and as a result the population does not have enough information aboutthem. However, these data suggest that those people who have the most information aboutNGO activities still do not trust the NGO sector.

Adding to the problems of inactivity and distrust isdisengagement. The EWMI G-PAC survey finds thatthe majority of Georgians do not discuss political

issues with family, friends or neighbors. On the onehand, the data shows a widespread norm ofdiscussingprivate problems within the Georgianfamily. The majority of respondents (69%) reports


4/23

always or often discussing their private problems with close relatives while only a minority(10%) rarely or never does. On the other hand, when asked how often they discuss politics,i.e.public problems, with family members the data go in the opposite direction. The majorityof

respondents (66%) claims to never or rarely

discuss politics with familymembers, while a minority (18%)often or always talk to their familyabout politics. Very similar resultsemerge when respondents are askedhow often they discuss politics withtheir close friends. 68 percent rarely

or never discuss politics with friendswhile only 15 percent often oralways do. Even fewer Georgians

are in the habit of discussing politics

with their neighbors. 70 percent never or rarely discuss politics with neighbors while 11percent do so often or always.

Respondents were also asked how often they try topersuade friends or relatives to share their politicalviews and for most (42%) it is not a commonpractice.

In sum, we are left with a population that isdisengaged from political discussion, politically andcivically inactive and deeply distrustful of bothsociety at large and the civil society institutionsmeant to help improve conditions.

The Brighter Informal Side

Despite these low levels of formal civic engagement and general interpersonal trust inGeorgian society, helping behaviors and positive attitudes toward altruism are widespread.The EWMI G-PAC survey data show that in the last six months, 65 percent of the populationgave money to a beggar, 61 percent helped a friend or neighbor with household chores, 50percent helped a

stranger on the side of aroad, 28 percent made acontribution to charity,26 percent helped clean apublic space, 25 percentknow someone who gaveblood and 20 percenthelped someone resolve adispute. There is highoverlap among these

populations as well, with889 (or 77%) of the 1,156people who helped astranger on the road also


5/23

helping a friend or neighbor with a chore. However, even with the overlap, this is still a farlarger portion of the population than those engaged in formal civil society activism. What isparticularly promising about this population of informally engaged citizens is that while theyalso tend to be more educated, they also skew younger than the general population. Thus, it isnot the aging Soviet generation practicing altruistic behaviors, but the younger generations

who will hopefully be continuing these behaviors for a longer span of time and raisingchildren to do the same.

Positive attitudes toward altruism are comparably much higher than levels of generalinterpersonal trust in Georgian society. Only 22 percent of the population agrees with thecynical quid pro quo view of altruism that generally, when people help others, they expect

some benefit in return, with only 8 percent completely agreeing. Meanwhile, a much largerproportion (40%) disagree with the statement and 27 percent of them completely disagree,suggesting that they believe that people help others out of selfless generosity rather than theexpectation of mutual benefit. A 55 percent majority of the population report that they feelhelpful to many people outside of their family, compared to only 7 percent who do not.

Reciprocally, most people (46%) feel that generally, they have plenty of people to rely onwhen they have problems compared with few (13%) who do not and, more specifically, the

vast majority of respondents (69%)claim that if they were ill, there arepeople outside of their immediatehousehold who would look after themwithout expecting any compensationwhile only 22 percent feel there arenot.

General attitudes of personal wellbeing and resilience are also prevalentin the population. Despite hardeconomic times with 61 percent of therespondents unemployed, 33 percent

of the population with no personal monetary income last month and 32 percent with personalincome up to only 140 GEL last month, an overwhelming majority (57%) of Georgians reportthat they are happy, with 27 percent being extremely happy Comparatively, a small

minority (12%) report that they are unhappy with 4 percent of them claiming to beextremely unhappy. The majority of the population also shows a strong amount of

persistence and perseverance with 64 percent reporting that setbacks do not discourage them,

and only 7 percent saying that they do find setbacks discouraging.

One explanation for the mismatch born out in the EWMI G-PAC survey data is that theformal NGO sector is disconnected from society in its failure to explain what it is and doesand in the issues it selects that do not resonate with the population. The raw materials for avibrant civil society exist in Georgia as evidenced by the populations widespread altruistic

behavior, positive attitudes toward democracy and willingness to participate in NGOcampaigns when they address salient issues, particularly among the younger generation. Theformal NGO sector needs to find ways to tap into these resources more effectively.

III. Obstacles to Civic Engagement

Obstacle 1: Lack of InformationThe EWMI G-PAC survey included a series of questions designed to test respondentsknowledge of what is and is not an NGO. While on average many people were able toidentify NGOs and non-NGOs correctly, a significant portion of the population were not and


6/23

an even larger portion of the population did not have enough information to answer thequestions. Throughout the battery of questions on NGOs a very high percentage of the

population answered dont know even when they were asked to state opinions rather than

recall factual information. This indicates a fundamental lack of understanding and knowledgeof the NGO sector among the Georgian population.

In their NGO capacity report, the Association of Young Economists of Georgia (AYEG)described their focus group participants as having had only a vague understanding of thepurpose and activities of NGOs and cite examples of participants confusing NGOs withprivate companies and opposition political parties.1 Building on this, the EWMI G-PACsurvey asked respondents to answer whether each in a series of 10 organizations is 1) AnNGO, 2) Not an NGO, or 3) An organization that they have never heard of. As with allquestions, they also had the option to reply dont know. The list of organizations included

four Georgian NGOs (the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA), InternationalSociety for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), and the Liberty Institute) as well as sixnon-NGOs, including two international organizations (the US Agency for International

Development (USAID) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)), two privatecompanies (British Petroleum (BP) and Aldagi, a Georgian insurance agency), two politicalentities (Parliament and the Labor Party) and one fictitious NGO (Association ofUnemployed People).

The proportion of correct to incorrect answers for the two highest profile NGOs in Georgia,GYLA and the Liberty Institute, was not bad with the majority (56% and 51%) correctlyversus a minority (8% and 11%) incorrectly identifying GYLA and the Liberty Institute asNGOs, respectively. The rates for correct identification of the Georgian NGO ISFED weresignificantly lower with only 30 percent correctly versus 28 percent incorrectly identifyingISFED as an NGO. The biggerproblem was the rate of falsepositives. More people (29%)claimed that the Association ofthe Unemployed was a realGeorgian NGO than those whoadmitted to never having heard ofit (18%). More than a quarter(26%) of the respondents thoughtthat USAID is an NGO (a mistakeeasily made since they fund so

many NGOs in Georgia) and moreworryingly that the Labor Party isan NGO. Another 25 percentidentified the Aldagi insurancecompany as an NGO as well as 17 percent and 14 percent, respectively, misidentifyingBritish Petroleum and NATO as NGOs. On the other hand, high proportions of the populationknow that these organizations are not NGOs and, in particular, 50 percent and 48 percentcorrectly identify NATO and the Labor Party as not an NGO, and a triumphal 83 percentknow that the Parliament is not an NGO. Not surprisingly, the people who are more likely toidentify NGOs correctly are more educated.

1 Association of Young Economists of Georgia,Advocacy Capacity Assessment of Georgian NGOs, Tbilisi:March 2011. Accessible at: http://www.ewmi-gpac.org/en/news/1-news/157-advocacy-capacity-assessment-of-georgian-ngos


7/23

What is even more interesting than the proportion of right versus wrong responses inassessing the Georgian publics knowledge of the NGO sector is the level of never heard of

and dont know responses. The lowest percentages of dont know responses were for the

political institutions with only 13% not knowing the Parliament and 24% not knowing theLabor Party. However, these are exceptions. From there the percentages range from a low of

33 percent of the population not knowing or never having heard of GYLA to a high of 66percent of the population not knowing or never having heard of BP. On average, those whochose to answer dont know are older and less well educated than the general population.They also often tend to be female rather than male.

Similarly stunning proportions of the population opted to answer dont know rather than

answer questions about NGOs, even when they were asked to give their own opinion ratherthan guess at a fact. When asked questions about who finances NGOs and whose interests

NGOs support, across a list of possible options, dont know answers ranged between 38

percent and 58 percent. When asked if they think NGOs have become more or less activesince the Rose Revolution, 42 percent claim they dont know. When asked to identify the

main motivation of NGOs and the types of people who work in NGOs dont know answerswere 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively. Even when asked their opinion about whoshould finance NGOs, between 41 percent and 46 percent answered dont know for every

option from the Georgian government to the Georgian citizens themselves. For the questionsasking people which three issues they thought NGOs should address more, a constant 10.8percent of the population responded that they do not know. As above, in most cases, peoplewho answer dont know tend to be older and come from more rural areas.

Despite not entirely understanding what an NGO is or does, the majority of the populationbelieves that the NGO sector has become more, not less, active since the Rose Revolution.This perception runs counter to the claim that many international donors, NGOs and

journalists have made that the civil society sector has been less active since the RoseRevolution. This perception may reflect more coverage that NGOs, particularly GYLA, havehad in the media. It might also be a reflection of the publics confusion over what an NGO is.

While those who did answer did not do a bad job of identifying NGOs and non-NGOs, thehigh proportion of people who do not know how to answer questions about the NGO sectorillustrates a significant lack of public understanding of what an NGO is and does.

Obstacle 2: Issue MismatchAnother problem curbing engagement with the formal NGO sector is a mismatch between theissues that the Georgian NGOs choose to address and the issues that are currently most

important to the Georgian citizens. This problem was raised by participants in the AYEGfocus groups, who expressed the hope that NGOs would take up crucial issues ofunemployment, the rising cost of living, education and healthcare. Respondents to the EWMIG-PAC survey give similarly economic-themed answers when asked what issues they thinkNGOs shouldaddress. In contrast, they perceive NGOs as most often addressing the issue ofelections. AYEG data confirm the mismatch between the issues that the majority of citizenswant NGOs to address and the issues that they are currently addressing. This may indicatethat citizens think that issues such as elections and human rights are already receivingadequate attention from NGOs and that they would like to see the NGO sector diversify toaddress a broader array of issues, particularly the economic issues of paramount concern tothe population right now.

Beginning with the AYEG data, the top five issues actually addressed by their sample of 100NGOs are education (50%), human rights (42%), local governance (27%), rule of law (27%)and democracy-building (21%). Altogether, their NGOs report working on 22 different issues


8/23

with some NGOs claiming to have over ten focus areas, and others more modestly claiming

two.2 It is interesting to note that these categories have all been buzz-words in internationaldonor reporting over the last ten years and may reflect NGOs tendency to select issues basedon grant availability. However, it also must be noted that many important issues such ashelping socially vulnerable populations and improving healthcare policy could fit within the

above categories.

Comparatively, when respondentsin the EWMI G-PAC survey wereasked what issues they perceiveNGOs in Georgia as mostfrequently addressing, theyresponded that they believedNGOs most frequently take upelection issues (28%), poverty andunemployment (20%), education

and social assistance (16%), mediaissues (16) and court issues (11%).There is undoubtedly a greatdivide between perception andreality, despite overlap in issues ofeducation and perhaps rule of law

and democracy-building if they relate to elections. Those who think NGOs address povertyand unemployment tend to be less educated. Their answers therefore might indicate wishfulthinking rather than informed perception.

In terms of desirability, respondents thinkthat NGOs shouldbe addressing issues ofincreasing prices, poverty andunemployment (66%), education,healthcare, and social assistance (46%),security, defense and conflict-relatedissues (21%) and issues of regionaldevelopment (14%). Those 66% whowant to see NGOs working on economicchallenges tend to be older, less educatedand more rural while the 46% who want

NGOs to address education, healthcare,and social assistance tend to be olderwith lower incomes, perhaps suggestingconcern over pensions. Nothing links those who want NGOs to take up security issues, butunsurprisingly, the people who want NGOs to address regional development tend to be morerural, i.e. farther outside of Tbilisi. Meanwhile, better educated, more urban people withhigher incomes would like NGOs to work on court issues and younger, more highly educated,urban females with higher incomes want them to advocate for womens issues and against

domestic violence. Thus, it is important that NGOs taking up different issues know thedemographics of their supporters and target their outreach efforts more specifically to them.

2 While AYEG employed a purposive sample rather than a representative random sample of NGOs, theyensured variation across geographic location, issue area and age, gender and ethnicity of the key staff. TheNGOs they selected are typical of those that the EWMI G-PAC survey respondents might encounter.


9/23

Finally, the top five responses people give when asked about the most important issue facing

Georgia at the moment are jobs(69%), poverty (38%), affordabilityof healthcare (37%), territorialintegrity (30%) and rising

prices/inflation (29%). This is a veryclose match to the issues thatrespondents said they wished NGOswould address and they areoverwhelmingly economic in nature.Only small proportions of thepopulation think that issues mostfrequently worked on by NGOs suchas quality of education (5%), humanrights (7%), fairness of elections(5%), fairness of the court system

(5%) are among the most important facing Georgia.

Furthermore, when asked what kind ofactivities the respondents would like to seeNGO carrying out, the number one responsewas consulting with the citizens aboutimportant issues. Rather than asking forhandouts of services such as vocationaltraining or legal advice, the citizensoverwhelmingly wanted NGOs to discussissues with them. This indirectly points to theGeorgian publics desire for NGOs to more

effectively address the concerns they face intheir daily life.

Thus, we find a significant mismatch between what issues the Georgian population feels arethe most important and wish that NGOs would take up with the Georgian government ontheir behalf and the issues that NGOs actually address in their advocacy campaigns. This datacan go a long way in explaining why trust in the NGO sector is so low and why 35 percent ofthe population believe that NGOs are merely serving their own interests rather than those ofthe wider public. International donors may play a key role in this mismatch, as they often

mandate, or at least sanction, the issues addressed by the NGOs that they fund. Clearly, thepublic would like to see the NGO sector diversify to address a broader array of issues,particularly the economic issues that are most important to their daily lives right now.

Obstacle 3: Lack of InstitutionalizationWhile groups of Georgian neighbors and friends may come together to solve a collectiveproblem or initiate a pick-up football game, they do not often institutionalize these groups sothat they may continue to operate after the immediate problem is resolved or the game hasended. This lack of institutionalization is at the heart of the divide between the formal civilsociety sector and the informal civic engagement seen in the survey data. The civicengagement that is institutionalized in formal NGOs by international aid money and oversight

most likely did not have an informal constituency or practice on the ground before it wasformalized. The informal civic engagement of problem-solving neighbors or sports-playingfriends remains a spontaneous, one-off occurrence rather than an institution that creates aformal repetition of those practices.


10/23

The lack of formalization is most obvious in the altruistic behaviors discussed in the firstsection of this report. While large proportions of the Georgian public gave money to abeggar, helped a friend or neighbor with chores, helped a stranger on the road and made acontribution to charity, it can be inferred by the correspondingly low proportions of formal

group membership and NGO engagement that none of these acts of altruism were carried outthrough a formal organization. Positive attitudes toward altruism, as also discussed in the firstsection, are widespread throughout Georgian society. However, the energy driving theseattitudes is not harnessed by institutions that can use it for collective action.

The disconnect between the widespread altruistic attitudes and lack of engagement with theformal NGO sector in Georgian society has a direct parallel with the widespread religioussentiment but low levels of formal engagement with the Georgian Orthodox Church as bornout in the EWMI G-PAC survey data. Measuring both religious attitudes and practices, thesurvey results show a great divide between the formal and informal practice of religion withmost Georgians embracing the informal side without feeling the need to engage formally with

the church.

82 percent of the respondents say thatreligion is important to them in theirdaily life compared with only 4percent who say that it is not. 66percent of the population considerthemselves religious, 37 percent ofthose believing themselves to be veryreligious, while only 9 percent do notconsider themselves religious. 74percent of Georgians pray regularlyat home at least once a month, 54percent of them at least once a week,while only 15 percent report that theyhave not prayed at home at all in the

past year. A smaller but still majority 53 percent of Georgians pray regularly in a church atleast once a month with only 19 percent having not prayed in a church at all in the past year.30 percent even claim to regularly donate money to a church at least once per month.However, when asked how often they attend formal religious services 57 percent go only onspecial holidays, less often than that or never attend formal services.

Practices even more closely linked to the church as a formal institution have positiveresponse rates as low as those relating to NGO participation. Only 5 percent help to clean achurch, 4.4 percent help a church collect food and clothing for the poor, 2.7 percent go onpilgrimages, 1 percent participate in a church choir, 0.4 percent participate as a lay sidemanin a church at least once a month.

Thus, we see a pattern in which altruistic and religious sentiment both run high in Georgiansociety and Georgians view these sentiments highly and often act on them spontaneously.However, these spontaneous behaviors are seldom carried out through the formal institutionsof the NGO sector or the Orthodox Church. One positive recent development toward

institutionalizing altruism in Georgia is the development of the charity SMS donation schemethrough which mobile phone users are able to SMS contributions to charities through theirphones. The EWMI G-PAC survey did not disaggregate between SMS and other types ofdonations to charity, the technology has become very popularity and likely facilitated many


11/23

of the 28 percent of Georgians who contributed to charity over the last six months. While thecharity SMS technology does not help organize Georgians into formal groups, it does helpcollectively pool resources for formal groups.

Obstacle 4: Dependence on Family and Friends

The EWMI G-PAC survey takes a closer look at family relationships and finds that whileindividuals are not devoting large amounts of time to their families, most Georgians hold astrong belief that family comes first and rely heavily on other family members to supportthem in times of trouble. The prioritization of the family and the unquestioned norms ofaltruism within the family create a kind of informal insurance that may substitute forengagement with NGOs.

While the tight-knit bonds in Georgian families raise expectations that they would meet often,only 20 percent of respondents get together with close relatives at least once a week (of those4% every day). The majority (54%) get together with close relatives less often than once amonth or only on special occasions. This is a big contrast to how often Georgians get together

with their close friends. 25 percent of respondents report seeing their close friends every day,32 percent at least once a week and a minority (23%) get together with close friends lessoften than once a month or only on special occasions.

However, family bonds appear very prominently both in attitudinal questions and questionsabout who to turn to in emergencies. When asked the extent to which they agree that your

family and relatives demand too much from you, 46 percent of respondents disagree, with39 percent of them completely disagreeing. Only 16 percent agree that their family demandstoo much of them and only 9 percent of them agree completely. This can be read as eitherthat demands are low or that high demands are perceived as unobtrusive. Similar resultsattain for the question how often do you feel that your family affairs interfere with your

job? An overwhelming 73 percent say never and 12 percent rarely, while a very small 2

percent say sometimes and 1 percent say always. Again, it is open to interpretation whetherthis means that family affairs do not spill over into the office or if that spillover is notperceived as an interference.

The society is divided on the statement that Young people should look after their own livesfirst and then take care of their parents. 32 percent agree and 28 percent disagree with 19

percent feeling strongly on either side. Oddly enough, the people more likely to agree withthe statement are older rather than younger and vice versa. So rather than the older generationimposing self-sacrificing obligations on their children, it is the younger generation willfully

taking up this obligation of their ownaccord.

Two questions tested who Georgiansrelied on most in difficult times. Themore direct question asked respondentsto say yes or no to a list of options ofpeople and organizations to which theymight turn for help in difficult times. Anoverwhelming 93 percent responded thatthey would turn to family, with only 5

percent saying that they would not turn totheir family. The 80 percent who wouldturn to friends tended to be younger than the 16 percent who would not. Meanwhile, the 33percent who would turn to local government tended to be living in more rural areas than the


12/23

58 percent who would not. Finally, only 11 percent would turn to an NGO for help versus 75percent who would not. Thus, we see informal mechanisms of social insurance dominatingwith the family being most widely relied upon in difficult times.

In a second question, respondents were

asked how they would pay for damages ifthey or someone in their family was to causea car accident. Most (30%) say that theirfamily would pay for damages. Others(21%) would borrow money from a friend orrelative and only 8 percent would pay frompersonal savings. A large proportion (26%)did not know how they would pay.

In a separate question, only 35 percent ofrespondents report that their household own

some form of formal insurance. Those with insurance tend to be more educated and havehigher incomes, although they are equally spread across the country. While the survey did notask the respondents to specify the type of insurance they own, given that 172 (21%) of the834 households who have some sort of insurance also have a car, it could be assumed that asmany as 21 percent have car insurance. However, when asked how they would pay fordamages in a car accident, only 23 (or 1%) of the 2,509 respondents said that they wouldexpect insurance to pay in a car accident.

Thus, the family in Georgia serves as an informal form of insurance in a society where formalinsurance is rarely relied upon. The tight-knit bonds that tether Georgians to their families are

a reflection of their participation in thisinformal insurance scheme.Contrasting the vast majority whowould turn to their family in a time ofcrisis with the small minority whowould consider employing the aid ofan NGO on their behalf, an argumentcan be made that family bonds preventengagement with the formal NGOsector. The 46 percent of respondentswho stated that they would not be

interested in joining an organizationwhich, upon its own initiative, workson issues important for society, were

also asked the reason why they would not join. The largest proportion of respondents (37%)said that they did not participate in civil society organizations because they preferred to takecare of their own familys affairs.

Obstacle 5: Challenging Economic

environmentAnother possible obstacle to civic engagement isthe challenging economic environment that, as we

see above, is at the forefront of concerns for manyGeorgians. It is arguable that people have toprioritize their own economic survival and that oftheir extended family before they can start


13/23

devoting time, energy and money to the public good. Among the nationally representativesurvey population, household incomes skewed very low with 61 percent of the householdscollectively earning less than 400 Georgian Lari (around $240 USD) per month. Personalincome was significantly lower with 33 percent of respondents reporting no personal incomeand an additional 43 percent earning under 250 GEL (about 150 USD) in the past month.

Only 8 percent of the populationreportedly earned more than 400 GEL(around 240 USD) in the last month. Thesignificantly lower personal thanhousehold income implies thatpeople are relying on their families notonly in economic emergencies but forbasic financial support. The vastmajority (93%) of households reportedthat they did not have enough money tobuy durable goods, with 65 percent not

having enough money to buy clothes and30 percent not having adequate money tobuy food.

Employment is also currently a huge concern for Georgians. Less than half of the respondents(39%) interviewed were employed. And of the 61 percent of the respondents who were

unemployed, only 31 percent wereunemployed by choice and not looking for a

job. Nearly half (45%) were actively lookingfor a job but unable to find one and 11 percentwere interested in working but were notactively looking for a job. When asked whatthey thought is the most important factor forgetting a

job inGeorgia, 25percent of

respondents cited connections, with an equal percentage

citing education as the most important factor. However,

when then asked whether they thought that membership ina union or club would be an advantage for getting a job,most respondents (38%) said no. This suggests that the connections that help with

employment in Georgia are still imagined as close family or friendship ties rather than loosernetworks of associates and acquaintances.

Despite these grim statistics, a surprisinglylarge number of people (49%) felt that theyhave control over their economic situationversus the 24 percent who did not feel thatthey have control. Again, given the patterns of

family dependence described in the sectionabove, this may indicate that families arepooling resources to keep relatives afloat inthese difficult times. As we saw above, the


14/23

prioritization of the family may pose an obstacle to engagement with the NGO sector.

III. Opportunities to Promote Civic Engagement

Opportunity 1: Positive Perceptions of NGOs

Despite the grim picture at the general

and institutional level, more targetedquestions about respondents

perceptions of NGOs produce a mix ofpositive and cynical results. In askingwhat is the main motivation of NGOs,

30 percent of the population believe thatit is helping Georgian citizens solve

their problems and 5 percent that it is

raising citizen awareness, while a

smaller, more cynical 19 percent think itis receiving funding to employ

themselves. When asked if NGOs in

Georgia support the interests of thepeople who work for them, a cynical35 percent do agree, compared withonly 22 percent who disagree and 40percent who do not know. Meanwhile,an earnest 32 percent agree that NGOssupport the interests of people likethemselves, while a pessimistic 28percent disagree and a puzzled 38percent do not know.

Finally, in unequivocally good news for the Georgian NGO sector, the people who work forNGOs garner more trust than the NGOs themselves. When asking what type of person ismost likely to be active in NGOs,the survey provided a list ofanswers that included some of themost cynical terms heard for NGOworkers in Tbilisi, including a

grant-eater, a modern day memberof the Komsomol, a busybody and atroublemaker (intrigani inGeorgian). Compared with 6.3percent who allege that NGOworkers are grant-eaters, 2.0percent busybodies, 0.8 percentmodern day Komsomol members

and 0.6 percent troublemakers, 17 percent saw

them as someone who is trying to improvethe situation in the country and 12 percent as

a person who wants to help people like me.


15/23

Moreover, when asked to what extent a person actively involved in NGO work can betrusted, 21 percent said yes versus only 12 percent who said no. Thus, it seems safe to

conclude that rather than viewing social entrepreneurs negatively, Georgians have anoverwhelming amount of respect for them and the difficult work that they do for thecollective benefit.

Opportunity 2: Willingness to Participate is HighThe EWMI G-PAC survey also tested the self-reported willingness of respondents toparticipate in NGO campaigns. A series of four questions each presented a different issue thatan NGO was taking up and then asked respondents if they would participate in the followingactivities organized by the NGO: 1) signing a petition, 2) attending a rally, 3) going door-to-door informing neighbors about this issue, 4) donating money to help resolve this issue, and5) discussing this campaign with family and friends.

The issues for each question were chosen based on what the focus groups in the AYEG reportstated were the most salient. The first question detailed an advocacy campaign about the issue

of unemployment led by a Georgian NGO called the Economic Policy Research Centerlobbying the government to adopt policies that would generate new jobs. Given the context oflow levels of engagement with the formal NGO sector, the responses were quite high: 60percent of the respondents said that they would sign a petition. 52 percent would discuss thecampaign withfamily and friends. 19 percent would attend a rally. 12 percent would go door-to-doorinforming neighbors about this issue. 16 percent would donate money to the campaign.

The second question described an advocacy campaign in which an NGO taking up problemsrelated to the provision of quality, low-cost healthcare wants to raise government awarenessabout the scope of these problems. Again, the results were well above what might beexpected:64 percent of the respondents said that they would sign a petition, 54 percent would discussthe campaign with family and friends,18 percent would attend a rally, 12 percent would godoor-to-door informing neighbors about this issue and 16 percent would donate money to thecampaign. The third question in which the well-known Georgian NGO GYLA wasaddressing the problem of social aid to pensioners produced very similar results (64%, 53%,18%, 12% and 16%,respectively). The fourth questionin which the NGO Human RightsHouse took up the issue of rising

food prices generated even moreimpressive results with 66 percentof the respondents saying thatthey would sign a petition, 57percent would discuss thecampaign with family andfriends, 20 percent would attend arally, 14 percent would go door-to-door informing neighborsabout this issue and asignificantly increased 21 percent

would donate money to the campaign.

While skeptics might argue that self-reports of behavior on surveys are not credible measuresof what actions people would actually take in the real world, these numbers are still very


16/23

meaningful in a comparative context. The fact that low-cost actions such as signing a petitionand discussing the campaign with friends and family had such higher response rates thanhigher-cost actions such as donating money or going door-to-door indicates that respondentswere incorporating real world factors like effort, time and money into their responses.Moreover, the characteristics of the people responding positively to the different options also

correspond well with reality. In all four cases, men were more likely than women to say thatthey would attend a rally and younger people were more likely to say that they would godoor-to-door. Across all of the cases, people agreeing to join the NGO campaign by goingdoor-to-door or donating money tended to be younger and more educated. In two of the fourcases, those agreeing to attend rallies were also younger and more educated. This stands instark contrast to the description of the political rallies held by the opposition in May 2011 thatwere referred to in the media as the Silver Revolution because they were overwhelmingly

populated with disgruntled pensioners.3

Furthermore, when asked whether or not theyagreed with the statement I will only participate

in NGO activities if they pay me, only 20% ofrespondents agreed. Meanwhile, the majority ofthe population (51%) disagreed, indicating thatmost of the Georgians understand the concept ofpublic service and that NGOs do not have to resortto providing monetary incentives to recruitvolunteers.

These trends highlight the bright prospects forGeorgian civil society if it is able to tap into theright demographic by taking up issues that the population, particularly the youngergeneration, care about. There is a youthful, well-educated base that is not concentrated in thecapital potentially willing to be more active in NGO advocacy campaigns. Internationaldonors and NGOs need to realign their outreach efforts to mobilize this force.

Opportunity 3: Messaging May Not Matter if the Issues are Salient

In order to help EWMI G-PAC advise its NGOs on effective messaging for their advocacycampaigns, the above-mentioned four participation questions included an experimentalelement. For each of the four scenarios, the messaging was varied to test whether one way ofpositioning the NGO campaign produced more positive response in the control group than inthe treatment group or vice versa. The results show that not one of the four variations in

messaging is significant. This non-result is significant in itself. It can be interpreted as theGeorgian population not being particularly attentive or sensitive to messaging, or moreoptimistically, that when the issue is salient enough, how it is positioned does not matter.

The four different variations were meant to test what a priori seemed like importantconceptual differences in the messaging. In the first question, the unemployment issue wasframed passively and vaguely for the control group with the problem of unemployment notbeing attributable to any specific cause. For the treatment group, the problem ofunemployment was directly attributed to the policies of the Georgian government and wasmeant to hold the government accountable for the problem of unemployment. Whileresponses of the control and treatment groups were not different enough to be considered

statistically significant, it is still interesting to note that on each of the five responses for the

3Damien McGuinness, Georgia: Anti-Saakashvili protestors vow to continue,BBC News, 26 May 2011,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13499227, or Silver Revolution 2011http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nino_Burjanadze
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13499227http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13499227http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13499227


17/23

first case (signing petition, attending a rally, etc..), response rates were greater among thecontrol group that got the vaguely worded messaging rather than the targeted, moreaccountable messaging.

In the second question, the control group was told that the healthcare advocacy campaign

would be funded by a grant from USAID, while the treatment group was told that it wouldbe funded by private donations of time and money from Georgian citizens. Again, while

the responses of the two groups were not different enough to be considered statisticallysignificant, there was an indication that people were slightly more willing to attend a rally, godoor-to-door and donate money if the campaign was sponsored by other Georgian citizensrather than USAID. It makes intuitive sense that people were more willing to contribute theirtime and money to higher cost activities if others were doing the same.

The third question tested whether mentioning the track record of an NGOs success wouldmake people more willing to donate to its campaign. The control group was given detailsabout a successful human rights campaign that GYLA carried out in the past while these

details were omitted from the treatment groups message.4 Again, while not statisticallysignificant, respondents were more willing to participate across all of the five activities ifthey were notgiven details about GYLAs successful human rights campaign. This couldindicate either a short attention span, or more likely, a public distaste for this particularhuman rights campaign in which GYLA won a case against the Georgian government in theEuropean Court of Human Rights. Clearly, a more politically neutral past success shouldhave been used to eliminate noise.

Finally, the fourth question tested an emotional appeal against a more rational statisticalstatement of the problem of rising food prices. The control group was given a story aboutNino, a six year old girl living in Tbilisi, going to bed hungry every night while the treatmentgroup was presented with statistics on world food prices and the rising cost of meat inGeorgia. Based on cultural stereotypes of the warm, empathetic Georgian character, the storyof little Nino was expected to generate significantly more pledges to the campaign than thecold statistical expression of the problem of food prices. This did not bear out. Again, whilenot statistically significant, respondents were slightly more likely to sign a petition for littleNino, but for the rest of the activities they were slightly more likely to participate asmotivated by the statistics. Perhaps this indicates that people are more motivated to helpthemselves than others, since it is a safe assumption that most if not all people are affected bythe higher cost of meat.

Moreover, when only the subset of the population based in Tbilisi is considered, far morepeople (though still not a statistically significantnumber) are willing to support the NGOcampaign if they are presented with little Nino, ahungry girl living in Tbilisi, than the statisticsabout food prices. While 54 percent will sign thepetition based on the statistical messaging, 64percent will sign for Nino. While 18 percent willattend a rally given the statistical version, 25percent will attend for Nino. 13 percent will godoor-to-door to present the statistical problem of

food prices while 17 percent will go door-to-door

4 This question was changed after testing of the questionnaire. It was originally meant to test whether the namerecognition of a known NGO like GYLA would encourage people to join its campaign relative to an unknownNGO.


18/23

for little Nino. Similarly, 21 percent will donate money if presented with the statistics and 26percent will donate for Nino. Finally, while 50 percent will discuss the statistical problem ofrising prices with friends and family 59 percent will discuss food prices in the context ofhungry little Nino. The take away from the statistics may be that while Georgians may bemore motivated by self-interest when presented with a case of someone suffering far away

from them, they may feel more responsibly and be more altruistically motivated to takeaction when the person is perceived as living in their own community.

Finally, one last note about how to address the public concerns different ways of contactingand informing them about NGO activities. The survey statistics on internet usage suggest thata large proportion of Georgians (29%) have access to the internet at least once a week with20% percent going online everyday. While the majority (54%) claims to never use theinternet, the substantial portion of Georgians online suggests that NGOs might consider usingonline outreach efforts.

Opportunity 4: A Society Divided has a Democratic Side

One of the often cited reasons for low levels of civic engagement in Georgia and otherformer-Soviet countries is the post-communist legacy that has left an enduring politicalculture of apathy, mistrust, pessimism and cynicism toward political participation and civicactivism. However, after tailoring the EWMI G-PAC survey to pick up on particularlyGeorgian iterations of this post-communist political culture, an onslaught of apathy, cynicismand feelings of political inefficacy did not appear strongly in the data. The results showGeorgia as a country divided between lingering post-communist cynicism and a more earnest,empowered optimism. On balance, the distributions seem to skew in the direction of thedemocratic values. The fact that an overwhelming majority of apathetic citizens does notappear in the data is good and in many ways surprising news.5

Soviet CynicismThe first litmus test for the divide between Soviet and democratic values is a forced choicequestion that places the two statements People are like children; the government should take

care of them like a parent and Government is like an employee; the people should be the

boss who control the government side by side

and asks the respondent to choose whether theyagree or agree very strongly with one, the other orneither. As it has been in the past two years of theCaucasus Barometer survey, the Georgian publicis divided down the middle on this question. 45

percent believe that the government should treatits citizens like children in good Sovietauthoritarian tradition and 46 percent insteadbelieve that the people should treat thegovernment like their employee in Westerndemocratic fashion. This question slightly skews in favor of the Soviets, at least in intensityof belief since 22 percent agree very strongly that the government should act as a parent,

while only 16 percent agree very strongly that the government should serve as employee.

Those who agree with the more democratic option tend to be male, more highly educated andmore urban. By comparison, in Azerbaijan and Armenia, the vast majorities of thepopulations (68% and 70%, respectively) believe that the government should serve as a

parent while only 20 percent and 27 percent, respectively, think that the people should treat

5 Some Georgian colleagues felt that there was no reason to put many of these questions in the survey becausethe answers were so obvious, with the implication that the whole society would pick the cynical or apatheticoption.


19/23

the government like an employee.6 Thus, in comparison to the way populations inneighboring Armenia and Azerbaijan answer this same question, Georgians show far moremovement away from their Soviet legacy toward democratic attitudes to their government.The next question asked people to take a side between the stances that 1) Politics is a dirty

business and I do not participate in politics because I do not want to get dirty hands myself,

and 2) Its the civic duty of every Georgian citizen to participate in politics to make it abetter country. Here the Soviet side more

clearly wins out with 41 percent associatingpolitics with dirty business versus only 37percent with civic duty. Moreover, the peoplewho view politics as dirty business are moreintense in their preferences with 17 percentagreeing strongly, while only 9 percent of thepeople who saw politics as a civic duty agreedstrongly with this sentiment. There are nocorrelates linking people on either side. Notably

though, these results, as with those above,present a population divided in their political

values, not a country overrun with cynics.

Another telling question forces respondents tochoose between the statements 1) Right now theGeorgian government needs to take quickdecisions to strengthen the state and asking

peoples opinions may slow this process down,

and 2) The Georgian state will only get stronger

if the government takes into consideration thepeoples opinions even if this process takes moretime. An overwhelming majority of Georgians

choose the side of consultative democracy overthe logic of authoritarianism. 56 percent of thepopulation agree that citizen preferences shouldbe taken into consideration.

Feelings of Political EfficacyAnother reason cited for low civic engagement in post-communist societies is the defeatistattitude that taking action will not have any impact on government decisions. Why waste time

attending a demonstration or going door-to-door to get signatures for a petition if thegovernment does not take public preferences into account? However, the EWMI G-PACsurvey results show that while a portion of the Georgian population does feel that politicalengagement is pointless, a larger number feels

6 Statistics from CRRC Caucasus Barometer using online data analysis tool at http://www.crrc.ge/oda/


20/23

Respondents were asked to choose between thestatements 1) For me actions like holding

peaceful demonstrations to demand somethingfrom the government are pointless because thegovernment will do whatever it wants anyway,

and 2) I think that actions like holding peacefuldemonstrations are important because this way thegovernment is forced to take into consideration

peoples demands. The results are surprisingly

positive. 36 percent of the population agree thatholding peaceful demonstrations is important forholding the government accountable to publicdemands while only 30 percent think that it is pointless. The same question was posedsubstituting signing petitions for holding peaceful demonstrations and it generates evenmore convincing results. 38 percent of Georgians think that signing petitions is important,while 29 percent think that it is pointless. The people who believe in the importance of

holding demonstrations tend to be more urban, likely because demonstrations are most oftenheld in cities while people who support signing petitions are spread throughout the countrybut tend to be younger, perhaps suggesting a generational change from Soviet feelings ofinefficacy.

Respondents were also asked to choose between the statements 1) I think that taking part inactions like attending peaceful demonstrations [signing petitions] is dangerous because theGovernment is keeping an eye on everything, and 2) I think that taking part in actions like

attending peaceful demonstrations [signing petitions] is completely safe because theConstitution guarantees citizens the right to express their opinions. Even despite the

publicized problems that opposition protestors faced on May 26, 2011, only two monthsbefore this survey was administered, a surprising 43 percent agree that it is safe to attend ademonstration in Georgia, versus only 25 percent who think it is dangerous. Similarly, 42percent agree that it is safe to sign petitions, while only 18 percent believe it is dangerous.

However, other results produce a less optimistic impression. When asked whose opinion mostinfluences important government decisions, 59 percent of the population said the Presidents,

11 percent said Members of Parliament and only 1 percent said that ordinary peoples

opinions matter. Moreover, respondents were asked to suppose that the Government made a

decision that you considered to be unjust and people decided to protest against it, howeffective do you think their actions would be in reversing the decision? They answered on a

scale from one to ten, with one meaning that the government will not change its decisionno matter how many people protest and ten meaning that the government will change its

decision only if enough people protest. Only 16 percent of the population believed that thegovernment would reverse its decision if enough people protest, while 29 percent believe thatthe government would not change its decision no matter how many people joined the action.Interestingly, 30 percent of the people do not know and an additional 22 percent choose to

stay neutral in the middle. Thus, themajority of Georgian citizens are notconvinced that protests are futile.

In another instance meant to test the

extent to which respondents would seekthe help of an NGO from among a list ofother options, respondents were askedwho they would turn to first if a friend


21/23

had been fired from a state job unfairly. This question wound up being a window onto howmany people had faith in the formal legal system versus the pessimistic belief that therewould be no point in taking any action at all to rectify the injustice. A surprising 56 percentchose different types of official legal channels for addressing the problem. 23 percent saidthat they would hire a private lawyer, 14 percent would go to the courts, 7 percent to the

ombudsman and 5 percent to the government. Only 1 percent said that they would turn to anNGO for help. Meanwhile, only 6 percent of the respondents would use the informal meansof an influential friend or relative, which goes against much of the way the Georgian justicesystem worked in the past. 20 percent did not know what they would do. In the end, only 17percent thought there would be no point in addressing anyone.

Opportunity 5: Openness to New People

Close ties within tight-knit small groups of people are thought to exist not only withinfamilies in Georgia but also within friend groups and act as another hindrance to thedevelopment of civil society. The high level of trust and altruistic behavior within thesefriend groups may lead to a very high barrier to entry and have the effect of making social

groups static and fixed rather than changing membership fluidly. People in these friendgroups, who have already earned the trust of the other members and have taken on the highlevel obligations and received the benefits of these close friendships, should show low levelsof openness to meeting new people or making new friends. Since in the West meeting newpeople and making new friends often motivates participation in civil society organizations, itcan deduced that a lack of desire to make new friends in a place with high bonding socialcapital could depress participation in NGOs. However, the EWMI G-PAC survey found theopposite to be the case in Georgia.

When asked if they have close friends an overwhelming 92percent of respondents said yes and only 7 percent no.The survey then went on to ask respondents to whatextent they agreed or disagreed with the statement I

already have many friends and do not need to makenew friends. Despite expectations that Georgians

would not be open to making new friends, a verysurprising 63 percent of the survey respondentsdisagreed, 53 percent of them completely so. On theother side, only 17 percent agreed that they do notneed to make new friends, only 10 percent of themcompletely so. That smaller segment not interested in making new friends tended to be older

than the larger segment that was open to making new friends.

Respondents were then asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement Ienjoy meeting new people. If Georgians really were so tightly bound within circles of trust

of familyand friend groups and as untrusting of

other Georgians more generally in the society, theexperience of meeting new people should beunpleasant for them. However, 66 percent of therespondents stated that they enjoy meeting newpeople, 45 percent of them agreeing completely,

while only 9 percent did not enjoy meeting newpeople with only 5 percent completelydisagreeing.


22/23

As above, those who felt that meeting new people was unpleasant tended to be older.

Despite these high proportions of the population who express the desire to meet new peopleand make new friends, when asked if and how respondents had gained new friends in the lastyear, the 56 percent majority reported not

having made any new friends. 24 percent madefriends through existing friends, 8 percent atwork or school, 7 percent through relatives, 7percent through co-workers and 6 percentthrough neighbors. Thus, while Georgians doexpress openness to expanding their friendgroups the majority are not currentlyparticipating in activities that help them do so.The very fact of this interest and openness,however, presents an opportunity for thefurther development of civil society

organizations that bring a mix of new peoplewith common interests together.

Opportunity 6: Respect for Community ActivistsThe results of the EWMI G-PAC survey showthat despite their Soviet legacy, Georgians havea great deal of respect for and little suspicion ofcommunity activists who organize for thebenefit of the community. The questionnairetested the Georgian publics attitude toward

three different examples of social entrepreneurs.

In one question, respondents were asked if inthe event of a neighborhood problem, they havea neighbor who is likely to organize people toresolve the problem or to take care of it himself

or herself. A 52 percent majority report having a neighbor who serves as a social entrepreneurin this way. Of these 52 percent, 38 percent report that this neighbor is not elected to anofficial position, while 56 percent say that this neighbor has been elected to solve these typesof problems. Most of those citizens with a formally elected community representative live in

Tbilisi or one of the major cities

suggesting that these leaders might beheads of neighborhood associations,organizations newly introduced by thegovernment. This could mean that thegovernment already had the foresight toco-opt actively engaged socialentrepreneurs in each neighborhood. Afollow-up question asked the respondentswhat attitude they thought the majority ofthe neighbors have toward this neighbor.The attitudes toward the neighborhood

social entrepreneur are overwhelminglypositive. 81 percent view this neighbor


23/23

positively, 17 percent neutrally and only 1 percent negatively. There is thus not only adistinct lack of social stigma for neighborhood organizing but a great deal of respect andappreciation.

Another question addressed the type of social entrepreneur who collects money from

neighbors to solve group problems. A forced choice question asked respondents to take aside between the statements 1) I am suspicious of people who collect money in theneighborhood to fix problems because they make a profit out of it, and 2) I very much

respect those people who collect money in the neighborhood because they spend energy tosolve problems that concern all of us. Again, the results were overwhelmingly in favor ofthe social entrepreneur. 77 percent agreed that they respect the social entrepreneur for hisefforts and only 3 percent agree that they are suspicious of him or her. Again, this veryconvincingly defeats the notion that Georgians have negative attitudes toward socialentrepreneurs. In fact, they very much respect them.

In sum, while the surface level statistics on engagement with the formal NGO sector in

Georgia paint a gloomy picture of civic engagement among the Georgian population, thosethat take a deeper look into the context of Georgian society provide reasons for optimism androom for NGOs and the international donors who support them to improve their outreach tocitizens. Some obstacles, such as the lack of public understanding of what an NGO is anddoes and the mismatch between the issues that NGOs are addressing and about which citizenscare the most, can be addressed directly. Others, such as family interdependence and thechallenging economic environment may take time for the society to work out on its own. Inthe meantime, the high levels of willingness to participate, openness to new people andrespect for community activists present a number of promising opportunities of whichinternational donors and Georgian NGOs should take advantage.

Documents

Citizens’ Attitudes toward Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Civic Activism/ 2011 Public Opinion Survey Results