Civic Engagement in Georgia:Explaining lack of political participation

of young people

Tamar Khoshtaria, Tinatin Zurabishvili,

CRRC-Georgia

11th ESA conferenceAugust 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.

http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/

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, 2012. • 1175 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 1Kutaisi Telavi

B SE OR B SE ORConstant -1.249 *** .265 .287 -.776 *** .221 .460

Gender

Female -.502 * .201 .605 -.050 .205 .951

(Base=male)

Education

Higher .923 ** .342 2.517 -.190 .322 .827

Incomplete higher 1.048 *** .300 2.851 .015 .268 1.015

Secondary technical .730 .417 2.075 -.543 .344 .581

Secondary .091 .321 1.338 -.670 * .323 .512

(Base = incomplete secondary)

Employment

Employed -.872 * .373 .418 -.240 .285 .787

(Base = unemployed)

Kutaisi TelaviB SE OR B SE OR

Constant -2.482 *** .403 .083 -2.250 *** .387 .105

Gender (Base=male)

Female -.558 * .272 .572 .126 .258 1.134

Education (Base=incomplete secondary)

Higher .558 .501 1.748 -.706 .442 .494

Incomplete higher .366 .438 1.442 -.520 .387 .594

Secondary technical .232 .605 1.261 -.628 .464 .533

Secondary -1.063 .447 .939 -1.045 * .445 .352

Employment (Base=unemployed)

Employed -1.596 ** .580 .203 -.052 .345 .950

Voting behavior (Base=did not vote)

Voted in the last elections .586 .304 1.798 .573 * .292 1.774

Feeling close to a political party ? (Base=no)

Yes .357 .267 1.430 .908 *** .242 2.478

Interest in LGBT rights .086 * .042 1.090 .098 ** .037 1.103

Political party membership (Base= not a member)

Member 2.127 ** .645 8.388 1.505 * .714 4.505

Volunteered for a political party (Base=did not volunteer)

Volunteered 2.004 * .885 7.418 2.624 ** .839 13.797

Friends having different political views (Base=none)

One 1.282 *** .364 3.602 .821 * .358 2.273

Two 1.093 ** .366 2.985 .265 .338 1.303

Tree or more 1.271 *** .337 3.564 .509 .309 1.664

Talking with grandparents about the past (Base=never)

Occasionally .072 .282 1.075 .076 .261 1.079

Regularly 1.017 * .469 2.765 1.705 *** .518 5.500

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

tamuna@crrccenters.org

tina@crrccenters.org

http://www.crrc.ge/http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/