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.
Top Related