Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:41:54.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elections, Legitimacy, Media and Democracy: The Case of Georgia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Sue Davis
Sue Davis*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Denison University, Granville, OH 43023, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Elections are one of the major ways in which democratic governments maintain legitimacy. Do elections serve the same functions in transitioning, non-democratic, or semi-democratic systems? Perhaps the relationship between elections and legitimacy is different in systems that are not fully democratic? And what of the media? Is their role the same or is the role they play dependent upon the type of system in which they exist? The Republic of Georgia offers an interesting case in which to look at these relationships. I would posit that in transitioning, non-democratic, and semi-democratic systems, elections serve a different function than in a fully democratic society and the media are one tool that leaders in such systems can use to enhance their legitimacy. When non-democratic leaders enjoy popularity, there is no need to finesse the media since positive coverage is easy to come by when you are popular. But if your popularity is waning and democratic habits are not well ingrained, the temptation to overtly or covertly subvert the media can be quite intense. So instead of maintaining legitimacy, elections may serve to create legitimacy or at least the appearance of legitimacy when legitimacy is lacking. To that end, regimes and leaders cannot afford to lose, and moreover need to win, elections by large margins if their legitimacy is questionable. Therefore, control over the media is more important when this is the case. In fact, there may be an inverse relationship between media freedom and regime insecurity, as the insecurity of the regime goes up, the freedom of the media goes down. Couple this tendency with the fact that the media in these transitioning systems have not fully become a “fourth estate” that is strong, independent, and can hold the government and political leaders accountable and you have a climate in which the media are harassed, biased, and often co-opted. Georgia, through the 2000 presidential election, is such a political system.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 471 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, W. E. D. A History of the Georgian People. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.Google Scholar
Allison, Roy, ed. Challenges for the Former Soviet South. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Aves, Jonathan. Georgia: From Chaos to Stability? London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1996.Google Scholar
Coppieters, Bruno. Federalism and Conflict in the Caucasus. Russia and Eurasia Programme. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2001.Google Scholar
Cornell, Svante. Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. Richmond: Curzon Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Dale, Catherine. “Georgia: Development and Implications of the Conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” In Conflicts in the Caucasus. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1995.Google Scholar
Dawisha, Karen, and Parrot, Bruce, eds. Conflict, Cleavage, and Change in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Suzanne. Pride of Small Nations: The Caucasus and Post-Soviet Disorder. London: Zed Books, 1994.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Darra. The Georgian Feast: The Vibrant Culture and Savory Food of the Republic of Georgia. Reprint. Berleley; University of California Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Herzig, Edmund. The New Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. London: Pinter, 1999.Google Scholar
Lang, David Marshall. A Modern History of Soviet Georgia. New York: Grove, 1962.Google Scholar
Lang, David Marshall. The Georgians. London: Thames & Hudson, 1966.Google Scholar
Lynch, Dov. Russian Peacekeeping Strategies in the CIS: The Cases of Moldova, Georgia and Tajikistan. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, S. Neil, Minear, Larry, and Shenfield, Stephen D. Armed Conflict in Georgia: A Case Study in Humanitarian Action and Peacekeeping. Occasional Paper. Vol. 21. Providence, RI: Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies, 1996.Google Scholar
McCormack, Gillian, ed. Media in the CIS: A Study of the Political, Legislative, and Socioeconomic Framework. 2nd ed. Dusseldorf: EIM, 1999.Google Scholar
Nasmyth, Peter. Georgia: In the Mountains of Poetry. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Oates, Sarah. “From the Archives of the European Institute for the Media: Analysing the Results of a Decade of Monitoring Post-Soviet Elections.” Paper prepared for the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, April 2004.Google Scholar
Ozhiganov, Edward. “The Republic of Georgia: Conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” In Managing Conflict in the Former Soviet Union: Russian and American Perspectives, edited by Arbatov, Alexei et al. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Pipes, Richard. Formation of the Soviet Union, 1917–1923. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Rosen, Roger. Georgia: A Sovereign Country of the Caucasus. Hong Kong: Odyssey, 1999.Google Scholar
Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Making of the Georgian Nation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press in association with Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, Stanford.Google Scholar