Promoting IDPs' and Women's Voices in Post-Conflict Georgia

lengthy and required outside resources.” Medea Turashvili of the International Crisis Group argues,“international organizations…played a huge role in the change of attitude of the government” 185regarding the level of participation in this process. The interest and involvement of these external actorscalls into question the capacity and political will of the Georgian government in promoting this type ofinclusiveness. This situation in turn could contribute to significant challenges in the effort to promoteIDPs’ participation more broadly through the implementation of these policies.Developing and Updating the Action PlanIn contrast with the State Strategy, the Action Plan’s development did not involve this wide range ofstakeholders. 186 The document itself states that it “benefits from a broad consultation process.”However, only government agencies participated directly in this effort, leaving out internationalorganizations, local NGOs and IDPs. The State Strategy charged the Commission with the task ofdeveloping the Action Plan within six months after its adoption, which became the grounds for the morelimited participation, as a more inclusive process was argued to be more time-consuming. A furtherjustification for this approach lay in the argument that “the final decision-making rests with theState.” 187After the participatory development of the State Strategy, it is interesting that a wider range of keystakeholders did not play a role in the development of the Action Plan. Members of the Abkhazgovernment-in-exile were involved in some thematic groups, but this type of representation of IDPs wassignificantly more removed than that provided by IDP NGOs. The lack of inclusion may have actuallydelayed adoption of the Action Plan because the process failed to engage them as supporters. IDPsmore generally may also lack the sense of identification that many felt with the State Strategy as a resultof being involved in its development. 188 IDPs’ skepticism regarding their actual ability to influence policycould decrease their buy-in regarding subsequent policies addressing their needs and interests. Thegovernment needs their support for both the State Strategy and the Action Plan if implementation is tobe effective, highlighting the drawback of failing to include them in both policymaking processes.The effort to draft an updated Action Plan for 2012-2014 has sought to address some of these concernsby adopting a more inclusive approach. The MRA’s Steering Committee members participated inTemporary Expert Groups (TEGs) that developed recommendations and concrete measures tocontribute to the extended Action Plan. 189 Local IDP organizations also participated in this process,which began in the spring of 2010. 190 A Georgian NGO representative spoke a bit skeptically about IDPs’185 Medea Turashvili (International Crisis Group). Personal interview. 13 March 2012.186 “Looking Forward: Extending the IDP Action Plan 2012-2014,” 18.187 Bokuchava, 12-13.188 Ibid.189 UNHCR Georgia, “Report on Participatory Assessments for the Extension of the IDP Action Plan,” December 2011, 3.190 “Looking Forward: Extending the IDP Action Plan 2012-2014,” 18.38