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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Political FactorsMany elements of the political environment in Georgia affect the quality of IDP participation inpolicymaking that concerns their needs and interests. These factors range from the overall political willof government agencies and representatives, to rhetoric around the peace process, to internationalinfluence. While in many respects political factors represent significant barriers to more inclusivegovernance, there are several opportunities that offer improvement.Political Will to Include IDPs in PolicymakingThe Georgian authorities continue to affirm that IDP issues are a national priority and that IDPs musthave access to the three internationally recognized durable solutions for displaced persons. 412 Thequestion of political will to involve IDPs in the process of enabling and implementing these options,however, is a delicate one without a simple answer.The current political climate in Georgia is not highly conducive to greater IDP inclusion in national-levelpolitics. Georgia will be holding its first national elections in four years in September 2012 amidcontinuing economic difficulties and growing public frustration over social issues and level of democracyin the country. However, overall public approval exists for the current government. 413 The ruling partycontinues to prioritize economic liberalization over social policy, including that which addresses IDPs’social and economic needs. 414Georgian policy as written provides for IDP participation in decision-making around their needs andinterests (generally in the form of consultation); however, we have seen that in practice directparticipation of IDPs is low. There is no consensus on the extent to which the Georgian government, theprimary duty-bearer toward IDPs, is interested in substantively and systematically including IDPs inpolicymaking. Some stakeholders interviewed were very negative on this issue; others were content thatthe government is genuinely interested in improving the process but lacks capacity or understanding ofhow to do it effectively. Internationals tend to believe that the government does indeed possess the willto involve IDPs but continues to have limited capacity to do so; IDPs interviewed have tended to bemore mixed in their opinions on whether political will capacity play a bigger role. 415 Interviews suggestthat IDPs and IDP advocates feel that the government involves more IDPs in decision-making to avoidgetting complaints later, not necessarily out of wanting to promote a democratic process. 416 A balancedassessment shows that political will plays a complicated role as one of the constellation of factorsinfluencing IDP participation in policymaking.412 Brookings. “Responsibility to Response,” 183.413 National Democratic Institute, Georgia.414 Lincoln Mitchell, Personal Interview.415 Stan Veitsman, Personal Interview; Nana Sumbadze, Personal Interview.416 Eka Gvalia, Personal Interview.79
While the government has shown willingness to involve IDPs in specific policy decisions, rhetoric andaction has shown that the ruling United National Movement party has sought to limit IDPs’ capacity tomount a united political challenge to the UNM. 417 This is perhaps best illustrated by the amount ofsupport given to the MRA. Interviewees reported that that the MRA is consistently marginalized in termsof funding, along with cooperation and support from other government agencies, indicating that theMRA, and by extension IDPs, are granted a relatively low level of influence in policymaking. For example,the MRA’s central office is slated to move to Gori, at an inconvenient distance away from policymakersand donors. Perhaps most significantly, this decision also impedes access for the large percentage ofIDPs who live in the capital and must visit the MRA’s office for essential services. The government’srelocation of the MRA thus seems to play a role in reducing their influence. 418Closely related to the question of the government’s interest in participatory policymaking is its manifestinterest in quick and decisive policy design and implementation. 419 Privileging action over deliberation isa hallmark of the ruling elite’s governing style in general, not only pertaining to policy regarding IDPs. 420Overall, the evidence suggests that the government feels it is most expedient to keep decision-makingas the responsibility of a closed group of policymakers and not invite extensive participation. Still, asevidenced in the processes of drafting major policies regarding IDPs, the government has become moreresponsive to calls from civil society – particularly international NGOs – and the donor community toinclude IDPs in policy development to a greater degree. The government has also shown that it is willingto agree to stronger accountability measures regarding policy implementation – the proposed ActionPlan for 2012-2014 on the State Strategy on IDPs, for example, includes more measurable outcomes thatcan be monitored by independent bodies. By nature, such provisions invite greater scrutiny - if notdirect participation - from IDPs and IDP advocate groups.Political Will Within the MRAMinistry representatives say that cooperation and consultation with IDPs is essential to the MRA’s work.However, we have seen the MRA’s mixed record on involving IDPs in its decision-making processes, as aresult of multiple concerns. 421 Observers of the MRA have said that the reasons for this range fromcapacity limitations to haste to overconfidence. Staff members from the Office of the Public Defenderhave summed up a common analysis of the MRA’s inclusion of IDPs in its decision-making: that theMinistry believes that wider consultation will be too time-consuming and will result in a multitude ofcompeting priorities rather than a more focused picture of what IDPs need. Therefore, it is moreefficient to allow only limited participation through a smaller group of liaisons (such as donors or other417 Conciliation Resources (2009), 17.418 “Georgia’s capital is on the move” Democracy and Freedom Watch. Web. 12 January 2012.419 INGO representative, Personal Interview; NGO representative, Personal Interview.420 de Waal, 3.421 Mariam Esaishvili, Personal Interview.80
Page 2 and 3:
Promoting IDPs’ and Women’s Voi
Page 4 and 5:
CONTENTSAcronyms and Abbreviations
Page 6 and 7:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYInternally displac
Page 8 and 9:
THE WOMEN’S POLITICAL RESOURCE CE
Page 10 and 11:
fair reporting on politically sensi
Page 12 and 13:
people-to-people diplomacy efforts
Page 14 and 15:
and the Guiding Principles, in Febr
Page 16 and 17:
an effort to address these stereoty
Page 18 and 19:
The identities, perceptions, and re
Page 20 and 21:
even IDPs themselves. The HRBA seek
Page 22 and 23:
Karaleti settlement, and Potskho-Et
Page 24 and 25:
displacement differently, with men
Page 26 and 27:
on an equal footing with men in for
Page 28 and 29:
The Ministry for Internally Displac
Page 30 and 31: Defender’s Office) and leave no r
Page 32 and 33: prominent national level IDP NGO wo
Page 34 and 35: in the past but none have yet to be
Page 36 and 37: Grassroots Peacebuilding EffortsCiv
Page 38 and 39: esettlement and local integration h
Page 40 and 41: ability to contribute to the new Ac
Page 42 and 43: Women convened a working group to a
Page 44 and 45: were involved, in addition to “wo
Page 46 and 47: towards addressing this population
Page 48 and 49: waves. 224 A Conciliation Resources
Page 50 and 51: governing shelter requirements. 238
Page 52 and 53: esults of eviction on those who did
Page 54 and 55: FINDINGSSIPA team member Drilon Gas
Page 56 and 57: unique opportunities exist for them
Page 58 and 59: an important opportunity for women
Page 60 and 61: early morning…when I was going to
Page 62 and 63: our office to investigate these iss
Page 64 and 65: on this? It’s impossible.” 322
Page 66 and 67: high levels of unemployment and pov
Page 68 and 69: groups do not differentiate between
Page 70 and 71: funding and influence to implement
Page 72 and 73: een in operation for two years or l
Page 74 and 75: organization, and highlighted that
Page 76 and 77: The Education System’s Influence
Page 78 and 79: system has an important role to pla
Page 82 and 83: international organizations working
Page 84 and 85: uling party. 433 There were some si
Page 86 and 87: especially highly-influential broad
Page 88 and 89: ationale behind the government’s
Page 90 and 91: international working for a major d
Page 92 and 93: Also, according to a World Bank rep
Page 94 and 95: willing to challenge authorities th
Page 96 and 97: The lack of narrative connecting po
Page 98 and 99: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GEORGIAN GO
Page 100 and 101: the government also needs to commit
Page 102 and 103: ‣ Continue to support and expand
Page 104 and 105: ‣ Address male IDP needs (Immedia
Page 106 and 107: The campaign should have a face, su
Page 108 and 109: APPENDIX BList of IntervieweesLocal
Page 110 and 111: Kristy KellyLincoln MitchellLawrenc
Page 112 and 113: Article 10 - Non-discrimination in
Page 114 and 115: Principle 18.1 - Adequate standard
Page 116 and 117: Esaiashvili, Mariam (Official, Mini
Page 118 and 119: Lanskoy, Miriam and Giorgi Areshidz
Page 120: Transparency International Georgia.
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?