Georgia?s Policy towards its National Minorities:

Fri Jun 6 21:39:21 UTC 2008

Tolerance or Integration December, 2007 Historically, Georgia has been  
a multiethnic country and remains so to this day. Georgians consider  
that they are among the most tolerant countries/nations in the world  
and argue that non-Georgian minorities residing in the country have  
never been threatened or suppressed or otherwise disenfranchised.  
Minority communities in Georgia do not always share this opinion,  
however. Feeling isolated and deprived, minorities often accuse the  
national authorities of being unwilling to take the issues more  
seriously and address the existing problems. Georgia has recognised  
the international principles and best practices regarding the policy  
towards national minorities and the need for their integration. The  
country is a signatory to the Council of Europe Framework Convention  
for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) and takes note of  
most international instruments and recommendations on the subject of  
minority rights.1 However, the country has not ratified other  
important conventions, notably the European Charter for Regional and  
Minority Languages.2 Taking note of the fact that effective protection  
of rights of minorities at times substantially differs from the  
general protection of human rights the EU-Georgia ENP Action Plan  
specifically addresses this issue. Chapter 4.1.1 calls on Georgia to  
?ensure respect for rights of persons belonging to national  
minorities; sign and ratify European Charter for Regional and Minority  
Languages? and ?develop and implement a civic integration strategy and  
ensure its implementation, including creation of appropriate  
monitoring instruments.? In spite of these international commitments,  
the government has not addressed the issue in a coherent and  
consistent manner. This paper will explore the state policy towards  
national minorities in general and on the individual institution level  
and review several key concerns voiced by minorities and the state?s  
responses to them. The Georgian State and National Minorities The  
three largest ethnic groups3 in Georgia are Georgians (83.8% of the  
population), Azeris (6.5%), and Armenians (5.7%). The remaining 4% is  
made up of smaller groups, including Abkhaz, Ossetians, Russians,  
Ukrainians, Kurds/Yezids, Greeks, etc. When discussing national  
minorities, emphasis is placed on Armenians and Azeris. Besides the  
sheer numbers, there is another reason for this. Although there are  
sizable communities of both Armenians and Azeris in Tbilisi, the bulk  
of them are concentrated along the borders with their kin states  
(Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti and Azeris in Kvemo Kartli). In many  
districts of the regions the minorities actually account for the  
majority of the population. For example, Azeris make up to 83% of the  
population in Marneuli district and over 66% in both Bolnisi and  
Dmanisi. Armenians make up 94% and 95% of the population in the  
districts of Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda respectively. This raises  
concerns about irredentism and Georgia?s territorial integrity, a  
subject of great concern considering the two provinces currently  
outside the de facto authority of the country (South 1 These include  
the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or  
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the OSCE documents:  
The Hague Recommendation Regarding the Educational Rights of National  
Minorities and Explanatory Note; Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of  
the Conference on Human Dimension of the OSCE; The Lund  
Recommendations on the Effective Participation of National Minorities  
in Public Life and Explanatory Note. 2 There has not been much public  
discussion of either what the Charter obliges the signatories to do or  
what consequences it might have for Georgia. However, both the ruling  
majority and opposition so far seem to be strongly opposed to its  
ratification. Their concern seems to be legalisation of minority  
languages in the bordering regions, ostensibly due to fears of  
irredentism. Another lesser concern can be the demand for official  
recognition of Megrelian or Svan languages. Although both Megrelians  
and Svans are ethnic Georgians, they both have distinct languages,  
which are part of the Kartvelian language family. 3 2002 National Census
1
Ossetia and Abkhazia). The fears and insecurities associated with the  
ethno-territorial turmoil of the early 1990s still largely define the  
attitudes and actions towards national minorities both on the state  
and, to some degree, even on the personal level. The policy of  
Georgia?s first president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, did not help relations  
with Georgia?s national minorities. Gamsakhurdia was the charismatic  
leader of the nationalist movement that led Georgia to independence  
from the USSR. But Gamsakhurdia?s nationalism did not serve the  
country well once he got to head if after independence. Although  
Georgian citizenship laws were made quite liberal after independence  
(everyone living on the territory automatically became a citizen,  
regardless of ethnicity, etc, unless they themselves refused it), this  
was not the initial wish of the man who coined the motto ?Georgia for  
Georgians.? Despite the fact that the laws of the young Georgian state  
were not actually discriminatory towards minorities, the overall tense  
and nationalistic atmosphere forced many representatives of minority  
communities to leave Georgia. Many left for kin states, including  
Israel, Armenia, and Russia. Although no reliable data is available on  
who left, for where, or why, looking at the census data over the years  
gives an indication of the changes in the country?s ethnic  
composition. The data from 1979, 1989, and 2002 shows the Armenian  
population of Georgia falling from 9% to 8.1% to 5.7%. The decrease of  
the Russian population was even more dramatic, falling from 7.4% to  
6.3% and then to 1.5%. During Eduard Shevardnadze?s presidency  
(1995-2003), the state lacked a policy toward national minorities.  
Shevardnadze?s time is well known for its lack of policy elaboration  
and implementation. His tenure is probably best characterised as an  
attempt to balance different interests to maintain stability. In  
general, this meant that while on the surface there was no immediate  
or explosive conflict, problems were brewing underneath. This was very  
much evident with regards to national minorities, who were largely  
ignored by the Tbilisi authorities and integration and other problems  
were not recognised at all. Practically, the minority-populated  
regions were governed by local clans who were obliged to support  
Shevardnadze and his party. This was demonstrated by transporting the  
population to the polls on election day and delivering votes for the  
ruling party. Otherwise, the state did not interfere in these regions.  
Naturally, there was little need or use for policy documents. After  
the ?Rose Revolution? of 2003, the new government, especially  
President Mikheil Saakashvili, began to refer to the issue of national  
minorities on a frequent basis. President Saakashvili in his speeches  
likes to emphasise Georgia?s multiethnic makeup and the great  
potential this carries.4 The president and other high officials now  
frequently talk of the need to integrate national minorities into  
Georgian society and stress that this does not mean assimilation and  
abandoning own identities. Rather, the new government is promoting  
civic nationalism over the ethnic pride that has so far dominated  
Georgian history. Still, to date Georgia has neither developed a  
comprehensive document outlining its policy towards minorities nor  
shown a coherent policy orientation in its actions. However, on the  
institutional level, the Office of the State Minister5 on Civil  
Integration6 was created following the ?Rose Revolution? to signal the  
importance the new administration gives to bettering the lot of the  
minorities in Georgia and integrating them into the mainstream  
society. This body headed by Zinaida Bestaeva, arguably the least  
active and recognizable minister of the entire Cabinet, is in charge  
of formulating the civil integration policy and coordinating its  
elaboration and implementation with all other state institutions.  
Critics have often voiced concerns that both the creation of the  
ministerial position and the selection of its head were politically 4  
As a symbolic gesture, during the inauguration ceremony of Mr.  
Saakashvili as a president in January 2004 he addressed the nation  
with a multilingual speech, greeting various ethnic groups in their  
native language. The flag of Georgia was jointly raised by children  
dressed in national costumes of the various ethnicities living in  
Georgia. 5 In Georgia a state minister is a cabinet minister without a  
formal ministry, but with an office instead. Arguably some state  
ministers have proven to be more influential than traditional  
ministers, depending on their field of authority. 6 This organisation  
has however ceased to exist in January 2008
2
motivated, rather than prompted by an earnest desire for the new  
structure to function effectively - Ms Bestaeva was then the only  
women in the cabinet and an ethnic Ossetian7. The Office is  
furthermore argued to be understaffed and under-equipped for its work.  
In addition to the Office of the State Minister, there is the  
ministerial level Council on Civil Integration and Tolerance, also  
chaired by Ms. Bestaeva, which includes representatives of civil  
society. This is the body created for drafting the Civil Integration  
Strategy/Concept and its implementation Action Plan. Other state  
institutions involved in formulating the policy are the Ombudsman?s  
Office and the Council of National Minorities under it. The president  
too has an advisor on issues of civil integration. On the legislative  
side, the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee has  
traditionally been active and vocal in its endeavours. Besides these  
specialised institutions, the Ministry of Education and Science plays  
quite a significant role in supporting the civic integration of  
national minorities, since a significant problem for the minorities  
and a major obstacle to their integration into Georgian society is the  
lack of Georgian language skills. Relative Deprivation Major research  
on the topic of national minorities in Georgia consistently refers to  
their general sense of being treated as second class citizens. They  
feel that while the rest of the country prospers and develops, the  
regions where they actually are the majority have not seen much change  
in conditions throughout the last decade. However, it must be  
acknowledged that in other rural regions of Georgia, where majority of  
inhabitants are ethnic Georgians, the situation, especially economics  
and infrastructure-wise, is no different. National minorities, mostly  
secluded in their communities, fail to grasp that the development boom  
is largely confined to Tbilisi and tourist centres, while the rest of  
the country lags behind. The seclusion has several reasons. Firstly,  
up until very recently, conditions of roads and communications with  
Kvemo Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti were disastrous, severely limiting  
contact with the rest of the country. Secondly, this situation was,  
and still is, exacerbated by the fact that the signals of Georgian TV  
stations, including public broadcasting, largely fail to reach these  
regions, effectively leaving the regions in an information vacuum from  
the Georgian side. The minority regions have therefore tapped into the  
information sphere of their kin states. Azeri and Armenian populations  
get their news via Azeri, Armenian, Russian, and Turkish TV outlets  
that do not focus much on Georgian events and developments. Thirdly,  
given the limited economic possibilities in these regions, national  
minorities tend to have closer economic ties with their kin state  
across the border, rather than rest of Georgia. These tend to be  
small-scale trade and short-term employment opportunities. But perhaps  
the single largest obstacle to communication and  
interaction/integration is the absence of a common language. The  
minority population largely does not know the Georgian language,  
despite being born and raised in the country. During the Soviet times,  
Russian served as a lingua franca among the different nationalities  
living in the country and facilitated communication among the soviet  
republics. This practically eliminated the need for studying the state  
language, which was always only Georgian in Georgia, unlike in other  
republics. Rather than promoting integration into local cultures, the  
USSR?s policy goal was to form loyal citizens of the USSR. This legacy  
has left strained relations among nationalities in present day  
Georgia. While the minority feels alienated, the majority feels  
threatened by concentrated populations of national minorities with  
little 7 Another woman ministers are Eka Tkeshelashvili, appointed to  
head the Ministry of Justice in August 2007 and Maia Miminoshvili,  
appointed Minister of Education and Science in November 2007, however  
following the new cabinet reshuffle in January 2008, currently the  
only female Minister is Ekaterine Sharashidze, heading Ministry of  
Economic Development.
3
connection to Georgian culture, especially the Georgian language. The  
language issue becomes further complicated because of the diminishing  
role of the Russian language since 1991. While the older generation  
does have at least some proficiency in this language (except in more  
remote villages), the generation born in independent Georgia no longer  
learns Russian. This ignorance is equally widespread among national  
minorities and ethnic Georgians, and has eliminated the only means of  
bridging these communities. To date, Russian has not been replaced by  
a new common language, most logically ? Georgian. Public Education and  
National Minorities Since independence, Georgia has maintained the  
Soviet system of public schools, which allows different languages of  
instruction. Thus Georgian citizens of school age can enrol in  
Georgian, Russian, Armenian, and Azeri language public schools. In  
addition, there are mixed schools, where within one school there can  
be different language ?departments? or ?sectors?. Thus, for example, a  
regular Georgian language school may have a Russian sector, where  
students are instructed in Russian. This system allows minorities from  
sizable communities to receive full primary and secondary education in  
their native languages. Unfortunately, these schools often fail to  
live up to the Georgian national educational requirements for the  
teaching of the Georgian language.8 Many schools also fail to meet the  
basic criteria for teachers of Georgian languages. Some Georgian  
language teachers in the regions populated by national minorities do  
not know the language themselves. Although there are no real data on  
the number of such teachers, the first hand experiences of  
Transparency International Georgia9 and other organisations working on  
the issue suggest that this is the norm rather than an exception.  
Prior to the recent reforms, the non-Georgian schools in the  
minority-populated areas mostly depended on their respective kin state  
for textbooks. This particularly concerned the Ministry of Education  
and those interested in the education/minority policy since core  
social science courses (e.g. history and geography) focus on the kin  
state rather than Georgia. This inadequacy or non-existence of  
Georgian educational requirements further exacerbated the problems  
caused by the lack of Georgian language skills and impeded minority  
access to higher educational institutions. Unlike primary and  
secondary schools, practically the only language of instruction in  
universities other than Georgian is Russian, with a few English  
language programs at state and private universities. Several English  
language programs do exist both within state and private universities,  
but these mostly target foreign students and are largely irrelevant  
for the needs of domestic minorities. Minority enrolment in domestic  
universities has become an issue since the new administration took  
charge. In recent years, the Ministry of Education launched a  
large-scale reform of the entire education sphere, which included the  
introduction of the new Unified National Exam (UNE) for university  
admission. While previously each institution administered its own  
exams and decided the programmatic requirements, for the last three  
years the unified national examination has been run by a  
semi-independent agency under the Ministry. The previous system,  
notorious for its corrupt dealings that favoured money over merit, has  
been eradicated in the state-accredited universities. The new process  
itself has won great public trust and is largely considered both  
corruption free and fair. 8 Currently, Georgian language classes are  
required for three hours a week, though the Ministry of Education  
states the programmes are being reworked. 9 Transparency International  
Georgia and International Centre for Georgian Language Recommendations  
for Better Integration of National minorities available at:  
http://www.transparency.ge/files/190_375_633421_Ti%20Georgia%20and%20ICG.pdf  
4
The UNE is comprised of three mandatory standardised tests: Georgian  
language, general abilities, and a foreign language (Russian, English,  
French, or German). In the first year of the exams, there were two  
versions of the Georgian language test: one for native speakers and  
one for non-native speakers that was available in Russian. Applicants  
who took the latter were able to apply only to non-Georgian  
departments. In the second year of the exam, there was only one  
version of the Georgian language test for all applicants, though  
applicants could apply to any university. The remaining tests were  
still offered in Russian versions. Minority representatives have  
argued that the change in the Georgian language test requirement is  
discriminatory, since non-native speakers cannot possibly compete with  
students graduating from Georgian language schools on equal footing  
and will correspondingly have much slimmer chances of university  
entrance. But the Ministry maintains that the examination aims at  
testing language comprehension of the applicants, not their knowledge  
or memory of complex Georgian literary works. Besides, the threshold  
for passing the exams, including Georgian, is very low at 15%. This,  
the education authorities argue, is the absolute minimum to  
demonstrate qualification for university level study. The complicated  
system of weighting the importance of different exams, as determined  
by the university and department, suggests that the Georgian language  
tests are assigned far smaller significance for the Russian department  
applicants. Proving a minimum competence in the language should not  
hamper the minority students? chances of getting accepted. Further,  
the Georgian language scores do not have an impact on the prospective  
student?s chances of getting state funding for education. The Georgian  
state sets a maximum threshold for state university annual fees but  
has no influence on private ones. Within this amount, the state  
provides four grant packages for outstanding students ? 100%, 70%,  
50%, and 20% for all four years of undergraduate study. Students are  
awarded funding based upon the scores of the general abilities test  
only. Given the fact that this test can be taken both in Georgian and  
in Russian, it creates a fairly level playing ground for all students.  
Still, the minority advocates argue that option of Russian language  
tests does not adequately meet the needs of minority applicants whose  
native language is not Russian or whose education was not in Russian.  
Lately the idea of opening an Armenian-language university in  
Samtskhe-Javakheti has been promoted by the government of Armenia. But  
the Georgian side has rejected the idea on the grounds that ethnic  
Armenians or other minorities are not disadvantaged by the Georgian  
education system. The Ministry already supports special preparatory  
courses in the Georgian language for minorities to prepare them for  
the UNE and pays a stipend of 100 GEL to participants.10 It should be  
noted that the number of minority students entering Georgian  
universities has declined since the introduction of the UNE three  
years ago, now that requirements of Georgian language knowledge are  
not smoothed over by the universities. However, the Ministry of  
Education officials argue that throughout the last three years the  
number of national minority students has been increasing. At the same  
time, they reaffirm that there will be no ?positive discrimination? to  
benefit minorities and reject any form of quotas, eased requirements,  
or special exams. The argument is that there will be no discrimination  
? including positive ? because the measures adopted temporarily will  
be hard to abolish upon their intended end. The Ministry of Education  
has made efforts to improve Georgian teaching in minority-language  
schools. The state budget funds the programme for creating textbooks  
for teaching Georgian as a second language. Two books for beginner  
levels have already been published and are part of the curriculum.  
This ?Tavtavi? series will eventually provide material for all 12  
grades. Deputy Minister Bela Tsipuria maintains that the methodology  
is compatible with the European Commission recommendations in the  
field, however visible challenges remain. For example, the first  
(absolute beginner) book does not include a section on the  
10Kvrivishvili, Ana. ?Lomaia: No Chance for Armenian-Language  
University in Samtskhe-Javakheti? The Messenger August 23, 2007
5
Georgian alphabet and pronunciation and is monolingual Georgian. This,  
Tsipuria argues, was appropriate because the teachers can  
independently teach students to write and read in Georgian. Yet this  
claim does not seem to be well grounded given the realities in the  
non-Georgian language schools and the levels of Georgian knowledge of  
both the students and teachers. Here it is worth remembering that  
Georgian alphabet is not similar to any other in the world, including  
the Armenian, Latin, or Cyrillic that is native to most of the  
minorities, and would require special instruction. The Ministry of  
Education has no intention at this time to introduce bilingual  
education programs, be it through multilingual textbooks or outright  
multilingual classes. The Ministry acknowledges that these approaches  
may be an option, but they neither plan to employ them, nor rule out  
doing so in the future. However, Tsipuria says that there is a school  
initiated movement towards this end, with about 20 bilingual classes  
already operating in Kvemo Kartli. This experiment was started at the  
schools? own initiative11 and the Ministry so far has no intention to  
extend this experience nationwide or contribute to its implementation  
in interested schools. Another grassroots development is the school  
partnership within the country, operational since 2004. Tsipuria says  
that schools from minority-populated areas team up with schools from  
predominantly Georgian areas to implement special projects, like joint  
excursions, etc. This initiative aims at strengthening human  
interaction to counter the isolation of the minority-populated regions  
and provide an opportunity for inter-group socialisation at an earlier  
age. In addition to this, some language benefit can also be derived  
from the encounters, but probably to a much lesser extent. Although  
Ms. Tsipuria described this initiative as a grassroots movement, with  
which Ministry was not involved, we have encountered elsewhere in the  
Ministry documents that budgetary funds of GEL 10.000 has been  
assigned for the school partnership program. The Language Policy The  
Georgian language has had a dominant role in defining the Georgian  
nation and nationalism. Language is one of the three components of  
?fatherland, language, and faith? ? Ilia Chavchavadze?s12  
understanding of what it means to be Georgian. To illustrate,  
descendants of Georgians living on the territories occupied by the  
Ottoman Empire centuries ago?devote Muslims and loyal citizens of  
Turkey?are still mostly considered Georgian, since they have  
maintained the Georgian language and culture. Even during Soviet  
times, when Russian replaced local languages in most of the member  
republics and acquired the status of the official language, Georgia  
fiercely resisted the attempts to legalise Russian. Georgian has not  
been challenged as the only language of the country since the Russian  
empire. Therefore the commitment of ratifying and enforcing the  
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is largely seen as  
a threat and is dismissed both by the government and opposition  
representatives alike. Although its ratification was one of the  
promises Georgia made while joining the Council of Europe in 1999,  
opponents of the Charter like to point to other states long members of  
CE and EU, like the Baltic three and France who despite the same  
pledge have so far refrained from adopting it. Although the Georgian  
constitution stipulates that both Georgian and Abkhazian shall be the  
state language on the territory of Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia  
(currently outside the control of the Tbilisi authorities), there is  
hardly anyone in the country that would support establishing Armenian  
and Azeri as the state language in the appropriate regions.  
Nonetheless, in reality, Armenian and Azeri are largely used instead  
of Georgian as the working language even in government institutions.  
11 Correspondingly, the novelty is funded by the schools themselves,  
without assistance by the Ministry or other outside donors. 12 Ilia  
Chavchavadze was a famous writer and the leader of 19th century  
Georgian national awakening.. 6
Perhaps the only exception from this is the judiciary. Court hearings  
are conducted in Georgian only, to the locals? objection, but with  
translation and interpretation services provided by the state. The  
minorities are pushing for formalising the use of minority languages,  
as they are the most convenient and cost effective. This idea of  
giving official status to Armenian and Azeri languages in the areas  
mostly populated by these minorities is supported by several  
non-governmental organisations,13 which stress that such arrangements  
can be made temporarily. The argument is that at least some time needs  
to be given to the local populations to adjust and acquire Georgian  
language skills, and in the meantime their language could legally be  
used for official communication both locally and with the central  
authorities. But the government argues that such temporary fixes would  
only protract the amount of time it takes national minorities to  
embrace the national language and would not alleviate the situation.  
Further, the argument goes, once given such a possibility, the  
minorities would again feel deprived and discriminated against when  
the period came to an end. Elene Tevdoradze, Chair of the  
Parliamentary Human Rights and Civic Integration Committee, says that  
Georgia will probably not sign the Charter or change the existing  
legislation on language policy until Georgia?s territorial integrity  
is restored. If Abkhazia and South Ossetia come under Tbilisi?s  
control, the government would definitely have to look for new  
arrangements when defining their status, including language issues.  
But still, few believe that any changes would be applied to the status  
of other minority languages. Georgian Language for Adults Regarding  
the provision of Georgian language training for adults the state does  
not have any general programmes. There is a programme that trains  
school teachers and head masters in Kvemo Kartli and  
Samtskhe-Javakheti, which is supported by the OSCE High Commissioner  
on National Minorities. Perhaps most importantly, the state-run Zurab  
Zhvania School of Public Administration in Kutaisi accepts citizens  
from minority and mountainous areas and provides them with special  
training, including three-month long intensive Georgian language  
courses for minorities, to improve their employment prospects in the  
public service. The School generally targets those already in the  
Georgian civil service for retraining, but accepts other candidates as  
well. This state-run institution is commended by the experts in the  
field, however concern remains that the graduates? employment rate is  
not very high. While Deputy Education Minister Tsipuria regards the  
30-40% employment rate14 as quite high, Elene Tevdoradze, Chair of the  
Parliamentary Human Rights and Civic Integration Committee, believes  
that the graduates do not necessarily need to be working for the  
government and should rather focus on employment in the private  
sector. While the government claims that allowing equal opportunities  
for all, it does not provide the older generation, which is already  
disadvantaged by the old system, adequate resources to catch up with  
the majority population and compete on equal ground. The starting  
conditions may be better now for the generation of national minorities  
that is just now starting school, but those caught in between, i.e.  
those already in the upper grades of public school, young adults, and  
older people remain deprived. Unfortunately, the latter group  
constitutes the majority of the national minority population. Problem  
of Isolation The language problems of the minorities have a universal  
bearing on their civil rights. The right of access to information is  
greatly hindered because of language. As mentioned above, minorities  
are largely detached 13 NGOs such as ?Multinational Georgia? and ECMI  
are viewed as being in favour of such arrangements. Representatives of  
?Multinational Georgia? could not be reached for the purposes of this  
report. 14 This employment figure is based on anecdotal evidence only.  
Reliable/official data is currently not gathered.
7
from the Georgian information sphere. Georgian Public Broadcasting  
(GPB) on weekdays has daily news programme in five minority languages  
(Russian, Armenian, Azeri, Ossetian, and Abkhazian), but this means  
that each group gets news in its native language only once a week.  
Hence, these programs cannot possibly be very informative or enable  
the viewers to get a clear picture of the developments in the country.  
While a daily Russian language news programme was proposed by several  
organisations to remedy this problem, the waning Russian skills among  
national minorities arguably would not allow for better impact either.  
The leadership of GPB is well aware of the limited influence its  
efforts produce and is open to suggestions for a more workable scheme.  
However there is no clear consensus within the minority communities  
above to improve the situation. Providing subtitles for Georgian  
language programs, one idea considered, is a challenge, Mr.  
Tarkhnishvili,15 Chair of the Board of Trustees explains, since there  
is no agreement among Azeris about the script for the subtitles. While  
modern Azeri language uses Latin script, during the Soviet times  
Cyrillic was used instead and the Azeris living in Georgia are more  
familiar with this way of writing. But using Cyrillic would be  
problematic in terms of violating official language norms. Mr.  
Tarkhnishvili argues that better representation of minorities  
themselves in the mainstream Georgian media could be a good starting  
point. He believes that in addition to minorities being taught  
Georgian and integrated into Georgian society, Georgians themselves  
need greater exposure to minorities in order to understand and  
appreciate them. A weekly TV talk show, called ?Italian Courtyard?16  
that has been on the air since June is aimed at precisely this. The  
programme focuses on the issues of multiculturalism. The show?s themes  
thus far have included: the role of women, national cuisines, national  
costumes, wedding traditions, stereotypes, mixed families, employment  
in the regions, etc. Another aspect of the public education campaign  
about minorities is the documentaries and social ads that depict  
ethnic histories and their role in Georgian history. So, along with  
the talk show format, the programme also airs short features about  
minority individuals. GPB is not the only national media recently  
devoting time and attention to minority issues. Commercial Imedi TV,  
in cooperation with the Horizonti Foundation, ran a weekly talk show  
called ?My Country? that focused on minority issues. The number of  
shows was limited, only four, and focused on four different topics:  
citizenship, cultural diversity, Georgian language teaching, and  
integration of minorities in social and economic life. While national  
media outlets continue deliberations on how to better communicate with  
national minorities, local attempts are being made in Armenian  
populated areas to bring Georgian current affairs close to home. OSCE  
funding has enabled two local independent TV stations to air news  
programmes accompanied by simultaneous translation into Armenian.17  
While such undertakings may be quite costly, they indeed are a good  
opportunity to fill the information gap. One way to integrate the  
minorities could be by strengthening the local bureaus of GPB. This  
remains a priority for the organisation, but is slow going due to  
financial constraints and the shortage of resources. Another  
unresolved issue is the extent of coverage. Tarkhnishvili explains  
that the GPB signal fails to reach not only minority areas, but also  
the remote ethnic Georgian areas of Svaneti and Racha-Lechkhumi, 15  
Since the time of his interview for this report Mr. Tarkhnishvili has  
left his position with Georgian Public Broadcasting and was appointed  
Chair of the Central Election Commission of Georgia. 16 The show is  
created in cooperation with United Nations Association Georgia and  
USAID. Residential buildings with an inner courtyard characteristic of  
old part of Tbilisi are popularly called Italian Courtyards. They are  
closely associated with traditional multiculturalism and good  
neighbourly relations of old Tbilisi. The programme?s web page  
http://www.gpb.ge/st_1_5.php?lang=eng&tm_id=1&sub_id=1 also provides  
an overview in Georgian of the content of previous shows. 17  
http://www.osce.org/item/24498.html 8
underscoring that this technicality is not an ethnic bias. When these  
technical problems are settled, GPB plans to revive the old tradition  
of radio and TV language-learning programs.18 GPB is not alone in its  
plans to design self teaching language aids. The Office of the State  
Minister on Civic Integration reports it is also involved in producing  
manuals and CDs that would be accessible for those interested in the  
minority populated areas. It remains to be seen how effective CDs will  
be in the regions marred by poverty and underdevelopment. Policy  
Formulation ? the Attempted Strategies and Shortcomings Formulating a  
coherent minority policy has been on the government agenda, at least  
formally, for years. While there is no single comprehensive document  
adopted thus far, several drafts and ideas have already been  
developed, albeit some quite contradictory. One important signal was  
the parliamentary action while ratifying the Framework Convention on  
National Minorities. The Convention was signed in 2000 and ratified in  
2005 by parliamentary resolution. While Georgia did not formally make  
any derogations or declarations, as attested by the official web  
page19 of the Convention Secretariat, Article 2 of the resolution  
shows a different picture. The resolution defines what a ?national  
minority? means in Georgia ? the term, according to it, applies to a  
group of persons who: are citizens of Georgia; differ from the  
majority of the population in terms of their linguistic, cultural, and  
ethnic identity; have inhabited the territory of Georgia for an  
extensive period of time; and are compactly settled on the Georgian  
territory. Further definitions and derogations concern Articles 10,  
11.1, 11.3, 16, 18, and 30. Article 3 of the resolution states that  
the declarations given in Article 2 ?are an inseparable part? of the  
ratification decision. However this latter statement can easily be  
challenged. Georgian legislation provides for supremacy of  
international treaties to which Georgia is a signatory over domestic  
law, which includes acts of parliament. Since the definitions and  
declarations were not officially applied to the Convention by the  
Georgian side, the definitions provided by the resolution can only be  
assumed to be part of domestic law. But since they contradict  
international law, they should constitutionally be made void. Hence,  
the content of the resolution does not possess any legal power  
whatsoever. Experts in the field largely consider it to be an attempt  
by Parliament to at least declare its own stance and make it known.  
But the use of such assertion remains unclear. Another document  
prepared in Parliament, by the Committee of Human Rights Protection  
and Civic Integration, is the draft Concept for Protection and  
Integration of National Minorities.20 The document itself, although  
aimed at protecting minorities and contributing to their well being,  
is not devoid of the spirit of fear and mistrust of minorities. The  
Concept demands ?strict compliance? in terms of: the inviolability of  
Georgia?s territorial integrity, minorities? adherence to Georgian  
legislation, and not undermining state security, among others.  
Further, minorities explicitly are to respect Georgian and Abkhazian  
people, history, and traditions as well as other minorities. Although  
the document vows to reject forced assimilation attempts, it also  
states that the state may in some cases contribute to their  
integration into Georgian society. While minorities will be granted  
opportunities to learn their own language, good knowledge of Georgian  
is a ?necessary prerequisite? for their integration. Further, the  
concept stipulates that minorities have a right for meaningful  
participation in deciding issues concerning them. But imagining issues  
that do not concern 18 Until the mid-1990s Georgian state radio and TV  
ran programmes for learning foreign languages: usually Russian,  
English, German, and French, and also programmes on proper Georgian  
and grammar. This time around Georgian language classes would probably  
be devoted more attention. 19  
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/Minorities 20 The English version  
of the document is available at the Committee web page at:  
http://www.parliament.ge/files/603_8080_187110_concepcia_en.pdf 9
minorities as a component of Georgian society is a difficult task. It  
is probably due to this biased attitude, insiders say, that this  
Concept still remains a draft and is largely disregarded in the  
process of policy elaboration. The Tolerance and Civic Integration  
Council21 created in August 2005 is the main body in charge of this  
process of policy elaboration. It works closely with the United  
Nations Association Georgia (UNAG) in implementing its own four-year  
National Integration and Tolerance in Georgia programme. As Mr.  
Tarkhnishvili, who has served as a member of the Council, says, this  
helps avoid duplicating efforts. The assessment survey report recently  
published by UNAG22 reaffirmed what was already well known, he says.  
However, there still is no consensus on many key issues even within  
the Council. What is agreed on is that there should be no affirmative  
action, a.k.a. positive discrimination. The Tbilisi head of the  
European Centre for National Minorities (ECMI) argues that wrongly  
equating affirmative action with (a form of) discrimination will not  
prove beneficial. There is no common view on the need for a law on  
minorities or state language, as well as on how to define minorities.  
The definition proposed by the draft Concept of the Human Rights  
Committee is clearly dismissed, but the question is lingering whether  
rights should be somehow tied to numbers or not. Regarding the  
language issues Tarkhnishvili believes that the Charter is not quite  
tailored to Georgia?s present needs. He explains that the Charter is  
more applicable to the situation where integration is no more an issue  
and preserving minority identities is more problematic. In Georgia,  
though both questions are equally pressing, integration and ending  
mutual isolation is the top priority. Although many note that  
concerning protection and provision of formal, legal rights of  
minorities the situation in Georgia is not bad at all, their  
integration is a different story. But related to this is another  
concern ? while the state tries to promote Georgian language and  
culture within minority communities as a means for their integration,  
so far it shows little understanding of communication being a two-way  
street. Still limited efforts are made to disperse the fear of  
?Georgianisation? expressed by minorities. Considerations for the  
Future Overall, the current Georgian leadership better recognises the  
urgency of a comprehensive policy towards national minorities compared  
to previous governments. However, there are no tangible outcomes yet.  
The state?s inability to thus far formulate a coherent and  
comprehendible policy reflects the contradictory attitude of the  
Georgian public, which supports the fair treatment of national  
minorities, while remaining suspicious towards them. This mistrust is  
not associated with the majority population only. Easing this mutual  
anxiety should be the starting point for successful integration  
beneficial to all communities and the state as a whole. This  
integration process cannot succeed without taking into account the  
grievances that the minority communities justly have. Systematic and  
coherent approaches must be employed to address the language problems  
of the minorities. The state has a responsibility to provide all  
citizens with adequate opportunities to learn the state language and  
must take steps to fulfil this responsibility. It must be understood  
that this is an important prerequisite for the meaningful engagement  
of a significant part of the Georgian population in civic and economic  
life of the country. As president Saakashvili likes to stress when  
talking with or about minorities, Georgia cannot afford not taking  
advantage of the resources and promises these people have to 21 The  
Council was put in charge of producing the first State Report on the  
Framework Convention due in April 2007. The Report has been submitted  
and is available at:  
http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/minorities/Country_specific_eng.asp#P315_16467 22 Unfortunately UNAG has not made full text of the document available online. However we can provide an electronic copy upon  
request.
10
offer. This message needs to be understood well both by the state and  
the minority communities as well. Minorities too need to be explained  
the opportunities that will come with better knowledge of the state  
language and intensified efforts from their side to actively engage  
with the rest of the country. Only after establishing workable  
conditions for dialogue can the alienated communities come to terms  
with their differences and similarities and establish a truly  
pluralistic society. The minorities themselves need to be involved in  
the process of elaborating the integration strategy. While the  
government-initiated bodies are abundant, they are largely  
dysfunctional. Usually minority groups are present within these  
groups, but are mostly represented by NGOs from the capitol. Although  
these organisations/persons are legitimate actors, being based in  
Tbilisi and better integrated urban areas, they may not have  
sufficient ties with the regions to adequately convey their grievances  
and interests. Revitalisation of the existing mechanisms is needed to  
ensure that regional voices are heard. Another problem that needs to  
be addressed is that of consistency ? in minority policy in general  
and regarding the language teaching policy in particular. While  
donor-driven efforts have predated the state involvement and have  
provided new opportunities, they have tended to be quite patchy, with  
programmes running for a year or two only. Long-term commitment and  
coherent programmes are needed to ensure sustainable and meaningful  
results. Acknowledgements Transparency International Georgia would  
like to thank following individuals for their assistance in preparing  
this report: Mr. Tom Trier (European Centre for Minority Issues), Mr.  
Ramaz Aptsiauri (United Nations Association Georgia), Mr. Beka  
Mindiashvili (Director, The Tolerance Centre), Mr. Zurab Jamagidze  
(Office of the State Minister on Civic Integration Issues), Ms. Bela  
Tsipuria (Deputy Minister of Education and Science), Ms. Elene  
Tevdoradze (Chair, Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Civic  
Integration), Mr. Levan Tarkhnishvili (Chair, Georgian Public  
Broadcasting Board of Trustees at the time of preparation of the  
report, currently Chair of the Central Election Commission), Mr. Vano  
Tavadze (Horizonti Foundation). 11