Enlarging Europe: Georgia and the Caucasus

by Nyiri DuCharme, Victoria ’14

In February 2014, eight students of Dr. Robert Austin’s POL359Y course travelled to the Republic of Georgia through an International Course Module (ICM) in order to conduct independent field research on different aspects of the European enlargement project in the Caucasus. Students met with key stakeholders as well as a number of representatives from civil society organizations and academia. The final products were featured at the Undergraduate Research Fair, a showcase of original research by participants of ICMs, Research Opportunity Programs, and other initiatives of the Faculty of Arts and Science.

The Republic of Georgia and its surrounding region have grown in importance as a result of increased attention to the Eurasian corridor. The Caucasus context is incredibly important in understanding the European Neighbourhood Policy, the European Union Eastern Partnership, and international relations in the post-Soviet space. Georgia is often referred to as the Soviet success story—that is, it is upheld as the beacon of the Caucasus. The famous crackdowns on police corruption under Mikheil Saakashvili placed Georgia on favourable terms with the West, particularly with the United States. Recently, Georgia has undertaken steps to formalize and solidify its successes in European and Euro-Atlantic integration.

The Europeanization project has been introduced in many forms in Georgia; the POL359 students conducted their research projects in many of these areas, but even more are visible when interacting with Georgian society. Students independently researched criminal justice and penal-system reform, corruption and transparency, regional integration, internally displaced persons, microfinance institutions, and film and culture. They paid particular attention to how these areas have been leaders in, or impacted by, the Europeanization of Georgia.

Students had the opportunity to conduct primary research in the form of interviews with key individuals and organizations in the multifaceted Georgian post-Soviet transition project. As mentioned, key stakeholders were interviewed including the Deputy Foreign Minister of Georgia Ms. Tamar Beruchashvili; the Chief of Staff of Mikheil Saakashvili’s Presidential Administration, Mr. Andre Barnovi; the European Union Ambassador to Georgia and former Bulgarian Prime Minister, Mr. Philip Dmitrov; as well as representatives from the Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons, Ministry of the Diaspora, and the Department of European Integration and Cooperation; and finally, representatives from the European External Action Service, Council of Europe, Transparency International, National Georgian Film Centre, Eurasian Partnership Foundation, Open Society Foundation, and the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, among others.

This was an incredible opportunity for undergraduate students to conduct primary field research in such a current and high-stakes area as the Eurasian corridor. The following are some thoughts and reflections by three of the participating students, Lauren Clarke, Delila Bikic, and Nyiri DuCharme, on their experiences on the ICM:

What made you decide to pursue the research topic that you chose?

Lauren: I wanted to create a topic that drew on both of my majors, political science and cinema studies. I immediately did some preliminary research and discovered Georgia had a rich history in cinema. This prodded me to look at the impact of the contemporary films coming out of Georgia and the implications they have had for developing a national identity within Europe.

Delila: My decision to focus on the potential for regional cooperation in the Caucasus stemmed from my interest in the EU as the successful model of regionalism. My past studies on the process of accession for member states have sparked my curiosity even more when it comes to the exploring the capability to export and utilize the EU model elsewhere.

Nyiri: When I first learned of the opportunity to go to Georgia, I knew that my research topic had to be relevant and had to ask the tough, but necessary, questions. Georgia is often treated as the beacon of the Caucasus, so I sought to determine where that esteemed title had cracks. So I decided to focus on questions of corruption and transparency.

What are your thoughts and impressions on the quantity and quality of the current scholarly literature available on your topic?

Lauren: The availability of scholarly literature in English was quite sparse. Most of the literature that exists focuses on Georgian cinema under the Soviet cinema umbrella. Articles focusing on contemporary Georgian cinema were very limited.

Delila: I was surprised to find the amount of diverse, good quality, scholarly research that I could include in my final paper. Perhaps one of my biggest fears was uncovering useful research published in one of the three languages characteristic of the Caucasus region. Fortunately, in those cases, I was almost immediately able to find a translated version of the document or an additional reference that would point me in the right direction to continue research. For the most part, I relied on books and peer-reviewed journal articles for contextual background. A variety of other publications by the European Union and its partner organizations was also key in helping me frame my topic.

Nyiri: The bulk of scholarly research focused on the 2003 Rose Revolution led by Mikheil Saakashvili. Although many articles analyzed the pre-2003 corruption issues in certain specific areas, taken as an aggregate, the data showed widespread corruption leftover from Soviet-era behaviour in the public sector, higher education, law enforcement, and small business practice, to name only the most blatant examples. Many articles were commissioned by EU agencies and authored by Georgian nationals, so I felt that there was a high degree of legitimacy in these sources. However, finding information on corruption during and after the Saakashvili years proved to be difficult, which is where the student-conducted field interviews proved to be extremely beneficial.

What was the most eye-opening, unexpected, or profound thing you uncovered in your research?

Lauren: The division among individuals working in the industry on the direction Georgian cinema should move towards. There are two opposing points of view. One side believes the contemporary films should draw on Georgia’s rich history and utilize it for source material while preserving their national identity. The other side wants to see films move away from these types of stories and encourage foreign investment to stimulate the film industry as a while.

Before going to Georgia I was much more aligned with the first way of thinking. However, Levon Bakhia (founder of Sarke Studios in Georgia) said something very interesting when I asked him about the $2-million budget of the Georgia National Film Centre, which is funded by the government. He responded simply with, “How can we ask for an increase in funding for films, when there are people starving?” This sentiment really put it all into perspective.

My overall conclusion was both of these schools of thought need to exist to promote Georgian films and culture outside of Georgia—as well as to turn it into an enterprise that could potentially create jobs and produce a profit.

Delila: I would say that the most unexpected and eye-opening experiences were speaking with various representatives from ministries, NGOs, and EU partner organizations. This was my first engagement with field research and I must admit that it was an invaluable one. The ability to supplement scholarly secondary research with firsthand, direct interaction with individuals who are involved on the ground, added another dimension to my project. The interviews made the research experience much more personal, creating a more collaborative environment during the interview.

Nyiri: Some of the most interesting answers I garnered were when I asked stakeholders whether it’s more important to fight corruption or promote transparency. Some were able to identify the more urgent factor, and some said you can’t have one without the other. The vast majority supported the achievements already made in eradicating petty corruption but emphasized that more needed to be done; nepotism, muzzling, and other forms of elite corruption were described to me as still being widespread. Therefore, I found it difficult to answer my original research question: in one sense, Georgia is indeed a beacon in the region. But on the other hand, its story is not yet complete.

Overall, this experience was noteworthy to say the least. Not only was the opportunity to conduct primary research invaluable, but experiencing first-hand the Europeanization project while simultaneously analyzing the secondary research provided an additional level of understanding for students of the nuances of regions with as much political and historical significance and complexity as the Caucasus.

The reality of the European Neighbourhood Policy, as more than just a strategy of international relations, became real to the students as news of the events in Maidan in Kiev broke while they were in Georgia. The students were in the lobby of the Department of European Integration and Cooperation, standing around televisions alongside Georgian public servants watching the live events happening just across the Black Sea. And looking around at the reactions of the public servants, administrative staff, and even security staff, it became apparent what Europeanization and the post-Soviet transition project really means on the ground: more than a political theory or international agreement, this is something real, close to home, and it has implications that will shape this society for years to come.

Most students at the undergraduate and even graduate levels conduct research by analyzing and comparing existing scholarly literature on a given topic and then making original insights to contribute to the field of research. The ICM program at the University of Toronto goes further: it has allowed numerous students to gain incomparable experience in conducting their own research at the undergraduate level. The eight POL359 students plan to go on to graduate and professional schools, and the ICM initiative has given them an advantage over other students. Programs such as these are an invaluable resource to students at CERES, in the Faculty of Arts and Science, and at the University of Toronto in general. On behalf of my peers who participated in this ICM with me, I’d like to thank Mary-Priscilla Stevens, Dean David Cameron, CERES and the Munk School of Global Affairs, and of course Dr. Robert Austin for making opportunities such as these available to students.