Central and East European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (CEERES) – Master’s Theses

Selle kollektsiooni püsiv URIhttps://hdl.handle.net/10062/66593

Sirvi

Nüüd näidatakse 1 - 2 2

Constructing identities in Georgia’s foreign policy: the Georgian “Self” and the Russian “Other” under UNM and GD (2008-2021)
(Tartu Ülikool, 2024) Van Dreven, Vita; Aprasidze, David, juhendaja; Prina, Federica, juhendaja; Tartu Ülikool. Sotsiaalteaduste valdkond; Tartu Ülikool. Johan Skytte poliitikauuringute instituut
Explaining Georgia’s foreign policy, particularly its refusal to bandwagon with Russia and its decision to align with the West, has been a long-standing focus of scholarly inquiry. However, after Georgian Dream (GD) took office in October 2012, some have noted a shift to a seemingly pro-Russian foreign policy. Most explanations point towards identity – whether elite, state, national or party – as an explanatory variable for this shift. Instead, this thesis is grounded in poststructuralist theory, which posits that identity is formed through linking and differentiation between the “Self” and the “Other.” The research purpose is to identify how the Georgian “Self” and Russian “Other” have been constructed by United National Movement (UNM) and GD between 2008 and 2021, and to explore whether there has been a change in construction of the Russian “Other.” I conduct a poststructuralist discourse analysis of official foreign policy documents, government programs, speeches (both domestic and international), and statements made by key officials (prime minister, president, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs). I identify six discursive formations on which UNM relies for its identity construction of Georgia and Russia: International Law; Role of the International Community; Historical Legacy; (Future) Russo-Georgian Relations; August 2008 War; and Georgian Statehood. In UNM’s construction, the Georgian “Self” and the Russian “Other” as complete opposites. In contrast, I identify four discursive formations that GD uses for its identity construction of Georgia and Russia: International Law; Actions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia; Role of the International Community; and Commitment to a Peaceful Solution. Although GD relies on fewer discursive formations, the portrayal of Russia is more complex. Overall, I identify four significant changes in the construction of the Russian “Other:” a shift in attribution of blame for the August 2008 War; a more positive tone towards Russia; the construction of a mutual willingness to solve the conflict; and the portrayal of compatibility of the West and Russia.
Post-military defeat elections in hybrid regimes: divergent outcomes in Georgia and Armenia
(Tartu Ülikool, 2025) Hutin, Ignacio Ezequiel; Dekalchuk, Anna, juhendaja; Aprasidze, David, juhendaja; Tartu Ülikool. Sotsiaalteaduste valdkond; Tartu Ülikool. Johan Skytte poliitikauuringute instituut
This dissertation examines the divergent electoral outcomes that followed military defeat in two post-Soviet hybrid regimes: Georgia and Armenia. In Georgia, the incumbent government was defeated after the 2008 war with Russia, a result consistent with existing literature suggesting that hybrid regimes tend to punish leaders after military setbacks. In contrast, the government secured re-election in Armenia after the 2020 war with Azerbaijan, challenging prevailing assumptions about the political consequences of military defeat. The central research question is: to what extent does a military defeat affect electoral dynamics in post-Soviet hybrid regimes? To address this, the thesis employs a multiphase, mixed-methods approach. First, it traces the evolution of public opinion surveys from before the wars through the subsequent elections, identifying shifts in voters’ main concerns. Second, it analyses media coverage during the electoral campaigns, with a focus on agenda-setting, priming, and framing theories, to assess how issues were prioritised or downplayed in shaping voter perceptions. Finally, it draws on expert interviews from both countries to explore how incumbents and opposition forces responded to these concerns and instrumentalised them in the campaigns. The findings show that the war's outcome has only a limited impact on electoral dynamics. In both cases, governments attempted to deflect responsibility by redirecting attention to other issues, highlighting achievements, blaming enemies or the opposition, and relying on loyal media outlets and state resources. The effectiveness of these strategies depended less on the defeat itself than on pre-existing factors: governmental wear and tear, support from elites, economic situation, international backing, the stance of civil society, and—above all—the strength and resources of the opposition.

Sirvi

Sirvi Central and East European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (CEERES) – Master’s Theses Autor "Aprasidze, David, juhendaja" järgi