Central and East European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (CEERES) – Master’s Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Central and East European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (CEERES) – Master’s Theses by Subject "Abhaasia"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Contested names: (re)naming of places and nation-building in Soviet Georgia(Tartu Ülikool, 2022) Ahmadzada, Shujaat; Reisner, Oliver, juhendaja; Gibson, Catherine Helen, juhendaja; Tartu Ülikool. Sotsiaalteaduste valdkond; Tartu Ülikool. Johan Skytte poliitikauuringute instituutThis study examines the renaming of settlements in Soviet Georgia. The goal of the research is to determine the extent to which toponym change was employed as a strategy to build the Soviet Georgian nation. Since toponyms are not chosen at random by political authorities, studying toponyms can reveal a lot about the attitudes, perceptions, and ideologies of those in positions of political authority. The article's focus is on the events that caused toponyms to change rather than the examination of toponyms from a linguistic perspective. The toponym is viewed as a performative act in this article rather than an inscription. Having stated that, the study first seeks to understand the nature of national spaces created in Soviet Georgia before examining the situation of the country's ethno-political system.Item Democratisation and political regimes in de facto states: a comparative analysis of levels of freedom and fairness in parliamentary elections in Abkhazia (2022) and South Ossetia (2019)(Tartu Ülikool, 2023) Beslier, Marie; Florea, Adrian, juhendaja; Reisner, Oliver, juhendaja; Tartu Ülikool. Sotsiaalteaduste valdkond; Tartu Ülikool. Johan Skytte poliitikauuringute instituutOver the past 30 years, Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s remarkable endurance has made them well-known cases on the list of de facto states. They have held regular elections, adopting an organisation that mimics that of recognised states, with a political arena invested by candidates nominated by parties and regulated by monitoring bodies, all within a legal framework. However, notwithstanding their notable similarities, the two de facto states would appear to have developed two very different ways of doing politics. While Abkhazia seems to have displayed evidence of a genuine political life, South Ossetia has espoused a "façade" regime, with ostensibly democratic bodies that in reality conceal an authoritarian style of rule. The research question underlying this study is therefore as follows: how is it to be explained that Abkhazia has apparently developed genuine democratic features, whereas they appear to be merely a façade in South Ossetia? This research falls within the scope of the literature on de facto states and is intended to fill a theoretical gap with domestic issues that are still under-addressed in favour of macro issues. Furthermore, this research has integrated the literature on democratisation and political regimes originally applied to recognised states, insofar as many de facto states have shown similar operating features. Drawing upon a comparative case study of the levels of freedom and fairness during the latest parliamentary elections in Abkhazia (2022) and South Ossetia (2019), and supported by the results of eight semi-structured interviews, this research aimed first of all at providing an initial discussion of the type of political regime in force in these two de facto states. Preliminary results have demonstrated that Abkhazia has adopted a hybrid form of regime, and that the concept of competitive authoritarian regime would seem to be more appropriate than that of ethnocracy, which has long been attributed to it. As regards South Ossetia, the elections revealed a total lack of freedom and fairness, favouring the hypothesis of a fully authoritarian regime. The second part of this research enabled the identification of seven potential factors to explain the discrepancies of the two de facto regimes types : the geography of the territory (F1), the state of the economy (F2), the Soviet legacy (F3), nationalism (F4), patron state interference (F5), international aid for the development of civil society (F6) and independence aspirations (F7). From a theoretical point of view, this research has shed light on an essential aspect of the political life of de facto states: elections. Furthermore, it has paved the way for future research into the question of political regimes and how literature applied to recognised states can provide valuable assistance. From a practical point of view, this research has confirmed the difficulty of such an enterprise, where methodological obstacles must not give rise to superficial applications of democratic factors, calling for semantic and scientific prudence. Finally, this research paves the way for further discussion on the façade of the South Ossetian regime, the components of which seem to reveal a more complex reality, while the increased unfairness of elections in Abkhazia seems to nuance the eulogies about its democratic nature, stressing the importance of not considering political regimes as immutable entities, but as constantly fluctuating on the political regime continuum.Item The role of collective memory in the Georgian-Abkhaz reconciliation process: obstacle or opportunity?(Tartu Ülikool, 2019) Bernardi, Rossana; Darchiashvili, David, juhendaja; Florea, Adrian, juhendaja; Tartu Ülikool. Sotsiaalteaduste valdkond; Tartu Ülikool. Johan Skytte poliitikauuringute instituutThe present research seeks to uncover the dynamics between forms of collective memory and current reconciliation processes between Georgia and the de facto state of Abkhazia. Based on assumptions derived from theoretical perspectives on dynamics of memory in relation to reconciliation after violent conflict, this thesis argues that reconciliation can be both negatively and positively affected by collective memory. The data utilized to address the topic was collected through interviews with civil society activists who are working on initiatives that deal with the legacy of painful memories in Georgia and Abkhazia. Through thematic analysis, it was confirmed that collective memory poses obstacles to reconciliation, in terms of mutually-exclusive narratives that discourage dialogue and the change of perceptions of conflicting parts. At the same time, various formats of dialogue and reconciliation taking place in Abkhazia and Georgia were described and assessed in terms of their potential in encouraging reconciliation.