Aftermath: Women's Organizations In Postconflict Georgia

transcript

Aftermath:Women’s OrganizationsIn Postconflict Georgia

Center for Development Information and EvaluationU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington

By Alice L. MortonSusan Allen NanThomas BuckFeride Zurikashvili

Working Paper No. 305September 2000

ContentsPreface iii

1. Introduction 1

2. Georgian Women’s Organizations 2

Factors Leading to the Emergence of Women’s Organizations in the Postconflict Era ............... 2 Activities of Women’s Organizations ......................................................................................... 3

3. Impact of Women’s Organizations 6

Beneficiaries ............................................................................................................................. 6 Women Leaders........................................................................................................................ 6 Government and Public Policy .................................................................................................. 7

4. Women’s Organizations and the International Community 8

5. General Findings and Conclusions 9

References and Selected Bibliography 11

The purpose of the assessment was to generate a bodyof empirically grounded knowledge that could informthe policy and programmatic interventions of USAID andother international donor agencies.

CDIE sent research teams to Bosnia and Herzegovina,Cambodia, El Salvador, Georgia, Guatemala, andRwanda. These teams conducted in-depth interviews withkey informants, reviewed literature, and conducted field-work. They prepared comprehensive reports, which werereviewed by USAID and outside scholars.

This paper—written by Alice L. Morton, Susan AllenNan, Thomas Buck, and Feride Zurikashvili—examines the role women’s organizations play inchanneling assistance to women and in helping themmeet the challenges of postconflict Georgia. I amgrateful to the authors for their insightful analysis.

—KRISHNA KUMARSenior Social Scientist

Preface

A S PART OF ITS ongoing studies on the rehabilita-tion and reconstruction of the societies ravaged

by civil wars, USAID’s Center for Development Infor-mation and Evaluation (CDIE) undertook a multicountryassessment of gender issues in postconflict societies. Theassessment concentrated on three sets of questions:

§ What has been the impact of intrastate conflictson women? How did these conflicts affect theireconomic, social, and political roles and respon-sibilities? What are the major problems andchallenges facing women in these societies?

§ What types of women’s organizations haveemerged during the postconflict era to addressthe challenges women face and to promote gen-der equality? What types of activities do theyundertake? What has been their overall impacton the empowerment of women? What factorsaffect their performance and impact?

§ What has been the nature and emphasis of as-sistance provided by USAID and other donor agen-cies to women’s organizations? What are someof the major problem areas in international as-sistance?

Aftermath: Women’s Organizations in Postconflict Georgia 1

1. IntroductionThis report explores the role that women’s organizations play in channeling assistance to women and in helpingthem meet the challenges of the postconflict situation economically, socially, and politically. It emphasizes theextent to which participation in such organizations holds promise for women’s empowerment and the democratiza-tion of the postconflict polity.* A complementary report examines the effect of the conflict on internally displacedwomen.

Initially, the study was designed to explore the situation of two groups of internally displaced Georgian women.The main group is made up of those of Georgian extraction who fled the Abkhaz Autonomous Republic afterarmed conflict broke out in 1992. The second is a group of ethnically Georgian women who were displaced earlierbecause of a similar conflict in South Ossetia. This enduring “temporary” displacement augments and prolongsthe disruptions caused by the conflict itself.

The team that produced this report† attempted to distinguish between displaced women who were settled in thestate or public sector (usually in slightly renovated hotels or other structures owned by the Georgian government)and those who lodged with relatives or others in the private sector.‡ Just before fieldwork began, at USAID/Tbilisi’srequest, the original study was expanded to include women’s organizations neither composed of nor orientedtoward internally displaced women but rather toward all Georgian women, given the radical economic and politi-cal changes that have occurred since independence in 1991. The study team attempted to meet this request byinterviewing key informants and, in some instances, visiting beneficiaries of NGOs not concerned with displacedpeople. In line with the original study design, two in-depth organizational case studies of organizations concernedwith internally displaced women also were prepared.

Two background papers for this study were prepared before the three-person expatriate team visited Georgia inOctober 1999.§ The team was in Georgia for three weeks just before the parliamentary elections. Team membersdesigned the study to be as participatory and transparent as possible. The team held preliminary meetings withUSAID staff, other donor staff, and selected leaders of women’s nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to explainthe study hypotheses and approach and to have these knowledgeable informants vet the study’s outline and meth-odology. The team also asked the same group to provide feedback at the end of the field phase. That help provedinvaluable, and the team is grateful to all those Georgians who helped make this study the beginning of an ongoingdiscussion. In all, 105 questionnaires were filled out and analyzed, and 8 focus groups were held. In most in-stances, those interviewed were direct or indirect beneficiaries of the NGOs whose leaders the team also inter-viewed.

*The USAID mission to the Republic of Georgia cleared the study’s scope of work and assisted the study team in makingcontact with key informants in the Georgian and international nongovernmental organization (NGO) communities.However, the mission wished that it be made clear that this report is not an evaluation of its programs.

†The team included Dr. Feride Zurikashvili of Tbilisi State University, who brought with her a student interpreter andsix students who were experienced field interviewers. The three expatriate team members—Dr. Alice Morton, teamleader and technical adviser for the overall CDIE study; Dr. Susan Allen Nan, an expert on conflict resolution in theCaucasus; and Thomas Buck, a specialist on eastern Europe—are grateful to them for their insights and hard work.

‡During study preparation, a window of opportunity opened up for the team to visit Abkhazia, since women’s organiza-tions there were holding a conference on peace. The mission did not clear the team to attend this meeting because of theinsecurity of the border situation.

§The first is based on a broad review of the literature on Georgia’s recent history, the conflicts, and the situation ofinternally displaced women, prepared by Mr. Buck. The second, an informative report based on secondary sources andoriginal field research, was prepared by Dr. Zurikashvili.

Center for Development Information and Evaluation2

2. Georgian Women’s Organizations

Factors Leading to the EmergenceOf Women’s OrganizationsIn the Postconflict Era

Conflict in Georgia began virtually as soon as theSoviet Union collapsed and independence was de-clared in 1991. Thus, in determining how the third sec-tor—civil society, including the staggering growth ofwomen’s organizations—opened up, it is important todistinguish between the factors created by the conflictand those that grew out of the overall economic and in-stitutional collapse. These factors, in turn, should beviewed as distinct from, though linked to, the subse-quent shift from centrally planned communist econom-ics to market-oriented reforms and democratic politicalmodels.

Women’s organizations began to be established from thefirst days of independence, although the growth in abso-lute numbers increased most markedly between 1995,when the economy and polity improved, and the present.This is when the third sector began to open up. Thistendency was particularly marked in Tbilisi, althoughorganizations oriented toward internally displaced per-sons also began to proliferate in regions where the inter-nally displaced were resettled.* Even at the beginning,donors stimulated this rapid growth—for example, thejoint UN–government of Georgia Women in the Devel-opment Process Project organized national and regionalwomen’s forums (UNDP 1999, 79–82). Both with helpand on their own, Georgian women began to identifycommon problems and create new organizations to re-spond to them. Over time, the priorities of these organi-zations changed. That reflected an evolution not only inthe problems themselves but also in the responsivenessof leaders of women’s groups to donor signals.

Figure 1 shows how the concerns of women’s organiza-tions have evolved since independence.

The groundswell of interest among women in address-ing the problems first identified in figure 1 appears tohave been quickly reoriented toward additional topicsbecause of the Abkhazian and Ossetian conflicts and,later, because of the reorientation of donor programsaway from humanitarian assistance.

In 1999 all the 1997 and 1998 priorities remained valid,but because of the election, further emphasis was givento injecting gendered content into political party plat-forms, encouraging women candidates to take part inparliamentary elections, strengthening women’s partici-pation in local governance, and transitioning from hu-manitarian assistance, through self-reliance, to devel-opment approaches.

Since the first grants given by the Soros Foundation, itseems that donors have identified the problems and setthe agenda for women’s NGOs in Georgia. Yet, as mate-rial presented in the two case studies attests, these orga-nizations have, to a large extent, started out with theirown agendas and sought to meet perceived needs of their

*One relatively reliable source for the number andrespective scopes of local NGOs in Georgia orientedtoward internally displaced persons (IDPs) is a directoryput together by CHCH in 1999 in the context of theEuropean Union delegation’s program, Development ofIDP-oriented NGOs in Georgia, with assistance from theInternational Rescue Committee, the UN High Commis-sioner for Refugees, and UNOCHA. This directory lists 50organizations with separate listings for local branches ofsome. Of these, the team visited or spoke with representa-tives of about one-third, both in Tbilisi and in the regions.This list includes both women’s organizations and thosewhose members or leaders are both women and men.ATINATI for example, was founded by a couple, as was thecultural–humanitarian foundation Sokhumi (see alsoGeorgia in Transition: Composite Organization CaseStudy).

Regarding women’s organizations, the HorizontiFoundation’s Caucasus Women’s NGO Needs Assessment—1998 is a better source. The Georgia portion of that studyincluded 40 organizations, 32 from Tbilisi and 8 from theregions. The selection criteria were similar to those usedfor this study: 1) organizations for which women’sproblems represent either the main or an additionalsphere of activity; 2) organizations represented in theWomen’s Leadership Training Program financed byUSAID and implemented by the Academy for EducationalDevelopment; 3) recently established and Soviet-eraorganizations; and 44) geographic location. The databasefor this study was made up of the Horizonti Foundation’sown lists, the Georgian NGOs Database published by ITIC,and other data sources, including the Ministry of Justice,with which organizations must register.

Protection of human rights; protection of women’s rights (disclosure of facts of violence, rights ofwomen prisoners); charity (vulnerable population groups).Charity (vulnerable population groups, widows and orphans, people deprived as a result of the conflict);elevating women’s status.Charity (internally displaced persons, families of soldiers and families with many children); psychologicalrehabilitation of the victims of violence; medical assistance to women, assistance to professional womenfor participation in business.Charity (internally displaced persons, families of soldiers and families with many children, homelesschildren, disabled persons); psychological rehabilitation of the victims of violence; medical assistance towomen; rights of certain population groups (ethnic minorities, women in confinement, newborns,professionals); assistance to professional women to raise professionalism; cultural-educational mea-sures; assistance for women’s employment.Charity retains all above orientations; rights of certain population groups (ethnic minorities, profession-als, orphans and homeless children, disabled children); assistance for employment, prevention ofconflicts; legal education for women, familiarization with the experience of women’s internationalmovement; improvement of women’s socioeconomic conditions. (This was the year of the BeijingWomen’s Conference.)Charity retains all above orientations; rights of certain population groups (disabled, internally displacedpersons, ethnic minorities, professionals orphaned and homeless children); employment of the dis-abled, prevention of conflicts, women’s legal education, familiarization with women’s internationalmovement experiences, improving women’s socioeconomic conditions.Elevation of women’s role and status in social, economic and political life; active involvement in themanagement process; extensive participation in the distribution of natural, material and financialresources; facilitation of participation in the conflict resolution process; design of development pro-grams, employment assistance.All priorities of 1997 remain valid; additional priorities: elevation of the level of civic culture of women;assistance to women in the process of self-actualization; eradication of the gender imbalance in politicaland economic life; elaboration of the strategy of the women’s movement; development of recommenda-tions for state gender policy (UNDP 1999).

Figure 1. The Evolving Concerns of Women’s Organizations

respective target groups. As time has passed, donors havehad a significant effect on their development, capacitybuilding, strategic thinking, and communications, as wellas on the fundamental issues addressed and fundingmechanisms.

Although the official number of registered women’s NGOsis one thousand, one organization claims there were onlybetween 50 and 60 truly active women’s groups as oflate 1999.* Many of these organizations are small,underfunded, lacking in capacity, and probably unsus-tainable ultimately. Nevertheless, they have two advan-tages. First, their leaders are members of the intelligen-tsia and thus have access to those with influence andmoney in the Georgian elite. Second, because the array

of topics relevant to women is broad, there is more thanenough scope for start-up organizations to make a bidfor funding from either local or international donors.Those that are already established have a good chanceof receiving more funding once they have accounted fortheir first grant.

Activities of Women’s Organizations

Women’s organizations in Georgia carry out a fairly widerange of activities. Although some specialize in lobby-ing the government on particular women’s issues, themajority are multipurpose, which means that there is agreat deal of overlap among them.

Psychosocial Rehabilitation Programs

Because of the many social, economic, and politicalchanges associated with the transition from a central-ized state structure to a market-based economy and ademocratic political system, all Georgians have been

*Personal communication with Lela Gaprindashili of theWomen’s Initiative for Equality, 11/19/99; interview withNina Tsihinstavi of the Caucasus Women’s Research andConsulting Network, 10/11/99; interview with MarinaMeskhi of the Women’s Rights Study Group of the Geor-gian Young Lawyers Association, 10/20/99.

undergoing stress for the past nine years. Various stud-ies indicate that stress-related illnesses are commonamong all segments of the population, but perhaps aremost common among women. The Association of Inter-nally Displaced Women, which has been functioningsince 1995, aims to restore the psychosocial well-beingof women and implement educational programs. Inter-national NGOs such as the International Foundation ofConflictology and Negotiations Strategy and the Foun-dation for Human Resources have carried out variousactivities with the association, including psychotherapyand psychocorrection groups.

Many NGOs, both local and international, are beginningto recognize that men aged 35 to 50 are particularlyvulnerable both psychologically and economically. Al-most all internally displaced persons interviewed, bothmen and women, indicated that men are doubly trauma-tized because they are unable to support their familiesand because they have lost the war. Many are furthershamed by the fact that their wives are bringing in what-ever nonpension income they consume through low-sta-tus activities such as petty trading. These men are insuch denial that they tend to shun income-generating oremployment activities and retraining opportunities. Pro-grams for men (and women) are largely in the self-reli-ance category, which usually refers to for small andmedium-size enterprises or vocational training.

Programs in MicrocreditAnd Small and Medium-Size Enterprises

Many donors are sponsoring microcredit schemes andtraining programs in small and medium-size enterprisesfor both men and women. There are also some voca-tional training programs, although probably fewer. TheFoundation for International Community Assistancefunded by USAID, is the only nongovernmental organi-zation with a microlending program that does not re-quire collateral. It targets women and makes many loansto the internally displaced on the basis of their apparentcreditworthiness, since this is a group-lending opera-tion and solidarity among displaced people (particularlywomen) is high. Most other programs operate or aredesigned to begin operating with highly subsidized in-terest rates. The Norwegian Refugee Council, for ex-ample, has had good luck with its other programs withthe NGO Women in Business.

Because internally displaced women have become in-creasingly involved in small-scale trading in markets and

bazaars throughout the country, donors and women’sorganizations have begun partnering together onmicrocredit lending to women traders. The NorwegianRefugee Council has united with Women in Business tocreate a small-business revolving fund for up to a thou-sand clients, with the ultimate goal of transforming itinto a self-sustaining credit union. Beginning with 100lari (US$50) loans at 3 percent interest with six-monthterms, the loans will increase in number and volume asthey are repaid. Although still in its first stages, theNorwegian Refugee Council/Women in Business part-nership has had an almost flawless rate of payback. Simi-larly, the international NGO Save the Children workswith the women’s organization Constanta, whose pri-mary role is to provide low-interest loans to groups ofinternally displaced women traders. By the spring of1999, Constanta’s loan portfolio consisted of nearly220,000 lari and 2,480 clients, with a loan default rateunder 2 percent.

Education and Training

Almost all the women’s NGOs surveyed had some train-ing or education-related activity. Educational levels ofwomen in Georgia have traditionally been quite high.Among internally displaced persons, many women withuniversity and graduate degrees have gravitated to thethird sector in order to help others help themselves. Theyare involved in providing education (including Englishcourses) for orphans and young people, as well as peaceeducation for youths. One concern is that the level ofeducational attainment of all internally displaced youthis declining. Many are unable to go to school becausethey do not have money for books and appropriate clothesor they need to help make money for their families.

After the Abkhazian conflict, the Zugdidi representa-tion of the Abkhaz Women’s Council created the NGOHope. Because Hope is typical of small, multiserviceNGOs that are starting out, several of its educationalactivities are profiled below.

Human Rights and Civic Education

Some women’s NGOs are primarily or exclusively advo-cacy organizations, working closely with members ofParliament and others to ensure that Georgia implementsthe Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Dis-crimination against Women (CEDAW), which the gov-ernment signed in September 1994. With the support of

USAID and other donors, the Young Lawyer’s Associa-tion, while not a women’s organization as such, has doneconsiderable work to define and guarantee women’s le-gal, human, and civil rights.

In January 2000, the Georgian women’s group Women’sInitiative for Equality began spearheading efforts to cre-ate an umbrella group of women’s NGOs. The groupseeks to force implementation of various tasks, includ-ing presidential decree 551, which is designed to en-hance women’s participation in political activity. (As ofpress time, the decree had yet to be signed.)

Constraints on Performance

A variety of factors prevent Georgian NGOs—and per-haps particularly women’s NGOs—from enhancing theirperformance. Most are not unique to Georgia and arecharacteristic of most developing countries. Examplesinclude the lack of a history of volunteerism, problemsof corruption and inadequate codes of ethics, blurreddistinctions between the third sector and the private sec-tor (or in the Georgian case, the public sector), overlap-ping board memberships, and hijacking of the nongov-ernmental sector by interlocking elites.

SOKHUMI

Three displaced women, two engineer–economists, and one teacher started Sokhumi, a humanitar-ian–cultural foundation, in September 1997. It was registered two years later. The president’s hus-band, an industrialist, has sponsored this foundation. It has 50 women members who volunteer theirtime. Sokhumi has carried out 14 programs, of which 3 help elderly and 3 rehabilitate children. Thefoundation has established five centers: 1) a women’s business development center, 2) an informationcenter, 3) a youth center, 4) a social rehabilitation center, and 5) a cultural and educational center. Ithas received support from private sector, government, and international NGOs.

Despite its “dependent” status as a representation of the Women’s Council, Hope has carried out fiveprojects since its inception in May 1996. The first project, sponsored by Oxfam and the Prince andPrincess Ammata Foundation, was a social program to help refugee children and women. Hope hascooperated and received funding from the Association of IDP Women, “Consent,” which conductsworkshops, training, and consultation. It also has run three programs for young orphans. Under one ofthose programs, it ran a camp for 13- and 14-year-old orphans. The organization has since developedtwo other projects that it has submitted for funding. UNHCR is interested in funding one of the projectsbut is faced with budget constraints. The First Bank of Abkhazia, which serves internally displacedpersons, has also promised to fund some activities, but Hope has yet to receive funding. In the in-terim, Hope is running a Sunday school at the director’s home.

Two Women’s Organizations

A second group of factors, once again common to thenongovernmental sector in other countries, has to do withfunding, financial management, and financial planningfor sustainability. Most donors are relatively strict aboutbookkeeping and accounting for funds. USAID, though,is generally considered to be the strictest in its account-ing requirements. That Horizonti has passed a section195 USAID audit after only one year of operation is asingular success. Few donors, however, have been pre-pared to invest in helping private voluntary and non-governmental organizations plan for sustainability overeven the medium term. Even in countries where NGO blockgrants have been in existence for a long time or whereNGO umbrella projects have been put in place to en-hance the capacity of local NGOs, disaster frequentlystrikes when the donor departs or when the local non-governmental is supposed to “graduate.”

Many Georgian NGOs are in comparatively better posi-tions than their non-former Soviet Union counterpartsbecause their founders, members, and even many of theirbeneficiaries are literate and highly educated. The ideaof public accountability may not be widespread, but thefundamentals of keeping accounts are. Competent book-keepers and accountants—especially women—are

3. Impact of Women’s OrganizationsBeneficiaries

Clearly, women’s organizations are having a significantimpact on a variety of beneficiaries. Largely service-oriented organizations are delivering programs rangingfrom psychosocial rehabilitation to credit and businessplanning training. Among the women’s organizationsworking on women’s rights and advocating women’sempowerment in the political, economic, and socialspheres, capacity is increasing and progress is beingmade through legislation. The major problems are nowconsidered to be information dissemination and trainingin all societal sectors rather than legislative reform assuch.

Government-organized NGOs and donor-organized NGOsare also contributing significantly to knowledge building,research, networking, leadership training, and direct ser-vice provision to a wide range of beneficiaries, includinginternally displaced persons. The most reputable govern-ment-organized NGO is the Abkhaz Women’s Council,which—even though it is an independent, nonpartisan, non-political NGO—still receives in-kind support from theAbkhaz government in exile and the Georgian government.The most notable donor-organized NGO is Horizonti, whichevolved from an earlier group and was quickly certified asan eligible private voluntary organization for USAID fund-ing. Horizonti provides grant funding for a variety of pur-poses to other Georgian NGOs, including women’s and in-ternally displaced women’s organizations.

It is difficult to provide hard data on the numbers andvarieties of beneficiaries served by localnongovernmentals. Many NGOs have a small member-ship and the numbers of beneficiaries they help directlymay be limited. This is the case for many NGOs dealingwith internally displaced persons, in part because theyare new and in part because they have yet to be consid-ered for larger funding. This may soon change with theadvent of the new UN–World Bank–government of Geor-

gia program for self-reliance, including a proposed self-reliance fund.

Women Leaders

Given the number of highly educated women in Georgiacombined with the disastrous posttransition economicslump, many qualified women have suddenly been eco-nomically and professionally displaced. As one infor-mant expressed it, “Before, women were less visiblebecause they were inside buildings, working in offices.Now, they have lost those jobs and have to seek otherkinds of employment literally in the street, often belowtheir former status, and well below their qualifications.”This also applies to internally displaced women, boththose who provide assistance and those whom they as-sist. They are trading in the bazaars, on roadsides, insubway underpasses, and in local communities. Some,usually the elderly, are begging. Others are working inthe service sector as, for example, manicurists or kioskkeepers and shop clerks. Thus, in leadership positionsand experience in high-level occupations, both displacedand other Georgian women professionals are beingdisempowered.

One way for these women to recoup their lost status isto found or participate in nongovernmental organiza-tions. This in part explains the recent proliferation ofNGOs of all kinds, especially those pertaining to women.Although women from the intelligentsia do not monopo-lize power and authority, they do constitute a barrier towomen who are less highly trained and skilled who mightotherwise create or manage NGOs or other types ofgroups. There is a sense in which these women lead-ers—even though they too suffered deprivation in in-come, social status, and physical comfort—are still atthe top of the social hierarchy, just below the formernomenklatura. For example, one NGO founder is a se-nior academician whose husband was a city mayor inAbkhazia. Another is a former deputy in the Supreme

among the categories of newly unemployed. But strate-gic planning for sustainability is a skill probably aspoorly represented in Georgia as in most transitioningcountries. Nonetheless, some of the organizations en-countered are already established as foundations and will

likely be able to devise ways to obtain additional capi-tal. Several of these and others, such as the AbkhazWomen’s Council, have started reaching out to localprivate sector firms for event or special-appeal funding.

Council in Abkhazia. Yet another is the wife of a promi-nent industrialist who herself was a highly skilled pro-fessional until she became internally displaced.

The situation is similar for women who are in leader-ship positions of non-IDP NGOs. Not surprisingly, asGeorgia continues its transition to a democratic statewith a free-market economy, new leadership positionsopen up. But in many instances, the same people fillthem or influence who fills them. Socioeconomic andpolitical status, personal or family wealth, and currentinfluence—whether legitimate or based on corrupt alli-ances—all tend to meld together a series of interlockingelite groups.

Few women’s NGO leaders have attempted to make thejump from the third sector to politics. The most promi-nent exception is Lika Nadaraia, head of the FeministClub, who ran unsuccessfully for Parliament in 1999on an independent ticket. Many women’s NGO leadersshun the political limelight and disagree strongly withleaders such as Ms. Nadaraia who are trying to enterpolitics. Several leaders interviewed pointed out thatnongovernmentals need to improve before they can forgedirect links with political parties.*

There is a strong and perhaps growing divide betweenpolitical party activity and women’s NGOs. As the UNDPnoted in a focus group survey on the conditions of womenin Georgia, women increasingly have joined women’sorganizations in lieu of political parties because theyperceive that political parties are not sensitive to theirneeds. Moreover, to be effective, the organizations them-selves needed to remain or appear to remain indepen-dent of political links. Several organizational leaders re-peated the widely held belief that the political systemwas ineffective at promoting needed reform and thatparties and political figures were often too compromisedor corrupt to take action to improve the lot of womenthroughout the country.†

The few women who have made it into the upper reachesof political life have openly eschewed women’s organi-zations and many of their concerns, much to the regretof women organizational leaders. Established femalepoliticians fear being marginalized and isolated in theeyes of the overall Georgian electorate as “women’s lead-ers” and hence are openly antagonistic toward “femi-nist” ideas and the legal promotion of women’s rights ingeneral. Irina Sarishvili–Chanturia, the most prominentwomen in politics and leader of the opposition NationalDemocratic Party, openly derided feminism as “worsethan homosexuality.”

Government and Public Policy

Although the Georgian government has cooperated withwomen’s organizations and recently promoted genderissues, it has done so largely under pressure from inter-national agencies and increasingly well-organizedwomen’s organizations. The Georgian leadership andParliament legally enabled the growth of civil society ingeneral and women’s groups in particular by passingthe Civil Code in 1995. But the government has not madegender issues a high priority in its struggle to establishand strengthen Georgia’s democratic governance andeconomy. Both the women’s leaders interviewed and theexisting literature indicate that many of the most press-ing discrimination issues (the right of inheritance, equalemployment opportunities, decision-making within thehousehold) have deep roots in Georgian cultural tradi-tions. The government itself has done little to challengeor even monitor traditional discrimination. There are, infact, no current laws or policy statements defining andregulating discrimination against women (CEDAWShadow Report).

The government waited nearly five years to submit itsfirst full report to the UN’s Committee on the Elimina-tion of Discrimination Against Women on discrimina-tion in Georgia. Not surprisingly, many of its findingswere perfunctory and overly optimistic. In response tothe government’s report, three women’s organizations(the Women’s Rights Study Group of the Georgian YoungLawyers Association, the Feminist Club, and the Cen-ter of Strategic Research and Development of Georgia)wrote a “shadow report” drawing on the research andfindings of a large number of Georgian women’s groups.The shadow report was deeply critical of both thewomen’s rights situation in Georgia and the government’sefforts in promoting them.

*1999 shadow report by CEDAW; interview with NinaTsihinstavi of the Caucasus Women’s Research andConsulting Network, 10/11/99; interview with MarinaMeskhi of the Women’s Rights Study Group of theGeorgian Young Lawyers Association, 10/20/99.

†UNDP 1998; interview with Nina Tsihinstavi of theCaucasus Women’s Research and Consulting Network,10/11/99; interview with Marina Meskhi of the Women’sRights Study Group of the Georgian Young LawyersAssociation, 10/20/99.

4. Women’s Organizations andThe International Community

The international community and official aid donors havebeen the primary source of funding for women’s organi-zations since the first wave of registration in 1994. In-deed, while analysts and scholars have pointed to therecent explosive growth of organizational life in Geor-gia as a highlight of post-Soviet reform and societalchange, they also stress that this explosion would nothave occurred without a healthy infusion of internationalassistance. Today, nearly all major international assis-tance institutions active in the country provide financialsupport to women’s organizations. Conversely, mostwomen’s organizations remain wholly or mostly depen-dent on some form of international assistance for sur-vival.

Donors have recognized that women’s organizations areparticularly effective partners in assessing the needs ofvulnerable communities, particularly internally displacedpersons. Many international organizations are aware thatwar and displacement have uniquely affected women,many of whom have increasingly carried the burden ofproviding for their families. Women have thus beensingled out for a variety of programs, ranging fromemergency humanitarian assistance to small businessdevelopment.

The nature of international assistance has changed radi-cally in recent years. The transformation is particularlytrue of aid designed to help the displaced and more vul-nerable segments of Georgian society. Before 1998, do-nors concentrated on two broad types of assistance. Ona macro level, much effort was directed at helping abattered and unstable government shore up tottering eco-

nomic and political institutions in the wake of its nearcollapse in 1993.

At the same time, international assistance organizationstargeted the internally displaced and other intensely vul-nerable populations by providing food, clothing, and re-habilitated shelter—aid, in other words, targeted to sat-isfy the most immediate needs of the more drasticallyaffected. Within several years, however, many donorsconcluded that local populations were not being suffi-ciently helped through their programs. Some feared thata culture of dependency on emergency assistance hadbeen created within the community of displaced persons,while little had been done to alleviate the suffering ofthe majority of Georgians, 43 percent of whom livedbelow the poverty line (World Bank 1998).

Beginning in 1998, donor agencies and internationalNGOs—including USAID, the Norwegian Refugee Coun-cil, the International Rescue Committee, Save the Chil-dren, and CARE—began shifting their programs fromemergency humanitarian assistance activities to sustain-able development programs designed to help vulnerablecommunities and individuals help themselves. Donorsbegan looking toward enhancing the self-reliance of dis-placed persons through professional and agriculturaltraining activities and microcredit programs. The strat-egy was to provide a bridge from emergency to develop-ment programs for displaced and in-place communitiesalike. Local people now were not just being targeted forrelief; in some instances, they were involved in carryingout and sometimes even designing novel programs.

Both the government and the shadow report were sub-mitted separately to the Committee on the Eliminationof Discrimination Against Women, which in turn judged,drew lessons from each, and presented a list of recom-mendations. These recommendations were then deliv-ered to the Georgian government. In a surprising move,President Shevardnadze prepared a draft decree (presi-dential decree 511) in the summer of 1999 based on thecommittee’s recommendations. Many women’s organi-zations were understandably enthusiastic about this de-velopment, taking it as a positive step in the evolutionof women’s organizational strength. Since its drafting,

though, the decree has languished on the floor of Parlia-ment.

Most women’s NGO leaders interviewed for this studycharacterized the government’s positions towardwomen’s organizations, women’s rights, and gender is-sues as largely indifferent. Many were disillusioned withthe leadership’s inability and unwillingness to implementlaws and decrees designed to promote women’s rights.Others remained exasperated with the government’s ac-ceptance of traditional gender roles.

Through its Community Participation Program begunin 1999, for example, the International Rescue Com-mittee took the bold step of grouping internally displacedpersons with local residents in 10 western Georgian com-munities to address broader community needs and prob-lems. Similarly, Save the Children’s $6-million Geor-gian Assistance Initiative, funded by USAID, sought toaddress the difficulties faced by broader war-damagedcommunities, including but not exclusive to displacedpersons, through grants to local and international NGOswith innovative ideas in the fields of health, housing,and agriculture.

In their desire to target local populations more effec-tively, donors have emphasized newfound relationshipswith Georgia’s nascent NGOs—in particular, women’sorganizations. Donors have provided women’s groupswith funding for a wide range of projects covering thefull spectrum of their operational activities. Groups suchas the Abkhaz Women’s Council and the Association ofInternally Displaced Abkhaz Women have been increas-ingly important conduits for distributing humanitarianaid and providing basic health services. More broadly,donors acknowledge the quiet but growing role womenplay as decision-makers and leaders within their nuclearfamilies and communities, particularly in collective cen-ters for internally displaced persons. USAID, for example,has funded a series of leadership training programs or-ganized by the Academy for Educational Developmentfor heads of women’s organizations.

As donors move away from humanitarian assistance andcooperate more fully with women’s organizations, somedifficulties have been encountered. Women’s organizations,like all NGOs in Georgia, are generally donor dependent.Their programs and even their very existence are often tiedto donor funding and the grants available to them. To at-tract needed funding, dynamic organizations such as theInternational Medical Women’s Fund do not specialize ina sector in which they might have a comparative advan-tage, such as health. Instead, they broaden their scope toinclude issues such as women’s legal rights education. Othergroups, such as Constanta, are literally donor-organizedNGOs. These NGOs are created for the simple reason thatinternational assistance organizations conclude that no ex-isting women’s organizations could be effective partners.Other organizations are government organized, created bygovernment individuals or offices to attract funding de-signed for NGOs. Although much of the work done by suchorganizations has been and continues to be productive, theexistence of successful government-organized non-governmentals and donor-organized nongovernmentals re-flects the fact that few mature and fully independentwomen’s organizations exist in Georgia. Alternatively,where a local NGO has preassistance capacity, it may finddonor management styles difficult to accept, as was thecase for the Foundation for the Development of HumanResources. Although not a women’s organization, the foun-dation has reached a stage that several women’s organiza-tions will soon attain.

5. General Findings and ConclusionsLimited Participation

The fieldwork confirms earlier findings that member-ship in women’s organizations tends to be limited, evenfor organizations with regional branches. A survey ofinternally displaced women conducted by the team indi-cated that only 17 percent of respondents belong to anyorganization, including NGOs and political parties.Women’s leaders and experts stressed that women donot necessarily want to collaborate any more than mendo. One possible explanation is that ordinary women,particularly those who are internally displaced, are toopreoccupied with the struggle for survival, thereby hav-ing little time to give to organizations.

Upper Socioeconomic Strata Leadership

Leaders of women’s organizations come almost exclu-sively from the intelligentsia, although some are wivesof businessmen or politicians. With one exception, allthe leaders the team met had at least an undergraduatedegree, and many had been professors or researchers.Most also had previous political and social visibility.However, they were not operating in their fields of ex-pertise and in most instances admitted that they had hadlittle management experience or organizational know-how.

Duplication of Activities

Most of the organizations studied are doing similar ac-tivities. They are not specializing but instead are repli-cating other organizations’ activities, often in the samelocation. Since many are operating outside their mainareas of expertise, they would benefit from the help ofoutside specialists but apparently do not call on otherwomen and organizations to meet this need. Interviewsindicated that one potential consortium intended to in-clude 16 women’s organizations but was not yet for-mally established because no one could agree on a leader.

Perceptions About Donor Impartiality

Everywhere the team traveled, including Tbilisi, therewas a conviction that only an in-group of NGOs receivedonor funding and that this group does not grow much.It is perceived that once a particular NGO becomes agiven donor’s “darling,” it continues to receive fundingfrom that donor to the exclusion of others. Members ofdonors’ local staffs—or their relatives and friends—cre-ate some of these favorites. Moreover, the spouses orfamily members of Georgian government officials tendto create or work for NGOs that receive donor funding,or they receive scarce positions at international NGOsthat have grant funds.

Sustainability of Women’s Organizations

As mentioned earlier, most estimates concur thatwomen’s NGOs worth counting number than 60 or so,although 1,000 are registered. These so-called best-placed women’s organizations either have managed do-nor funds effectively more than once or have partici-pated in enough donor-funded capacity building to beseen as worthy of funding. Sixty women’s NGOs for apopulation of 5.4 million, of whom more than half arewomen, seems at first glance to be a relatively few. Oncloser inspection, though, we find there are more na-scent women’s regional organizations not yet countedamong this group. These are likely to receive direct grantsfrom at least one donor in the next three years. In addi-tion, local councils and municipalities will probablybegin to receive direct funding—for example, from theWorld Bank and USAID—a development that in somecases may diminish available funding for NGOs.

The next few years are an ideal time for donors andNGOs to work on partnerships, consortiums, and endow-ments so that sustainability becomes more likely beyondeven the 60 “best” NGOs. Not all organizations, no mat-ter how worthy their aims or how gifted and sincere theirfounders, can ultimately be sustained unless the Geor-gian economy improves dramatically and a new tradi-tion of voluntarism is developed. To survive without sig-nificant external funding, membership-based organiza-tions will need to become bigger and require member-ship dues. Whether this kind of organizational structurelends itself to life in post-Soviet Georgia remains to beseen.

References and Selected BiblographyAbashidze, Tamara; and Irine Zhvania. 1998. Social Psychological Research on the State of Women in Geor-

gia. Tbilisi.

Abashidze, T.; and others. 1998. Women, Economic Development, and Conflict. Tbilisi: UN DevelopmentProgram.

Academy for Educational Development. 1998. Caucasus Women’s Leadership Conference. Final Report.Washington.

Allison, Lincoln. Winter 1996. “Problems of Democratization in the Republic of Georgia.” Democratization3(4): 517–29.

Allison, Lincoln; Alexander Kukhanidze; and Malkhaz Matsaberidze. 1993. “The Georgian Election of 1992.”Electoral Studies 12(2): 174–79.

Aves, Jonathon. 1996. Georgia: From Chaos to Stability? London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Buck, Thomas. 1999. Women, War, and Displacement in Georgia. (PN–ACF–180) Academy for EducationalDevelopment. Washington: USAID.

Caucasus Women’s Research & Consulting Network. 1999. “To Study of [sic] All Kinds of DiscriminationToward Women (Georgian Case).” Unpublished study conducted by the Caucasus Women’s Research& Consulting Network with the support of the Global Fund for Women. Tbilisi.

Clayton, Michael. 1997. “Georgia’s NGO Movement Flourishes, but Continued Support Is Needed.” SurvivingTogether 15(4): 4–6.

Cohen, Jonathan. 1997. “Civil Society under Construction: A Challenge for Europe.” In OSCE—A Need for Co-operation: Toward the OSCE’s Common and Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for theTwenty-First Century, 73–85. Copenhagen: The Danish UN Association. From Web site: http://www.una.dk/osce/essays/contents.html.

Coppieters, Bruno. 1999. “The Roots of the Conflict.” In A Question of Sovereignty: The Georgia–AbkhazPeace Process, edited by Jonathon Cohen. Accord: An International Review of Peace Initiatives (7):14–19.

Dersham, Larry D., and others. 1996. Food, Nutrition, Health, and Nonfood Vulnerability in Georgia, 1996:A Household Assessment. Tbilisi.

Dourglishvili, Nino. 1997. Social Change and the Georgian Family. Discussion Paper Series 3. Tbilisi: UNDevelopment Program.

Foundation for the Development of Human Resources. 1996. Psychosocial Rehabilitation of IDPs in Georgia,15 June 1995–15 June 1996. Tbilisi.

Gachechiladze, Revaz. 1995. The New Georgia: Space, Society, Politics. London: University College LondonPress.

Gaprindashili, Lela. Women’s Initiative for Equality. 19 November 1999. Email correspondence.

Gender Development Association. 1999. Conditions of Women in Georgia. A report for UNDP. Tbilisi.

Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, Feminist Women’s Club, International Fund of Medical Women, and theWomen’s Employment Association. 1999. Report of Non-Governmental Organizations and the Statusof Women in the Republic of Georgia Under CEDAW Articles. (CEDAW Shadow Report). Reportsubmitted in preparation for the 21st CEDAW session. Tbilisi.

Greene, Thomas. 1998. “Internal Displacement in the North Caucasus, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia.” InThe Forsaken People: Case Studies of the Internally Displaced, edited by Roberta Cohen and FrancisM. Deng, 233–311. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Hayden, William. 1998. “Georgia.” In Internally Displaced People: A Global Survey, edited by Janie Hamp-ton, 169–73. Norwegian Refugee Council Global IDP Survey. London: Earthscan.

Horizonti Foundation. 1998. Caucasus Women’s NGOs Needs Assessment. Research and Analysis Project,Information Program of the Horizonti Foundation. Tbilisi.

Jones, Stephen. October 1996. “Georgia’s Return from Chaos.” Current History 95 (603): 340–45.

Kharashvili, Julia. 1995. Psychosocial Examination of IDP Children and Women—Victims of Military Con-flicts on the Territory of the Republic of Georgia. An Oxfam Survey on Internally Displaced People.Tbilisi: Oxfam.

Khomeriki, Lela; Nino Chubinidze; and Nino Berekashvili. Women’s NGOs in Georgia. A report for the Interna-tional Centre for Civic Culture. Tbilisi. From Web site: http://www.osgf.ge/wie/2.html.

MacFarlane, S. Neil; Larry Minear; and Stephen D. Shenfield. 1996. Armed Conflict in Georgia: A Case Studyin Humanitarian Action and Peacekeeping. Occasional paper 21. Providence: The Thomas J. WatsonJr. Institute for International Studies, Brown University.

Mars, Gerald; and Yochanan Altman. October 1983. “The Cultural Basis of Soviet Georgia’s SecondEconomy.” Soviet Studies 35(4): 546–560.

Meskhi, Marina. Women’s Rights Study Group of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association. 20 October 1999.Interview.

Metreveli, Tamar. Autumn 1997. “Innovations Introduced by the New Civil Code in Public Sector.” Horizonti:The Magazine for the Third Sector in Georgia (1): 3–5.

Nan, Susan Allen. 1999. “Civic Initiatives.” In A Question of Sovereignty: The Georgia —Abkhaz PeaceProcess, edited by Jonathon Cohen. Accord: An International Review of Peace Initiatives (7): 50–57.

NIS–U.S. Women’s Consortium. 2–29 March 1998. The Georgian Women’s Leadership Training Program.Washington.

Nodia, Ghia. January 1995. “Georgia’s Identity Crisis.” Journal of Democracy 6(1): 104–16.

———. August 1998. “The Conflict in Abkhazia: National Projects and Political Circumstances.” CaucasianRegional Studies 3(2). From Web sites: http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/ Georgians/chp0201.htm, http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/Georgians/chp0202.htm, http://poli. vub.ac.be/publi/Georgians/chp0203.htm,respectively.

Norwegian Refugee Council. 1995. Survey on Internally Displaced People in Georgia. Tbilisi.

Starr, S. Frederick. Summer 1998. “The Era of Civil Society in Perspective.” Give & Take: A Journal of CivilSociety in Eurasia (1)1: 5–7.

Tsihinstavi, Nina. Caucasus Women’s Research and Consulting Network. 11 October 1999. Interview.

United Nations. 1995. The United Nations and the Situation in Georgia. Reference paper. New York.

United Nations Children’s Fund. 1999. Women in Transition. The Monee Project. CEE/CIS/Baltics. RegionalMonitoring Report No. 6. Florence, Italy.

United Nations Development Program. 1996. Human Development Report: Georgia 1996. Tbilisi.

United Nations Development Programme. 1998. Human Development Report: Georgia 1998. Tbilisi.Vickers, Jeanne. 1993. Women and War. London: Zed Books.

Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. 1998. Women Displaced in the Southern Caucasus:An Examination of Humanitarian Assistance Needs in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Nagorno–Karabakh, andGeorgia. Field report of the April 1998 fact-finding delegation. New York.

Women’s Committee of Abkhazia. 1998. Statement of the Women’s Committee Mission of the AbkhaziaAutonomous Republic. Tbilisi.

World Bank. 1999. Georgia: A Poverty Report. Volume 1. Tbilisi.

Zurikashvili, Feride. 1998. The Socioeconomic Status of Women With Children Among Internally DisplacedPersons in Contemporary Georgia. Tbilisi: Women’s Studies Center of Tbilisi State University.

———. 2000. Report on a Survey of Internally Displaced Women and their Families in Three Regions ofGeorgia. Working paper. Washington: USAID/CDIE/ Development Alternatives, Inc.

Aftermath: Women's Organizations In Postconflict Georgia

Documents