Elections and Nation-Building in Abkhazia

"Presidential and parliamentary elections in Abkhazia are pluralistic and competitive. They have led to the transfer of power from government to opposition forces. This in itself is a remarkable fact in the post-Soviet context, where the outcome of elections very often is determined in advance by the ruling elite. The article explains how and why this form of electoral democracy could occur in Abkhazia, arguably the most ethnically heterogeneous of all post-Soviet de facto states. Drawing on a wide variety of primary sources and data from within Abkhazia, particularly interviews with key players, the author describes the remarkable willingness of the main political actors to compromise and assesses to what extent Abkhazia’s democratic credentials are sustainable"

Volume 3, No. 3, 2015

While various debates have arisen on the relationship between non-recognition and democratisation, empirical case studies on elections in de facto states are extremely rare. This article examines recent presidential and parliamentary elections in two unrecognised or partially recognised de facto states in the South Caucasus, namely Abkhazia and Nagorny Karabakh. Accordingly, the emphasis is on the Abkhazian presidential elections of August 2011 and August 2014 and parliamentary elections of 2007 and 2012, along with the most recent executive and legislative elections in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) in July 2012 and May 2015 respectively. On the basis of extensive interviews and participant observation, this article demonstrates how although both parliamentary and presidential elections in Abkhazia are competitive, they favour the titular nation, while in homogeneous Nagorny Karabakh fear of a renewed conflagration has until recently produced relatively uncompetitive presidential contests. The dynamics of majoritarian versus party list, party, ethnic and gender representation are examined in each case. The case studies reveal weak political parties, but the NKR has made incremental changes to the electoral law that might encourage a less personality-based parliamentary system. Available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23761199.2015.1086571

The article focusses on the political institutions in two post-Soviet de facto states – Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh – which are treated as competitive authoritarian regimes. In this type of political regime, formal political institutions face deliberate interventions from the ruling elite, whereas informal political institutions rise in importance. The article thus focusses not only on political parties, elections, self-government and general constitutional settings, but deals also with informal politics – clientelist networks, informal practices in electoral behaviour and the influence of the patron states, i.e. Armenia and Russia.

Bulletin of Geography. Socio–economic Series , 2016

De-facto states constitute an interesting and important anomaly in the international system of sovereign states. No matter how successful and efficient in the administration of their territories they are, they fail to achieve international recognition. In the past, their claims for independence were based primarily on the right to national self-determination, historical continuity and claim for a remedial right to secession, based on alleged human-rights violations. Since 2005, official representatives of several de facto states have repeatedly emphasised the importance of democracy promotion in their political entities. A possible explanation of this phenomenon dwells in the belief that those states which have demonstrated their economic viability and promote the organization of a democratic state should gain their sovereignty. This article demonstrates the so called " democracy-for-recognition strategy " in the case study of Abkhazia. On the basis of the field research in Abkhazia we identify factors that promote, as well as those that obstruct the democratisation process in the country.

Nationalities Papers

Is an imagined democracy more important than actual democracy for nation-building purposes? After 20 years of independence, Central Asian countries present a mixed bag of strong and weak states, consolidated and fragmented nations. The equation of nation and state and the construction of genuine nation states remains an elusive goal in all of post-Soviet Central Asia. This paper examines the role that electoral politics has played in nation-state formation. We argue that electoral processes have been central to attempted nation-state building processes as part of efforts to legitimize authoritarian regimes; paradoxically in those few countries where (for brief periods) partial democratization actually occurred, elections contributed, at least in the short term, to nation-state fragmentation.

Budapest: Center for Policy Studies, 2006

Despite varying levels of political pluralism, democracy is not at home in either of the secessionist entities of Transnistria and Abkhazia, where the development of a siege syndrome hampers democratic developments and conflict settlement. In Transnistria there is no credible opposition, no active civil society, foreign funding for NGO's is prohibited and it is policed by a strong repressive apparatus guided by the ministry of state security. The economy is highly concentrated and even if big businesses are dissatisfied with the current political leadership they do not dare to challenge the authoritarian leader who has held power for a decade and a half. While Abkhazia is certainly no beacon of democracy it does enjoy a higher degree of pluralism than Transnistria. It has held elections and its civil society is active and well developed for the region. Elements of democracy exist but the ethnic Georgians who account for about a third of the population have been excluded from such developments. This paper inquires into the origin of these developments and addresses such questions as how undemocratic the secessionist entities really are, whether they are inherently undemocratic and why are some less democratic than others. It gives an account of domestic policies in Transnistria, and the political processes in Abkhazia and part of South Ossetia and concludes with an analysis of the factors that determine divergent political patterns in the secessionist entities.

Several illegitimate presidential elections have been held in Georgia’s breakaway Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia since 1991. The Kremlin, in many cases, had its favorite in these elections, expressing its support openly. In several cases, the Kremlin’s favorite candidate was defeated to a great surprise for everyone, including for the Georgian public. The incorrect assessments of the political processes taking place in Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia on the part of Georgians indicate that we are not very familiar with the intricacies of the processes unfolding in the occupied regions.

2020

The present paper examines the pattern of political pluralism and competitive politics over the entire post-Soviet period in Abkhazia. To answer this question, the theme is placed in a broader context by drawing comparisons with Transnistria and South Ossetia, two other post-Soviet self-proclaimed states that differ politically from Abkhazia. This paper first describes Abkhazia's brief history, then zooms in on what political pluralism is about, what characteristics apply to Abkhazia, and how this political competitiveness manifests itself in Abkhazia. Finally, this paper explores the challenges and difficulties for Abkhazia to keep the current degree of pluralism in the coming years. This paper argues that it is not typical for self-proclaimed post-Soviet states to have a pluralistic and competitive playing field in politics and that Abkhazia, therefore, is an exception. However, these achievements should not be overestimated because Abkhazia does not have a mature democracy, and it is unlikely that Abkhazia will allow more pluralism within their political system in the short term.

Ethnic and Racial Studies , 2013

Among the post-Soviet de facto states, Abkhazia is unique in that the secessionists pursued self-determination in the name of a minority group. Today the ethnic Abkhaz enjoy a virtual monopoly on political power. Simultaneously, Abkhazia has developed a reasonably democratic political system. How has it been possible for the ethnic Abkhaz to monopolize power within a political system that exhibits most of the trappings of democratic rule? We discuss four alternative theories of ethnic marginalization to explain why the Armenians, the largest minority community in Abkhazia, have abstained from translating numerical strength into political influence. We argue that it is essential to examine sentiments and behaviour not only among the dominant group, but just as much among the marginalized group. Particularly relevant is the pervasive perception that rights in and 'ownership' of a territory are linked to 'rootedness'.

2016

In this paper, for the first time the authors examined comprehensively the influence of the political parties and public movements on the formation of internal and foreign policy of Abkhazia beginning of the XXI century. To this end are analyzed the historical events that have received the most wide resonance in the society in the research period based on the legislative acts, treaties and agreements, as well as the statements and speeches of leaders of social and political organizations in the country, messages in the periodical press and other sources. Brief descriptions are provided in respect of the problem of passportization the population of Abkhazia of Georgian nationality, of the issue of production and processing of hydrocarbons in the territory of the sea shelf, and of the process of reconstruction of the Abkhazian Railway. During the analysis of the activities of the political organizations of the Republic an attempt was made identify the reasons and likely consequences of investigated processes. Separately, the degree impact of the civil society institutes on the result of political life in the Abkhazia was determined. The examination of the close Abkhazian society development prospects allowed identifying a number of political, socioeconomic and ecologic causes, with influence on the development of modern socio-political and ethno-cultural landscape of the Republic of Abkhazia.