格鲁吉亚协商民主的不足:对《解决办法》大会的分析

IF 2.3 1区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
T. Sultanishvili
{"title":"格鲁吉亚协商民主的不足:对《解决办法》大会的分析","authors":"T. Sultanishvili","doi":"10.1080/14616696.2022.2161098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study analyzes the reasons for citizens’ refusal to participate in public deliberation through the Georgian mechanism of the General Assembly of a Settlement (GAofS) in the remote communities of Georgia. This paper draws on the existing academic literature on effective deliberation processes and reasons behind the public’s disengagement from them to explain Georgian public’s withdrawal from the deliberation processes. By applying the analytical framework on effective deliberation and logic of non-participation, this article uses the case study approach and qualitative research methods to show how façade deliberation processes cause public disenchantment with engagement in local decision-making processes and reinforce the public image of civic participation mechanisms as pointless efforts.","PeriodicalId":47392,"journal":{"name":"European Societies","volume":"143 1","pages":"326 - 345"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shortfalls of deliberative democracy in Georgia: the analysis of the General Assembly of a Settlement\",\"authors\":\"T. Sultanishvili\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14616696.2022.2161098\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study analyzes the reasons for citizens’ refusal to participate in public deliberation through the Georgian mechanism of the General Assembly of a Settlement (GAofS) in the remote communities of Georgia. This paper draws on the existing academic literature on effective deliberation processes and reasons behind the public’s disengagement from them to explain Georgian public’s withdrawal from the deliberation processes. By applying the analytical framework on effective deliberation and logic of non-participation, this article uses the case study approach and qualitative research methods to show how façade deliberation processes cause public disenchantment with engagement in local decision-making processes and reinforce the public image of civic participation mechanisms as pointless efforts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Societies\",\"volume\":\"143 1\",\"pages\":\"326 - 345\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Societies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2022.2161098\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Societies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2022.2161098","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:本研究通过格鲁吉亚的解决方案大会(GAofS)机制分析了格鲁吉亚偏远社区公民拒绝参与公共审议的原因。本文利用现有的关于有效审议程序和公众脱离审议程序背后原因的学术文献来解释格鲁吉亚公众退出审议程序的原因。本文运用有效审议和不参与逻辑的分析框架,运用案例研究方法和定性研究方法,展示了公平审议过程如何导致公众对参与地方决策过程的幻想幻灭,并强化了公民参与机制作为毫无意义的努力的公众形象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Shortfalls of deliberative democracy in Georgia: the analysis of the General Assembly of a Settlement
ABSTRACT This study analyzes the reasons for citizens’ refusal to participate in public deliberation through the Georgian mechanism of the General Assembly of a Settlement (GAofS) in the remote communities of Georgia. This paper draws on the existing academic literature on effective deliberation processes and reasons behind the public’s disengagement from them to explain Georgian public’s withdrawal from the deliberation processes. By applying the analytical framework on effective deliberation and logic of non-participation, this article uses the case study approach and qualitative research methods to show how façade deliberation processes cause public disenchantment with engagement in local decision-making processes and reinforce the public image of civic participation mechanisms as pointless efforts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Societies
European Societies SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
1.20%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: European Societies, the flagship journal of the European Sociological Association, aims to promote and share sociological research related to Europe. As a generalist sociology journal, we welcome research from all areas of sociology. However, we have a specific focus on addressing the socio-economic and socio-political challenges faced by European societies, as well as exploring all aspects of European social life and socioculture. Our journal is committed to upholding ethical standards and academic independence. We conduct a rigorous and anonymous review process for all submitted manuscripts. This ensures the quality and integrity of the research we publish. European Societies encourages a plurality of perspectives within the sociology discipline. We embrace a wide range of sociological methods and theoretical approaches. Furthermore, we are open to articles that adopt a historical perspective and engage in comparative research involving Europe as a whole or specific European countries. We also appreciate comparative studies that include societies beyond Europe. In summary, European Societies is dedicated to promoting sociological research with a focus on European societies. We welcome diverse methodological and theoretical approaches, historical perspectives, and comparative studies involving Europe and other societies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信