Suchergebnisse

The paper deals with the main stages of a long political biography of Eduard Shevardnadze. It highlights main features of his political personality.

This paper aims to further investigate hybrid regimes, which are becoming a more and more analysed topic in political studies. After the pathbreaking article by Thomas Carothers (Carothers, 2002) where he claims that many of the regimes that were considered usually in "transition" were actually proved highly durable and did not move neither toward autocracy nor democracy, other scholars started to be interested in this particular phenomenon as such. In this paper I stem from the definition of Hybrid regimes provided by Leonardo Morlino: "A hybrid regime is always a set of ambiguous institutions […] lacking as it does one or more essential characteristics of that regimebut also failing to acquire other characteristics that would make it fully democratic or authoritarian" (Morlino, 2008:7), in order to investigate how incumbents hold and strengthen power in this peculiar political and institutional environment, without forcefully becoming neither fully authoritarian or fully democratic.

This paper aims to further investigate hybrid regimes, which are becoming a more and more analysed topic in political studies. After the pathbreaking article by Thomas Carothers (Carothers, 2002) where he claims that many of the regimes that were considered usually in "transition" were actually proved highly durable and did not move neither toward autocracy nor democracy, other scholars started to be interested in this particular phenomenon as such. In this paper I stem from the definition of Hybrid regimes provided by Leonardo Morlino: "A hybrid regime is always a set of ambiguous institutions […] lacking as it does one or more essential characteristics of that regimebut also failing to acquire other characteristics that would make it fully democratic or authoritarian" (Morlino, 2008:7), in order to investigate how incumbents hold and strengthen power in this peculiar political and institutional environment, without forcefully becoming neither fully authoritarian or fully democratic.

The study is carried out in the framework of diachronic linguopolitical metaphorology and linguopolitical personology. Linguopolitical personology deals with verbal images of politicians, Heads of State, and historical figures. The diachronic analysis allows revealing specific features of development of the metaphorical image of a politician. The diachronic analysis of the metaphorical image of the President of Georgia E. Shevardnadze simultaneously employs the principles of incremental and focus fragmentation. Two synchronous cross-sections have been analyzed within focus fragmentation: the first focus covers the time of Shevardnadze's office; the second – the period after his resignation. The article considers the dominant metaphorical models found in the course of the study: THE PRESIDENT OF GEORGIA IS A WARRIOR; THE PRESIDENT OF GEORGIA IS A TRAVELER, as well as some less frequent and rarely used metaphorical models, which make up the metaphorical image of the former president of Georgia. Thus, the study allows making the conclusion that the metaphorical image of Shevardnadze is changing over the periods of time frames under consideration: 1) the number of dominant metaphorical models changes; 2) there is a shift of semantic emphasis; 3) different metaphorical models can express similar meanings. The results of the study could be of interest to specialists in the field of imageology, politology, history, psychology, linguistics, etc. ; Исследование выполнено в рамках диахронической лингвополитической метафорологии и лингвополитической персонологии. Лингвополитическая персонология предполагает изучение вербального облика политиков, первых лиц государства, исторических персоналий. Диахронический анализ позволяет выявить особенности динамики метафорического образа политического субъекта. При диахроническом анализе метафорического образа одного из президентов Грузии Э. Шеварднадзе были одновременно применены принципы равномерной и фокусной фрагментации. В рамках фокусной фрагментации было проанализировано два синхронных среза: первый — период правления Э. Шеварднадзе; второй — период после правления Э. Шеварднадзе. В статье рассмотрены выявленные в ходе анализа доминантные метафорические модели: «ПРЕЗИДЕНТ ГРУЗИИ — ЭТО ВОИН», «ПРЕЗИДЕНТ ГРУЗИИ — ЭТО ПУТЕШЕСТВЕННИК», а также некоторые средне- и низкочастотные метафорические модели, составляющие метафорический образ бывшего президента Грузии. Таким образом, исследование позволяет сделать вывод о том, что метафорический образ Э. Шеварднадзе эволюционирует на протяжении рассмотренных временных отрезков: 1) изменяется количество доминантных метафорических моделей; 2) наблюдается изменение смысловых акцентов; 3) разные метафорические модели могут передавать одинаковые смыслы. Результаты исследования могут представлять интерес для специалистов в области имиджелогии, политологии, истории, психологии, лингвистики и др.

В статье рассматриваются метафорические портреты грузинских политиков Э. Шеварднадзе и М. Саакашвили на материале британских СМИ. ; This paper presents a study of metaphorical portraits of political leaders: it analyzes the metaphorical images of Georgian politicians E. Shevardnadze and M. Saakashvili. The re-search material consists of publications in the British media

The 20s of the twentieth century are the most difficult period in the modern history of Georgia. In independent and democratic Georgia, Soviet Russia carried out forcible Sovietization of the country and began to completely control it. Their main goal was to eradicate elements of democratic governance in the country

Even in the conditions of the Soviet Empire, the conquered Georgia did not forget its condition and consequently, unilaterally violated "Treaty of Georgievsk" by Russia. Georgia did not miss the opportunity, took advantage of the moment and used the Kremlin's instructions to protect the country's interests, showed the world political community that Georgia should not be considered a politically written-off country. Eduard Shevardnadze took political points from the conqueror Russia, as well created the illusion of effectively carrying out the Kremlin's task, and at the same time avoided the solemn celebration of the annexation. That is, he literally caught two rabbits - fulfilled the task of the Kremlin and paid tribute to the Georgian cause. ; Even in the conditions of the Soviet Empire, the conquered Georgia did not forget its condition and consequently, unilaterally violated "Treaty of Georgievsk" by Russia. Georgia did not miss the opportunity, took advantage of the moment and used the Kremlin's instructions to protect the country's interests, showed the world political community that Georgia should not be considered a politically written-off country. Eduard Shevardnadze took political points from the conqueror Russia, as well created the illusion of effectively carrying out the Kremlin's task, and at the same time avoided the solemn celebration of the annexation. That is, he literally caught two rabbits - fulfilled the task of the Kremlin and paid tribute to the Georgian cause.

"July 2006." ; Caption title. ; Introduction -- Terminology: coup, "revolution," or revolution? -- Shevardnadze's civil society -- Driving forces of the revolution -- Kmara: breaking through political apathy -- Opposition groups -- The media -- Civil society and international actors -- Should the security forces defend the regime or the people? -- Conclusion. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Search for Geopolitical Strategy for Georgia means finding a special road to a civilized future that will be in line with the country's historical and cultural specificity and uniqueness. After the unfavorable conditions, there was created a short but very profitable term implementing its geopolitical and geostrategic interests. Everything depended on the ability of the Georgian politicians, how much they would you be able to determine, understand and mobilize the situation. In this case Georgian diplomacy was appropriate. The government which was in a very difficult position soon clarified the situation and was able to use this chance as much as possible. Accordingly, the country received an impressive geopolitical dividend. Georgian diplomacy achieved great success in the geopolitical context. The factor of the President of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, played a major role, he created a desirable background for Western politics in Georgia with his authority in world politics and great political activity. ; Search for Geopolitical Strategy for Georgia means finding a special road to a civilized future that will be in line with the country's historical and cultural specificity and uniqueness. After the unfavorable conditions, there was created a short but very profitable term implementing its geopolitical and geostrategic interests. Everything depended on the ability of the Georgian politicians, how much they would you be able to determine, understand and mobilize the situation. In this case Georgian diplomacy was appropriate. The government which was in a very difficult position soon clarified the situation and was able to use this chance as much as possible. Accordingly, the country received an impressive geopolitical dividend. Georgian diplomacy achieved great success in the geopolitical context. The factor of the President of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, played a major role, he created a desirable background for Western politics in Georgia with his authority in world politics and great political activity.

This report examines the ouster of Georgia's President Eduard Shevardnadze in the wake of a legislative election that may Georgians viewed as not free and fair.

Three revolutions, one after another, replaced the three post-communist leaders of Georgia: (1) the Round Table and Zviad Gamsakhurdia replaced the communists; (2) Gamsakhurdia's cabinet was replaced by Eduard Shevardnadze, and (3) Mikhail Saakashvili removed Shevardnadze from his post. Each of them changed the fortunes of the country and the nation, but only the last event was tagged as a "revolution." It is obviously viewed as the most important among the three and prompts us to ask whether it is absolutely correct to describe Saakashvili's coming to power as a revolution. Is it not a ploy designed to boost the importance of the regime change in the eyes of the world community and the local population? To answer these questions we should answer another, broader, question: Did the regime change that removed Eduard Shevardnadze and became known as the Rose Revolution have the characteristics of a revolution? By revolution we mean the very specific and profound impact a regime exerts on social order-it is much more than a conflict that replaces the government. A revolution brings about changes in the political, economic, spiritual, and social spheres of the nation's life, which take some time to become obvious and are never immediately manifest the very day after forces come to power which choose to call themselves "revolutionary." The events of November 2003 in Georgia were called a revolution immediately after the coup was completed. During the three years that separate us from that time enough material has been accumulated to assess the nature of the changes that have taken place and were brought about by Mikhail Saakashvili's coming to power. The Rose Revolution is a term prompted by the immediate impressions of the non-constitutional power change in Georgia. A revolution is not merely a particular method of regime change-it is an event of profound importance for the country's economic, social, and political life. Those Western authors who have devoted much time to the theory of revolution and who have written extensively on the subject 1 interpret it as a particular method of regime change that brings more radical results than other seemingly similar actions. A revolution means replacement of the top leaders accomplished by a mass illegitimate movement that results in deep-cutting changes.

Данная статья посвящена анализу политических процессов на территории постсоветской Грузии. В работе поэтапно показаны основные направления и результаты проводимых в республике реформ, начиная с политики Э. Шеварднадзе и до Б. Иванишвили.This article is devoted to the analysis of political processes in the post-Soviet Georgia. The paper shows main directions and results of political reforms in the country, ranging from politics of Shevardnadze and to Boris Ivanishvili.

The United National Movement declared the development of small and medium businesses as one of its main aims and promised to remove the taxation issue, the main irritant, from the agenda. Under Eduard Shevardnadze tax evasion was easy: businessmen and bureaucrats established unofficial relations regarded at the top as a natural development pattern of capitalism and primary accumulation. Businessmen were free to break the law, while bureaucrats seized the moment to grow rich by using their official positions to raise their personal prosperity. Even though the country's leaders alleviated state economic pressure on business, they increased their political and bureaucratic pressure by the same token, making the business community a hostage of the state and its bureaucracy. The latter was not only growing rich on bribes, it wanted large chunks of the businesses as well. Corrupt politicians and top bureaucrats protected the lawbreakers. In other words, while economic coercion was alleviated, pressure from the country's political leaders and corrupt bureaucrats was doubled. Businessmen were naturally displeased: they wanted to wriggle out of the double pressure. At one time, Eduard Shevardnadze used this to tighten his control over the business community and strengthen the social base of his power. After coming to power through a coup that toppled the regime of legitimately elected president Zviad Gamsakhurdia, he badly needed all the support he could master. The deposed president's allies stood opposed to him, while most of the population badly hit by the economic devastation and sliding standard of living posed a serious threat to his political system. To strengthen the regime's economic and social basis, President Shevardnadze assembled a business community out of his friends and political allies and enlisted new allies from among the businessmen connected with his regime. This explains how the National Bank of Georgia squandered credits and damaged the state's interests: advised by highly placed and influential people, its chairman was issuing credits in hard currency to be repaid in depreciated Georgian coupons. Huge capital formed in this way. Being aware that sooner or later he would be called to account, the chairman kept a list of all those who recommended the credit seekers. He shot himself under dubious circumstances during the interrogations. Naturally enough, society refused to accept the official version as true. The members of the top crust were not the only ones to exploit the permissiveness of Shevardnadze's regime: ordinary people who lost their jobs when the Soviet Union fell apart found themselves at the very bottom. Some became petty merchants, others took to smuggling; still others tried to set up small and medium businesses by violating the laws. Permissiveness relieved the state's pressure and let them live.

The socio-political processes developed in Georgia in the 90s of the twentieth century led to the political transformation of the country. The political changes that began during this period led to the ideological and value transformation of elite structures, including procedural changes in the mechanisms of elite circulation. All this was reflected in the country's domestic and foreign policy.In Georgian reality, the main part of the society is focused on a specific political figure, however, the elite groups united around this leader differ from each other in their values and ideological orientation. At the same time, all post-Soviet political leaders followed different paths of accumulating social and political capital, which became an important component of developing their individual political charisma.The article discusses the features of 4 political leaders of post-Soviet Georgia (Z. Gamsakhurdia, E. Shevardnadze, M. Saakashvili, B. Ivanishvili) and the political processes related to them. ; The socio-political processes developed in Georgia in the 90s of the twentieth century led to the political transformation of the country. The political changes that began during this period led to the ideological and value transformation of elite structures, including procedural changes in the mechanisms of elite circulation. All this was reflected in the country's domestic and foreign policy.In Georgian reality, the main part of the society is focused on a specific political figure, however, the elite groups united around this leader differ from each other in their values and ideological orientation. At the same time, all post-Soviet political leaders followed different paths of accumulating social and political capital, which became an important component of developing their individual political charisma.The article discusses the features of 4 political leaders of post-Soviet Georgia (Z. Gamsakhurdia, E. Shevardnadze, M. Saakashvili, B. Ivanishvili) and the political processes related to them.

Something amazing happened in Georgia's 1 October 2012 parliamentary elections. The government lost and it gave up power, aside from the now-weakened presidency that it will hold for another year. A new coalition known as Georgian Dream ran under the leadership of Georgia's richest man, the billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, and won 85 seats in the unicameral, 150-member Parliament. Georgia's post-Soviet background and circumstances make the 2012 opposition win and subsequent orderly handover of power truly remarkable. Indeed, among the "competitive authoritarian" regimes found in what used to be the USSR, it is nearly unheard of. Georgia is lucky to be getting a fourth chance at democracy, after the opportunities under Zviad Gamsakhurdia (1990–92), Eduard Shevardnadze (1992–2003), and Saakashvili faded. But this chance remains a fragile one.