Microsoft Word orenovani sarchevi doc

Kornely Kakachia, Tamar Pataraia 

104

(The question was asked to respondents who use the Internet) 

Source: CRRC, Caucasus Barometer 2011 

The above data allow us to develop a profile of an average Georgian 

Internet user. In general, the average Georgian Internet user is someone who 

goes online at least once a week and regularly accesses social networks and 

social websites (in addition to using the Internet for Internet banking services). 

Facebook is currently the most popular social network in Georgia, providing 

consumers with wide-ranging online services. One of the main reasons for the 

popularity of Facebook is that it offers a Georgian-language-friendly interface 

created for and used by native speakers.  

Another social network, Twitter, has fewer users in Georgia. In the last two 

years, only Beeline, a mobile operator with the poorest coverage in Georgia, had 

mobile Twitter support. In 2012, the top two Georgian mobile operators, 

Geocell and Magti, followed suit and offered this service. As a result, Georgian 

customers are now able to send free-of-charge SMS messages via Twitter to 

multiple recipients simultaneously. However, Twitter does not recognise 

Georgian fonts, so it has rather low popularity in Georgia. 

A comparative analysis of the Twitter accounts of the Georgian president, 

the leader of the former ruling party, and his opponent, the opposition leader and 

now prime minister, in the post-election period (after October 2012) can help to 

assess the popularity of Twitter in Georgia. The Georgian president’s account 

has only 7,221 friends and 59 followers, and most of them add comments in 

English – there are very few comments in Georgian (as of 1 May  2013). Prior 

---

Georgian Political Parties and Online Social Network: Politics as usual? 

105

to April 2012, the Georgian president had published only 776 Twitter messages 

that were commented by some of the followers. In contrast, the Georgian prime 

minister’s Twitter account has 22,132 followers, although it has not been 

updated since November 2012 (As of 1 May 2013). Before the elections, the 

prime minister (then a leader of the opposition) had published only some 870 

Twitter messages, most of them in English. This means that neither the 

president nor the current prime minister consider Georgian Twitter users their 

main target audience. The prevalence of English messages suggests that both 

tend to use their Twitter accounts to promote their views and ideas abroad rather 

than at home. As one of the popular party PR group members noted, through 

tweets, Georgian political parties “target their international partners and foreign 

friends more than that of Georgian followers and party supporters”.

9

 The 

Georgian experts who are active in social media and who were interviewed 

during the research suggested that with the completion of the development of 

social networks in 2010-2011, few other social networks will be able to 

challenge Facebook’s popularity in Georgia. Consequently, political parties 

should pay more attention to Facebook.  

Political parties in cyberspace prior to the 2012 parliamentary elections 

Although there are more than 190 registered political parties in Georgia,

10

very few of them have real political power. Many commentators on Georgian 

politics complain that political parties have not grown out of social cleavages, 

do not represent large segments of society (although they may articulate their 

sentiments), and are difficult to identify on the left-right spectrum of classical 

political ideologies.

11

 Competition between parties is often less about policies 

than about the rules of the political game and primarily runs along a pro-

governmental and anti-governmental division.  

Ten of the most successful political parties’ websites were studied from 

December 2011 to February 2013 to develop a comparative picture of their 

readiness for activity in cyberspace and their full use of the potential of Internet 

9

   Interview conducted with G.P., male, 29 April 2013

10

 Nodia, Ghia, and Scholbach, Alvaro Pinto. The Political Landscape of Georgia: 

Political Parties Achievements, Challenges and Prospects, Eburon Delft, (2006), p99

11

 Bader,Max. Fluid Party Politics and The Challenge for Democracy for Democracy 

Assistance in Georgia. Caucasian Review of International Affairs Vol. 2 (2) – Spring 

2008. P.84

---

Kornely Kakachia, Tamar Pataraia 

106

technologies in the organisation of election campaigns, mobilisation, and the 

engagement of supporters.  

When analysing the dynamic elements of a website, special attention was 

paid to whether it offered opportunities for citizens’ involvement in political 

processes, such as feedback, blogging, news, podcasts, video and audio 

materials, and open forums. The results show that all but one of the ten 

monitored political parties had fully functional websites during the researched 

period. The most popular opposition force, the Georgian Dream party, one of 

the members of the Georgian Dream Coalition, had not yet been officially 

founded as a political party at that time, although it was expected to join the 

opposition Georgian Dream coalition (founded in April 2012). However, the 

coalition leader’s Facebook page was freely accessible at the time. 

The collected data revealed that the political parties tended to publish 

mostly static and general information on their websites, which did not require 

regular updates. Moreover, the websites were not helpful in understanding the 

ideological differences between the parties. The websites were not updated on a 

regular basis; therefore, they could not be used as an efficient means of 

communication with members and supporters. Although all monitored parties 

had their own Facebook pages at that time, communication with supporters was 

mainly conducted through a party leadership’s personal Facebook pages 

(Facebook monitoring results, see below). 

Although websites provided tools to communicate directly with a party’s 

leadership or prominent politicians, post questions, recruit new supporters and 

members, demonstrate that a party was ready to accept new members, and 

mobilise the party for the implementation of its political programme, it was not 

appropriate for bidirectional efficient communication. In most cases, the 

websites provided only a party’s e-mail and telephone number as a means of 

communication, which made it unclear who was responsible for communicating 

with potential supporters and members. The then-ruling United National 

Movement’s website was a clear example of one-sided communication. Users 

were able to send their greetings and well wishes, but there were no feedback 

opportunities for questions and complaints, which may have affected the 

election, especially among young voters. In addition, the participation of the 

general public in online polls, one of the major components of the monitored 

websites, was rather low. Overall, 1,000-1,500 respondents participated, which 

is considered a rather low turnout for this type of poll, especially because polls 

---