Shortfalls of deliberative democracy in Georgia: the analysis of the General Assembly of a Settlement Open Access

Citizen participation in decision-making is usually considered a crucial element of democracy (Michels 2011). The path of democratization and Europeanization of Georgia increased internal and external pressures for enhanced public inclusion in policymaking. However, without the efficient engagement of the domestic drivers of democratization in the decision-making process, the country's ability to consolidate democracy and develop the ‘deliberative system’ is substantially in question (Curato and Böker 2016). The value of public participation is even more essential for countries undergoing the process of decentralization (Buadze 2017). Georgia has implemented several reforms in this regard, however, the low citizen engagement in political decision-making has consistently been a hurdle for the country's decentralization agenda. The issue gained momentum after the adoption of the Organic Law of Georgia Local Self-Government Code in 2014. The law introduced five participatory democracy instruments, out of them, the only one – a general assembly of a settlement (the GAofS) is the deliberative public participation tool (self-government code 2014).

While public deliberation has a significant positive impact on democracy development, the benefits of deliberation are not recognized by the central and local governments, civil society organizations and the citizens, hence communities are deprived of receiving the benefits of the deliberative public engagement mechanisms in Georgia. Public deliberation has a variety of benefits for democracy enhancement including, but not limited to, first, making government more accountable and policies more just, effective public deliberation enables citizens to shape their government's decisions and provide feedback on how well they are performing (Caluwaerts and Reuchamps 2015). Second, informing them about different perspectives and increasing their competence in policymaking (Fung 2007). Deliberation tends to promote learning (Fishkin and Luskin 2005) and increase participants’ competence in policymaking. Third, bringing political system closer to its constituents’ will and mobilizing citizens for political action – by including everyone who is affected by a decision in the process leading to that decision, deliberation is capable of generating political choices that receive broad public support (OGPPG 2019). It creates an environment where the community can collectively discuss a variety of important decisions. As a result, citizens feel more empowered with their ability to initiate change in their community.

In Georgia, GAofS enables citizens to assemble, discuss and agree on various issues, while making decisions through deliberation. Georgian culture of public deliberation can be best analyzed through the state rural support program since it enables rural communities with an electorate of less than 500 citizens to get together for a day and deliberate on projects they want to implement with the funds allocated for their villages. When the public makes decision, the local government is required to implement the projects chosen by the public during the GAofS. Even though the outcome of the deliberative discussion is ultimately supported by the local government within the framework of the rural state support program, citizens still refuse to participate in public deliberation. The public opinion polls make citizens’ disengagement even more apparent, as only 14 percent of the population consider that they have a significant influence over Georgia's governmental decisions (NDI 2019).

Although the academic literature (Jacquet 2017; Gherghina et al. 2020) argues that the reluctance to take part in public deliberation is rooted in the way individuals conceive their roles and the available studies (Kharatiani 2014; Tvaltvadze 2017; OSGF 2014; CSI 2010) about the Georgian public participation highlight that one of the major reasons for public disengagement in the decision-making process is lack of awareness and information about the public engagement mechanisms, their civic duties along with the lack of political consciousness. However, no comprehensive research was conducted which would analyze the reasons behind Georgian citizens’ withdrawal from public deliberations from participants and non-participants (who had information about the deliberative event but still refused to participate in it) perspectives. To address this research gap, this study unfolds the process of public deliberation in Georgia through the GAofS and seeks to answer the following research question: Why do citizens of Georgia refuse participation in public deliberation through the GAofS?

To answer the research question, the study applies an analytical framework derived from Fishkin and Luskin (2005), Moore (2012), Fung (2007) Caluwaerts and Reuchamps (2015) who write about how the successful deliberative mechanisms should work to encourage public participation. Jacquet's (2017) six logics of non-participation (Table 1) are used to analyze the reasons for citizens' withdrawal from public deliberation. This study relies on a single case study, desk research, qualitative in-depth interviews and observation. Desk research was employed to analyze the Georgian context of public deliberation through the GAofS. Observation was applied to analyze the process of public deliberation in three rural communities of Georgia and qualitative in-depth interviews to assess citizens' perspectives to highlight the underlying reasons for citizens’ refusal to participate in public deliberation through the GAofS.

The remainder of this research paper will be organized as follows: the first chapter discusses the theoretical framework related to effective public deliberation and the reasons for citizens’ refusal to participate in it. Second, public deliberation in the Georgian context is discussed. To that end, the Georgian version of deliberative mini-public – the GAofS is introduced. Later, based on the case study of Mestia Municipality, the process of public deliberation through the GAofS 2020 in three rural communities is observed which is followed by the reasons behind the citizens’ withdrawal from public deliberation from meeting participants' and non-participants’ perspectives. Finally, discussion and conclusions discuss the research findings and confer potential avenues for further research.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, a widespread crisis of democracy has emerged in Western European societies. Political trust has declined and the gap between politicians and citizens appeared to be wider than ever before (Caluwaerts and Reuchamps 2015). Citizens started demanding more engagement in political decision making (Dalton 2013). Hence, modern societies have started looking for innovative ways to involve the public in policymaking. The model of deliberative democracy through public deliberation was introduced at this time (Caluwaerts and Reuchamps 2015).

This research focuses on the academic literature discussing the features of meaningful public deliberation through the mini-publics and the reasons behind citizen disengagement in deliberative processes. To assess whether Georgian practice of public deliberation is effective and meets the purpose, the existing theoretical knowledge stemming from Fishkin and Luskin (2005), Moore (2012), Fung (2007) and Caluwaerts and Reuchamps (2015) is applied. Fishkin, Luskin and Moore discuss the core characteristics of effective public deliberation that meets its purpose and creates the safe place for deliberation among the participants. To explain the reasons why the citizens of Georgian rural communities¹ refuse to participate in public deliberation, Jacquet's (2017) six logics of non-participation are applied. In their work ‘Stealth Democracy’, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (2002) argue that people refuse to participate in public deliberation due to their disbelief that citizens should be engaged in political decision-making. Jacquet's work and several other studies (Gherghina et al. 2020; Neblo et al. 2010; Webb 2013) have challenged this thesis by observing much more support for deliberation and participation than expected and outlined multiple other reasons for citizens’ withdrawal from public deliberation (Font et al. 2015).

Deliberation is an alternative method of engaging public for tackling complex issues and fostering democracy. Public deliberation gives participants a say in the decision-making and enables them to see how the important tradeoffs are being made (Bohman and Rehg 1997). One of the most used public deliberative mechanism is ‘mini-populus’ that is widely known as mini-publics (Fung 2007). Participatory forums where citizens gather for public deliberation on various topics for 1 or more days are called mini-publics.

The rules for public deliberation are clear and fit for purpose. Participants know that the process requires (1) evidence-based decisions, (2) compromises since the beginning of the process and (3) their involvement in each phase (OGPPG 2019). To conclude public deliberation it must reach (1) consensus, (2) cast a vote (Caluwaerts and Reuchamps 2015) or (3) simply stop deliberation without reaching any collective decision, recommendation or concluding statement. It is worth noting that consensus is the gold standard outcome of deliberation (Fishkin and Luskin 2005; Moore 2012).

According to Fishkin and Luskin (2005), an effective deliberation is a process of weighing of controversial perspectives through discussion that is: Informed. Arguments expressed during deliberation are supported by reasonably accurate factual claims; Balanced. The arguments are balanced with counterarguments that are freely expressed by the participants; Conscientious. The participants are willing to listen to each other and share each other's perspectives with civility and respect; Substantive. All arguments should be assessed based on their strength and merits and not how they are made or by whom they are expressed and Comprehensive. All sorts of views and opinions expressed by the participants should be paid enough attention.

To ensure meaningful public deliberation, the mini-public organizers should pay attention to several factors that ensure good quality of deliberation and foster public engagement. These factors include, but are not limited to, first, guaranteeing the inclusion of vulnerable groups – while inclusion in public engagement reflects many kinds of background inequalities such as wealth, gender, education, position, control over the means of communication and production, the mini-public would attempt to fairly include all of the diverse voices (Caluwaerts and Reuchamps 2015; Fishkin and Luskin 2005; Moore 2012; Ryfe 2005; Kadlec and Friedman 2007; Bora and Hausendorf 2006; O'doherty and Davidson 2010; Braun et al. 2010). Second, educating citizens on complex issues – the good deliberation process should not depend on falsehoods. It should manage to weed out false claims put forward by participants. Sometimes expert witnesses are invited who will be questioned by the participants and written materials are compiled to make informed decisions (Moore 2012). Third, employing facilitators for organized deliberations -organized deliberative practice seems to require the presence of actors who participate actively in a dialogue to make deliberation happen (Moore 2012). Facilitators should be capable of shaping balanced and inclusive discussion atmosphere (Caluwaerts and Reuchamps 2015; Stromer-Galley 2007; Gerber 2011) and effectively tackle structural inequalities and pervasive power relations (Kleinman et al. 2011). Fourth, protecting dialogue and discussion from damage through coercion, inequality and repression – everyone should have been allowed to express his/her attitudes, needs and desires, to introduce any claim into the discourse and to question and challenge any assertion at any time. No speaker may be deprived of his/her right to speak by internal or external coercion (Caluwaerts and Reuchamps 2015; Kleinman et al. 2011). Some scholars such as John Dryzek (2002) suggest that deliberative process should be kept away at ‘arm's length’ from the institutions of the state to avoid distortion of discourse and keep critical activity.

Many citizens decline the invitation to participate in deliberative mini-publics. Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (2002) argue that people refuse to participation in public deliberation due to their disbelief that citizens should be involved in the decision-making. Jacquet's work and several other studies based on public opinion polls have confronted this thesis by claiming much more support for participation and deliberation and highlighted several other reasons for citizens’ withdrawal from public deliberation (Neblo et al. 2010; Webb 2013; Font et al. 2015).

It is well known that only a small fraction of the population is active in political decision-making, especially when it comes to the membership of community groups or party activism. The brief literature review illustrated that many of the recruited citizens who were invited to different public deliberations refused to participate. Therefore, analyzing reasons for non-participation is relevant to understand the logic behind citizens withdrawal from deliberative mini-publics. Jacquet (2017) examined this issue through a qualitative research method by analyzing the perspectives of those who rejected invitation to the deliberative mini-publics. He offered six possible explanations of non-participation: concentration on the private sphere; internal political inefficacy; public meeting avoidance; conflict of schedule; political alienation; and mini-public's lack of impact on the political system (see Table 1).

Several studies (Kharatiani 2014; Tvaltvadze 2017; OSGF 2014; CSI 2010) analyzed the state rural support program and highlighted the reasons for citizen disengagement in the GAofS. The reasons are manifold and vary from the lack of awareness and the political culture, absence of necessary skills and knowledge, informal societal practices, etc. A study commissioned by the Open Society Foundation Georgia (OSGF) concluded that public participation varied in different villages depending on the exitance of the community and civil society organizations at the local level, as well as the existence of donor-funded projects in the region. The study identified two most important factors resulting in low public participation: (1) First, the low awareness of the public about their civic rights. As well as low awareness of how to mobilize groups, articulate the issue and conduct advocacy campaigns. (2) Second, the study emphasized the existence of low political culture in the villages of Georgia and discussed the impact of informal societal influences on public participation. In some villages of Georgia, citizens were afraid of publicly protesting the issues and especially singing documents necessary for implementing changes even if the problem was pressing for them, since they were afraid of respective ‘punishment’ from the local self-authorities, such as losing their jobs at public sector (Kharatiani 2014).

Another research conducted in 2017 with the support of the Council of Europe and the EU (Tvaltvadze 2017) focused on various challenges of public participation in the decision-making process through the GAofS, including but not limited to the (1) mobilization problem, gathering 20 percent of the electorate of the municipality and (2) the lack of the readiness of public to implement the changes. The study described specific cases regarding the lack of awareness including the public officials regarding the functioning of the GAofS, as well as reluctance and lack of information on how to implement decisions taken through the GAofS (Tvaltvadze 2017). The Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) further identified the low level of citizen's interest in participation in local decision-making is an essential challenge together with a lack of necessary skills and knowledge relatively limits the positive impact of public participation (Tvaltvadze 2017; OSGF 2014). Although the reasons for non-participation in GAofS are analyzed in different studies, none of them assesses the quality of the features of Georgia's public deliberation to see whether or not people refuse to participate in the GAofS because it is not conducted properly. This study analyzes different reasons for non-participation in public deliberation including the citizens’ expectation of deliberation from participants and non-participants’ perspectives. Furthermore, existing studies highlight general reasons why citizens do not use existing civic engagement mechanisms in the decision-making process at the local level. The given research investigates the reasons for citizens’ refusal to use deliberative mechanisms. On the one hand, existing studies say that citizens do not have information, they do not know about their rights, informal social influences prevent participation, but on the other hand, existing literature do not directly highlight the flaws of the deliberation process and the gaps identified in it, it mainly evaluates process only from a post-deliberation perspective. This research is unique because it analyzes the entire process of using the deliberative mechanism: planning, the deliberation itself, and also evaluating the post-deliberative process from the participants' and non-participants’ perspectives.

This analysis uses a case-study design, which captures the circumstances and conditions of a commonplace situation (Yin 2017). The data available to researchers supports the notion that public deliberation through the GAofS within the framework of ‘state rural support program’ in different regions of Georgia does not significantly differ from each other (Kharatiani 2014; CSI 2010).² The official rules of conducting the GAofS are the same and the process of deliberation is characterized by similar patterns in the majority of small communities of Georgia where deliberation is the case. Mestia municipality was chosen for analysis due to the existence of local key informants who trusted researchers and helped them to attend the public deliberations in respective communities. The trust between the researchers and the key informants was due to the previous working experience within the framework of a project designed for Mestia Municipality social-economic development co-implemented by PMC Research Center.

The Mestia municipality unites 17 administrative units out of which in 11 communities within the framework of ‘state rural support program’ people make decisions under deliberation due to the small number of registered electorates of under 500. The emphasis was an intensive examination of the settings during the public deliberations in Pari, Kala and Tskhumari communities. The general assemblies of a settlement in Pari, Kala and Tskhumari communities were held on 14th, 15th and 16th of February (2020), respectively. The GAofS in Pari was attended by 32 participants (20 men, 12 women), Kala – 19 participants³ (13 men, 6 women) and Tskhumari – 32 participants (24-men and 8 women). The researcher observed all three meetings from the beginning to the end. The researcher was an overt participant observer (Bryman 2016) who witnessed interaction among the participants during the GAofS, listened to the conversations and summed up impressions and experiences in field notes. It is worth noting that the researcher was minimally engaged observer who did not participate in the process of discussions with the villagers himself but observed.

To capture the reasons for non-participation from the participants' and non-participants’ perspectives, four focus groups and five in-depth interviews were conducted by the authors of this research report from 5th June to 25th June 2020: two focus groups were conducted with participants and two focus groups with non-participants of the GAofS in Pari and Tskhumari communities. The focus group discussions were chosen to observe the interactions among the focus group participants, especially exchanges between men and women, youth and elderly. To further reflect and discuss information received through the focus groups four telephone interviews were carried out with participants and non-participants of GAofS of the Kala community. The key informants in each community helped researchers to plan the focus group discussions and arrange the telephone interviews. The non-participant respondents were identified from the telephone list with whom the key informants called before the GAofS, invited them to the meeting, but they did not appear. The present chapter will separately offer an analysis of the findings gathered through the focus groups and interviews with both participants and non-participants of GAofS.

To ensure the diversified group of respondents, interviewees were grouped corresponding to their age and gender as shown in Appendix 3. The focus group interviews with participants lasted between 1 h and 20 min to 1 h and 40 min. The focus group interviews with non-participants took from 40 to 60 min. The telephone interviews lasted between 45 min to 1 h. The place of focus group meetings was in the community center in Pari and in the respondent's home in Tskhumari. The whole discussions at the focus group meetings were audio-recorded with the agreement of the interviewees (see Appendix 2). The interview guide was flexible as it enabled interviewees to cover topics of their interest, too. The transcripts of the focus group and in-depth interviews were analyzed, and the lines were assigned thematic codes to come up with the major themes covered during the focus groups and in-depth interviews. The data analysis was conducted simultaneously and once the codes started repeating and the new dimensions were not added to the themes, the interviewing process stopped. The quotes form the responses were constantly re-examined, re-discussed and clarified to foster the validity and reliability of the research (Ritchie et al. 2013; Miles and Huberman 1994).

One of the standard criticisms of the case study is that findings deriving from it cannot be generalized. The evidence through the analysis of the case study of this research is limited because it has restricted external validity (Bryman 2016). However, the purpose of this research is not to generalize to the other cases or to populations beyond this case.

On its path of democratization, Georgia has undergone several waves of reforms aimed at developing inclusive policymaking practices and advancing good governance. Decentralization and the increased role of self-governments were identified as an effective instrument for bringing citizens closer to authorities and enhancing their role in the decision-making processes (UNDP 2020). In 2014, the adoption of the Organic Law of Georgia self-government code has set the rules for public participation and more inclusive political processes (UNDP 2020). According to the Self-governance code of Georgia, – ‘a general Assembly of a settlement’ (GAofS) is a deliberative public engagement tool since it allows citizens to discuss and draft proposals on relevant socio-economic issues, give feedback on ongoing projects, and address private dilemmas (self-government code 2014). The deliberative nature of the GAofS is best examined through the lenses of the ‘state rural support program’.

The Rural Support Program is a government initiative which is run and implemented by the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia. The program allows citizens of Georgia to decide what projects are most important for their villages or municipalities. According to the government decree which sets procedures for selection of projects under the rural support program, in a settlement in which the number of registered voters does not exceed 500 the project shall be selected at the GAofS through public deliberation, The process allows citizens to register their initiatives in advance, following the receipt of citizens’ proposals (if any) the municipality discusses their relevance related to the program guidelines and accordingly incorporates them in the final agenda for the GAofS (self-government code 2014). The format of the GAofS allocates 10 min for all authors of proposals to present their initiatives to the public to discuss the importance and the benefits of their initiatives. Following to which, any representative attending the meeting can express their views, questions and ideas regarding any discussed initiatives. When the discussion is over an open voting procedure is held. According to the rules and procedures, the chairperson of the session explains to the public that all discussed initiatives will be voted separately, in the order given in the list and members of the general assembly have the right to express their support by raising a hand. The members of the GAofS can vote in favor of multiple proposals. The authorized official of the City Hall counts the number of votes received by each project proposal. Following the voting, the chairperson of the session announces the decision of the GAofS, the respective minute is drawn which obliges the municipality to implement the decision if no additional circumstances are hindering the implementation of the proposal (MRDIG 2019).

Analysis of the data collected through interviews revealed five main reasons behind non-participation in public deliberation through the GAofS within the framework of the SRSP (see Table 2).

One of the primary reasons put forward by interviewees was the culture of informal decision-making that takes place before the GAofS. Most of the respondents noted that this practice plays a significant role in citizens’ apathy toward public deliberation through the GAofS. Many respondents stated that deliberation through the GAofS in their communities took place not among people, but among representatives of village households, most of whom were men. Non-participants noted that if they agreed with the projects chosen by the main financial providers of their household, they could wait for the outcome at home; if they disagreed, they might try to influence the decision before the meeting, but attending the meeting and expressing a contrary opinion in public at the GAofS is seen as both risky and futile. The respondents added that attending the meeting itself did not have much value in terms of altering pre-made decisions. This undermines the nature of public deliberation and excludes certain citizens, especially vulnerable groups from the process.

Public deliberation through the GAofS did not include the voices of vulnerable groups such as women and youth. Rather than the total number of people attending the meeting, the number of village households represented by their ‘breadwinner’ matters most at the GAofS. As such, women, generally not considered the main income source for a household and instead being responsible for taking care of the household, generally prefer to stay at home. Women and youth feel that they do not have anyone who would support them and their arguments, or anyone to advocate for their desired projects. Thus they are not able to convince males that their desired projects are necessary for the community as a whole. This makes many women and youth participants feel powerless and they are therefore reluctant to participate in the public deliberation.

The organizers of public deliberation disregard the rules and procedures for conducting GAofS. Respondents noted that if women and youth decided to openly oppose the position of the men and managed to mobilize supporters for their project idea, this still would not change the outcome because final decisions were not made by vote. The only way women, youth and other social groups such as PWDs believed that their desired projects could be implemented through the GAofS would be by convincing the males before or during the meeting to support them. On the contrary, it seems that men did not need support from women and youth for their favored decisions.

Furthermore, attempts by women or youth to convince men to change their pre-defined position during the GAofS were considered futile according to the focus group participants in Pari and Tskhumari communities due to the reason that discussions are not encouraged during the meeting by its organizers and women and youth are often criticized by men for expressing differing views and opinions. In addition, at the end of a meeting, participants still do not know the outcome of the deliberation. Sometimes the decisions made at a meeting are changed by the local government representatives without proper explanations being given to the public.

The other factor that demotivates participants and non-participants (both men and women) when it comes to engaging in public deliberation through the GAofS is the doubt that their participation is driven by elite manipulation. The participant observation noted that, in Pari and Kala communities, local government representatives asked participants whether it might be better if several villages combined their funds to pursue one common project, namely the establishment of a multifunctional educational center in Pari and a multifunctional sports complex in Kala. People were thus given the impression that these projects had more support from the local government and as such were more likely to be fully implemented. It is worth mentioning here that, in all communities, the projects suggested by the local authorities were funded by the SRSP.

Another reason behind citizens’ reluctance to engage in the GAofS discussed by the respondents (both participants and non-participants) was people's lack of trust that their participation through the deliberation would enhance the quality of implemented projects.

The respondents of all three communities stated that villagers lacked the basic technical knowledge about the costs and risks related to the projects that they wished to implement in their communities, which led to unrealistic projects being chosen. The unfinished or low-quality projects that materialize as a result further demotivate the population and undermine their confidence in the effectiveness of public deliberation.

The research report set out to appraise the process of public deliberation in Georgia through the mechanism of the general assembly of a settlement (GAofS) within the framework of the state rural support program. The research aimed at answering why do citizens of Georgia refuse to participate in public deliberation through the GAofS within the framework of the state rural support program. The study findings relied on focus groups, qualitative in-depth interviews, and participant observation. The observation was applied to analyze the process of public deliberation in three rural communities of Georgia and qualitative in-depth interviews to highlight the underlying reasons for citizen's refusal to participate in public deliberation through the GAofS.

The research findings illustrate that the GAofS within the framework of the SRSP does not serve as a deliberative public engagement mechanism in practice and could not be characterized as an effective deliberation process. One of the main reasons for many citizens’ refusal to participate in the GAofS, according to both participants and non-participants, is the GAofS's inability to serve as an effective public deliberation mechanism. According to the participant and non-participant respondents, the GAofS within the SRSP is not seen as a place for public deliberation and discussion, but rather as a space for making announcements about predetermined decisions made by the male population.

Diversity and social inclusion are not encouraged during the deliberation. The meeting organizers are not willing to and lack time to encourage discussions among participants. Therefore, attendees, especially women and youth who might even oppose the projects announced by their communities, do not have the opportunity or inclination to express their views or bring counterarguments to the table and, as such, feel powerless to become involved. They are broadly afraid of being judged and ostracized by their fellow villagers for opposing the majority position. In addition, they are deprived of an opportunity to express their preferences through voting, since formal voting is not conducted during the GAofS.

According to the respondents who participated in the GAofS, the feeling of powerlessness comes from the process itself. These research findings suggest that respondents believe that the process of public deliberation through the GAofS is manipulated by elites. Sometimes the final decisions are not announced at the end of the meetings at which point people remain uncertain regarding which project will ultimately be implemented. In addition, even when final decisions are made clear to all, it is possible that, after the GAofS, this decision will be altered without any due explanation. Furthermore, interviews and participant observation showed that, sometimes, local government representatives intervened in the decision-making process and gave people advice as to which projects they should consider for funding. This practice made the meeting participants feel powerless, undermined their trust in the decisions eventually made through the deliberation, and made them think that public deliberation is ineffective.

The research findings correspond to Jacquet's (2017) logic of non-participation in deliberative mini-publics. In rural Georgia political alienation plays a prominent role in citizens’ refusal to participate in public deliberation. Both participants and non-participants perceive deliberation through the GAofS as a façade for making an elite-driven decision. There was supporting evidence for internal political inefficacy as well, the respondents mentioned that they do not feel confident making decisions regarding infrastructure projects due to the lack of technical expertise and competence regarding the issues under deliberation. Public meeting avoidance as a fear of others’ criticism was mentioned by the women and youth who said that they prefer not to attend the public deliberation because their opinions are criticized and not heard by the majority.

None of the respondents in all three communities thought that people generally decline participation in public deliberation due to grounds of scheduling conflicts or because of the concentration on the private sphere.

The research findings illustrate that citizens’ disengagement in public deliberation through the GAofS within the SRSP is multifaceted, and that careful attention should be paid to how existing public participation mechanisms, specifically the deliberative GAofS, work in practice. Although the in-depth analysis of citizen's refusal to participate in the GAofS in Mestia Municipality cannot be generalized to all rural communities of Georgia, the research findings reveal that people refused to participate in public deliberation because they see the GAofS as ineffective in achieving its intended outcomes. Even those who participated in the GAofS meetings criticized the practice of deliberation through the GAofS and emphasized the aspects discouraging participation in public deliberations. However, analyzing public deliberation practices throughout the county, especially in urban areas remains an important task for scholars seeking to understand the reasons behind citizens’ refusal to participate in public deliberation.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Tengiz Sultanishvili is a Director of Community Engagement in the USAID Local Governance Program Georgia and a senior researcher at the PMC Research, Tbilisi, Georgia. With over five years of experience, he has been striving to engage civil society for better social and economic development impact. He researches citizen engagement in the local decision-making process at the regional level of Georgia. Tengiz enjoys building communities’ capacity to hold subnational governments more accountable towards citizens.