Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The paper focuses on studying the liberal-democratic values in the general education of Georgia. Based on the social interaction approach of political socialization, the article assesses pupils’ and teachers’ positions towards the liberal and democratic principles and values that have been declared policy goals of Georgia since 2004. Using DAP (Democracy-Autocracy Preference), DPE (Democratic Performance Evolution), and initially tested Lib-Dem (Liberal-Democratic) scales, 297 students and 121 teachers were surveyed. Results show that teachers demonstrate more liberal-democratic positions than pupils. Also, girls tend to be less supportive of authoritarian governments and share more liberal approaches than boys. A similar trend is observed comparing students from private and public schools. The type of school correlates to teachers’ results in supporting liberal and democratic positions. However, the more liberal-democratic positions the respondents share, the more likely they believe that “Georgian” and “Liberal” are incompatible. Also, respondents who see Georgia as a democratic country and are more proud to be members of Georgian society share less liberal and democratic principles and vice versa. The study shows how liberal and democratic declared and policy ideas are supported among respondents and what it means to Georgia and its education system. Based on the results and discussion, new research questions are articulated dealing with gender, the generation gap, and the importance of the type of school that needs to be examined more carefully using the social interaction approach and qualitative methods and techniques, as well.

Keywords

Liberal-democratic values democracy-autocracy preference and democratic performance evolution Georgia general education

Introduction

In the era of increasing globalization, modern nation-states try their best to maintain control over their country’s education and remain central actors in defining education policy. More specifically, states try to spread their preferred political values through school socialization. Accordingly, the national concept of secondary school is derived from the state’s policy objectives. Thus, typifying states according to how they declare different political values is possible. Our research focuses on a compelling case of Georgia, the former Soviet Union republic in the South Caucasus, with the following current parameters: US$5015 GDP per capita, 0.8 - Human Development index, 36 - GINI index, population less than 4 million (World Bank, 2022; Geostat, 2021). After dismantling the Soviet Union and gaining independence, Georgia’s transition from a centralized, planned economy to market principles led to fundamental social and political changes, including education. Investments made by the World Bank and other international organizations in education since the second half of the 1990s have significantly changed the goals and dynamics of the education system (Chkuaseli et al., 2013; Kobakhidze, 2018). In the wake of the 2003 Rose Revolution, the government’s declared policy was to establish Western liberal democracy (Jones, 2006). Thus, one of the main goals of general education was to build civic consciousness based on these values for pupils. Nowadays, Georgia remains a part of the democratization wave. Despite the first (and so far, the only) change of government in 2012, it still cannot be considered a consolidated liberal democracy (Freedom House, 2019). According to international standardized studies, the example of Georgia is distinguished by the fact that students’ academic results in general education have not improved significantly in the last decade (PISA, PIRLS, TIMSS). Moreover, Georgian and foreign authors often indicate significant systemic problems: (Chankseliani, 2014; Lekashvili, 2019; Janashia, 2015; Kobakhidze, 2014; Tangiashvili & Slade, 2014). Interestingly, at the same time, its National General Education Goals, adopted in 2004, state that the school system “develops students' awareness of liberal and democratic values” (Government of Georgia, 2004).

Moreover, according to recent findings by international organizations (Democracy Index, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch), there has been a setback in some aspects of democracy and supporting liberal values (Kakachia & Lebanidze, 2019; Kakhishvili, 2021; Tabatadze, 2021). In particular, the problems in separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the media and assembly, and the guarantee of minority rights are in line with the characteristics of illiberal democracy. Given this context, it is noteworthy to determine approval of liberal-democratic principles by upper secondary schools (11th and 12th classes).

More specifically, the paper aims to determine the positions of students and teachers of the Georgian upper secondary school regarding liberal-democratic values. The research questions were formulated as follows: 1. What are the attitudes of students and teachers towards liberal-democratic values? 2. How do the teacher’s age, school work length, and school type correlate with liberal-democratic values? 3. How do students' gender, favorite subject, the type of school correlate with liberal-democratic values? According to the questions, the hypotheses are 1. Students are more supportive of liberal-democratic values than teachers; 2. In the case of liberal and democratic teachers’ positions, statistically significant differences are expected to reveal according to age, subject, and working experience; 3. In the case of liberal and democratic positions of students, a statistically significant difference is expected to be revealed according to gender and type of school variables.

This paper uses a quantitative research method—a survey. The present piece is one of the first attempts to study liberal-democratic values in Georgia’s schools empirically. Also, it offers an original questionnaire for teacher and student surveys, which presents both the provisions used in cross-national surveys and those created in the present survey process. It will allow researchers interested in the issue to use this research tool in other countries and, if necessary, make it more valid. Finally, one of the main focuses of this study is to explain the differences in the positions of students and teachers depending on gender, age, school type, and the subject of study. Therefore, the paper’s findings can be used to develop new research questions and tools.

The paper is divided into four parts. Initially, the academic literature is reviewed. Then, the research methodology is described. The third part presents and explains the results of the research. And finally, a conclusion is made.

Theoretical background

The existing academic literature on this issue is very diverse. Firstly, we will review the relationship between political values and general education, then the problems of school political socialization and its actors. Finally, we will focus specifically on studying liberal-democratic values by school agents, focusing on the students and teachers.

Firstly, it would be said there is extensive research on the relationship between political knowledge, values, activism, and education (Verba et al., 2005; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). According to the civic education theory, the higher a person’s level of education, the more deeply they understand political processes and the stronger their civic activism. In the school system, students’ interest in politics and civic duties are several research topics (Kudrnáč, 2015, pp. 612–613). Indeed, school plays a significant role in developing political knowledge, civic skills, and competencies (Almond & Verba, 1963; Palonsky, 1987). Many empirical studies link young people’s political views to their general education (DelliCaprini & Keeter, 1996; Hyman & Wright, 1975; Nie et al., 1996). However, after controlling the education variable, some authors focus on the apparent nature and weak links of its effect (Luskin, 1990; Smith, 1989). However, here the normative question arises: who has the right to formulate political values in the school?

Christopher Eisgruber discusses this issue in the context of the state’s role. According to the first view, the state has no right to make teaching ideological. In contrast, according to the opposite view, the state has declared values, and education should be based on these values and disseminate them (Eisgruber, 2002, pp. 58–59). Despite the academic debate, it is clear that a state school system implies a process of political socialization from the very beginning. In this regard, it becomes essential to study how the state uses (or can use) general education as a tool for stability and civic education.

Thus, it is necessary to review the existing academic literature on the essence of political socialization, its importance, and actors in general education when discussing the issue. Political socialization is how individuals relate to the political system through attitudes and values. According to Hayman (1959), the author of the term “political socialization,” this concept is a vital element of social structure. Part of the authors shares Laswell’s (1948) psychological explanation of the process in early childhood. This process is analyzed at generational (Langton, 1969) and individual levels (Sears, 1975).

Moreover, it provides stability and promotes political behavior reproduction (Steintrager, 1968, p. 116). Furthermore, it turns out that the reproduction of political values allows those in power to plan the process purposefully to create the desired citizen, which may be anti-liberal and anti-democratic. Nevertheless, it is believed that in political socialization approaches, individual exceptions in society are mostly leveled, and the focus is on the study of the mass’s political behavior.

In turn, in theories of political socialization, democracy is perceived differently. According to the institutional support theory, the condition for the existence of democracy is an agreement on the political game’s rules. Thus, citizens who believe in these rules also support the political system (Searing, 1986, p.348). The allocation theory focuses on studying how values are distributed among the various actors of democracy. According to the logic of the system-maintenance theory, the main result of socialization is the stability of the existing political system (Easton, 1968). Despite the differences, these theories are based on a “top-down” understanding, and the role of the individual is leveled.

A multidisciplinary approach favors studying education, politics, and sociology. In contrast, ecological theory examines the issue in a complex way and considers the citizen (student) as the agent of the process. Thus, the citizen is not only a passive recipient but is also one of the actors of socialization (Amna et al., 2009; Spellings et al., 2012).

The main actors in students’ political socialization, the teacher’s role, classroom and school climate, peer groups, and the curriculum are noteworthy (Sullivan et al., 1975). However, sometimes fewer formal aspects of the school environment can also be influential (Reisman, 1952). According to some authors, it is noteworthy that the school has the most significant influence from 6th to 9th grade (Bailey, 1976; Lambert & Klineberg, 1967). This process’s most prominent school actors are teachers, peers, and the national curriculum. The influence of teachers is reflected in their transfer of knowledge about citizenship to students. Also, young people are forming certain political positions when discussing important social and political issues (Kudrnáč, 2015; Verba et al., 1995).

Different authors present the role of a given actor differently. Jennings and Ehman (1976) point out that the similarities between students and teachers are more about specific issues than general ones. According to a study by Hess and Torney-Purta (2005), elementary school teachers have the most significant influence on introducing sound citizenship principles. Sampermans and Claes (2018) conclude that positive connections exist between student–teacher relationships and equality attitudes. Nevertheless, it is still unclear how a teacher’s possible impact can be measured without determining their political positions. Peer groups are also considered to be important actors. Several critical studies have been conducted around the issue (Ide et al., 1981; Newcomb, 1961), focusing on students' academic achievement and learning activities (Kindermann, 1993; Kindermann et al., 1996; Ryan, 2000). Research on political values suggests that relationships with peers promote political participation (Quintelier et al., 2012, pp. 877–878). However, neither of these peer groups is necessarily related to school in this study, so using a more specific “peer-to-peer” term is essential. As a rule, the relations of students during puberty are more horizontal, and they participate in the process of mutual formation of political values (Kudrnáč, 2015). Thus, in this study, we focus on the survey of students and teachers to establish existing positions on liberal-democratic values.

Different authors interpret the concept of liberal democracy differently. Some consider it procedurally (Dahl, 1971; Lipset, 1963; Schumpeter, 1950), while others focus on the values that underlie this political system (Lipset, 1994). These include tolerance (Duch & Gibson, 1992) and the rule of law (Dixon, 2008). One of the means of measuring liberal-democratic values is the V-Dem database, which combines up to 200 indicators from up to 400 academic and expert cross-national surveys (Coppedge et al., 2016, p. 581). It should be noted that the tool is considered adequate for determining countries' correlation and dynamics. However, it is less relevant to the objectives of this study, as the indicators are based on government actions and general socio-economic parameters. Another well-known measure is Freedom House’s annual reports, which assess political rights and civil liberties. The organization divides the states into three types (non-free, partial, and completely free) of 0–8 points. This tool includes indicators such as the electoral process, political pluralism, participation, the functioning of government, freedom of belief, expression, assembly, the rule of law, and personal autonomy. However, the results are mostly obtained through expert surveys that compare countries.

While it does not fit the purpose of the study, the tool separates electoral and liberal democracies. The state may be an electoral, albeit illiberal, democracy. For the author of the term, this is strong popular support for illiberal ideas (Zakaria, 1997), including opposition to the principles of separation of powers, minority rights, tolerance, and secularism (Bell, Brown, & Jayasurya, 1995; Rupnik, 2016). Thus, while measuring liberal democracy, we shouldn’t neglect the notion of illiberal democracy. A hybrid regime between authoritarianism and consolidated democracy (Kapidžić, 2020, p. 2). Based on the reviewed literature and the political context of Georgia, we think we can use illiberal-democratic values as the opposite of liberal-democratic values.

In the Table 1, we have reconciled and contrasted the values of liberal and illiberal democracy listed by different authors.

Table 1.

I(liberal)-democratic values and major differences.

Values of Liberal Democracy	Values of Illiberal Democracy	Major differences: Examples
Separation of powers	Attempts to evade constitutional restrictions	Independence of the judiciary
Supporting civil and political rights	Periodic discrimination against minorities and foreigners	The right to govern a country
Minority rights	Majority rights	Consideration of majority/minority rights
Tolerance	Criticism of the idea of tolerance	The problem of cohabitation with immigrants
Secularization	Weakening of secularism	Relations between state and dominant church
Support for freedom of speech and expression	Attempt to restrict free and critical media; focus on sustainable economic growth	Closing critical media; good income instead of loyalty to the government
Representation and accountability	Government experience	Knowledge of the best decisions for the citizen
The coexistence of liberal and national concepts	The conflict between the concepts of national and liberal	The relationship between national and liberal
The right to revolt against tyranny	Special obedience to state authorities	Protest against unfair elections

Source: Dahl, 1971; Hadenius, 1992; Duch & Gibson, 1992; Bollen, 1993; Foweraker & Krznaric, 2000; Dixon, 2008; Rupnik, 2016; Pogatsa, 2017; Polyakova etal., 2019

This paper is based on the social interaction approach, one of the ecological theories of political socialization approaches. Students in the school system are both agents and recipients of the process (Habashi, 2017; McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002). This approach makes it possible to measure teachers' and students' potential interactions after identifying their positions (Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Although there is quite no research on the positions of school members directly towards liberal-democratic values, it is still possible to consider roughly similar examples. Ehman (1980) researched the topic of political socialization at two levels (classroom and school). The first level includes the variables such as teacher, learning materials, and classroom environment (degree of openness and freedom of discussion); and, the school level refers to the involvement of students (both in the organized, extracurricular, and managerial processes of the school), the size of the school and the financial indicators. The author singles out the following dependent variables: political knowledge, attitudes towards society, political process, and participation in political processes (Ehman, 1980, pp. 99–101). This study is noteworthy for several reasons. First, the author measured political socialization as components of knowledge, habits, attitudes, and practices. Also, it is crucial to measure the variables at two levels. However, studying the classroom environment requires long-term observation, which is a significant obstacle since teachers and students are more likely to change behavior due to the effect of the observer. Secondly, observing only one or two classes makes it difficult to focus on such differences as school location, size, type, etc. Another study of the principles of democracy in the school community (Feu et al., 2017) studies the issue according to four competencies: Democracy governance (school institutions and forms of participation), life form (socialization process), diversity (creating a multicultural and diverse society), and character (values).

The academic literature lacks explanatory variables and approaches to supporting or rejecting liberal-democratic values, focusing on pupils’ and teachers’ positions. However, some findings can be relevant for this article. Based on the empirical civic education analysis, one of the findings is that private schools are more liberal than public ones. The same can be said while determining the positions of school society members, including teachers and students (Campbell, 2008). Also, research dealing with liberality in adolescence indicates girls are more liberal than boys in their perceptions, including gender-role divisions (Alpert & Breen, 1989). A similar trend is outlined in the classic work of Parker and Parker (1979), who claim that boys are more aggressive and less forgiving than girls.

Even though determining and studying liberal-democratic values in Georgia is quite a new phenomenon, it is still possible to highlight two findings. Firstly, analyzing data from public opinion polls, Shubladze and Khoshtaria (2020) assume that support for democracy is not necessarily related to liberal values, like respecting minority rights or accepting the vision of gender equality. Secondly, Dundua and Tabatadze’s (2020) research concludes that the national curriculum and school textbooks vividly consist of principles and concepts of liberal democracy. However, unlike the term “democracy,” the concept of liberal or liberalism cannot be found in policy documents or school textbooks. These results show that supporting democracy and its principles can’t per se translate into accepting liberal values in the Georgian context.

Most Georgian scholars focus on multiculturalism, intercultural content, competence, and sensitivity. Results from the Georgian context show that pupils' positions toward cultural minorities are primarily negative, and the intercultural competencies of girls are relatively higher than boys (Malazonia et al., 2017). Moreover, interestingly, the education level is positively correlated to the level of a teacher’s intercultural sensitivity. However, most teachers are in the phase of ethnocentrism (Tabatadze & Gorgadze, 2014), who mostly use not a transformative, but a passive action approach, so diversity in the classroom is often rejected (Tabatadze, 2015; Tabatadze & Gorgadze, 2013). Also, examining teacher education programs in Georgia, Tabatadze and Gorgadze (2017) conclude that some programs are transformative while others reject ones. At the same time, school textbooks in Georgia tend to develop mostly negative attitudes towards cultural minorities, facilitate stereotypes, and lack multicultural content (Malazonia et al., 2017; Tabatadze et al., 2020). Also, according to the cross-national results of the WVS, the 2000s generation has a higher level of support for liberal ideas than their parents or grandparents.

A review of the academic literature has shown various surveys of students and teachers on political values. However, they do not focus specifically on liberal-democratic values. Moreover, there is less focus on school type (private/public), Gender, Teacher’s age, and student’s favorite subject. Thus, we think that the given/present paper could enrich the academic literature by studying liberal-democratic values (and thus by establishing an effective tool for measuring them). Furthermore, adding individual-level variables to school-level variables (school size, finances, etc.).

Research methods

For this study, we consider it necessary to establish positions toward liberal-democratic values of the main actors in the school learning process—teachers and pupils. For this, we used a quantitative research survey and a self-administered questionnaire. This method helped us, on the one hand, to compare the positions of teachers, and pupils and, on the other hand, to determine the level of their support for liberal-democratic values.

Comprehensively, we need to study individual and school levels of research and determine the relationship between different quantitative characteristics. Thus, our study is presented as independent variables: school type (private/public); class (11th and 12th); pupil/teachers' gender, age; pupils’ favorite subject; teacher’s working experience in school and the subjects they teach. These variables allow us to explain statistically significant differences between students and teachers' results through various demographic and socio-economic factors. At the same time, several problems arise when defining dependent variables. Firstly, the questionnaire must have the validity of the construct and, at the same time, could be able to measure the liberal-democratic values. Secondly, it should be as simple and understandable for students and teachers. The study identified four main dependent variables based on these principles: 1. Political regime support; 2. Democracy assessment; 3. Index of liberal and democratic values; 4. The evaluation of socialization and democracy.

The World and European Value Surveys measure the respondents’ positions on Democracy-Autocracy Preference (DAP) and Democratic Performance Evolution (DPE). The validity of both is supported by cross-national research, and it is possible to determine the respondents’ attitudes toward democracy (Ariel & Davidov, 2011; Nagorniak, 2016; Welzel & Inglehart, 2005). However, measuring liberal and democratic values remains problematic. Firstly, can we focus on the state-declared policy? Also, provisions should be sufficiently normative to identify respondents’ positions on universal liberal-democratic values. Thirdly, what should be the opposite sign of liberal-democratic values on the scale? As we already described in Table 1, the important differences between liberal and illiberal democracies, ten statements are proposed that are built as an index of liberal-democratic values. While two more statements are added, dealing with assessing the democratic performance of Georgia and examining general integration into Georgian society (see the questionnaire below: Appendix N1).

Due to the complexity of the study, the selection was carried out at several levels. Initially, the capital—Tbilisi, where 45% of the country’s population lives (General Population Census Results, 2014), was targeted. Then, we used stratified selection for both types of school representation (private and public). As a result, we randomly selected schools (cluster selection based on the six districts of Tbilisi) from private and public schools separately. After selecting all schools, we purposefully selected 11th and 12th grader students, as these are the last classes in the upper secondary school in Georgia. Random sampling was done at the school level, both in the case of teachers and students. For a better understanding, see Appendix N2.

To find possible connections between the variables and determine the explanations. In this regard, the variables in the survey can be represented in three main parts. First, these are school-level variables (number of students in a school, location, type, price/type of school). Second, variables related to teachers and students (including teacher gender, age, work experience, the subject matter; student gender, age, and favorite subject). The third category type includes dependent variables: autocracy-democracy scale, democracy assessment scale, liberal-democratic values scale, socialization, and democracy assessment of the country.

The research has some limitations. First, it only covers schools from Tbilisi; therefore, teachers’ and students’ positions from regions of Georgia are not outlined. Secondly, because of the comprehensive survey, the article does not cover curriculum, class, and school climate issues or even determine students’ and teachers’ SES (socio-economic status). Hence, we cannot control correlations using these variables. Research ethics and its principles are fully protected: confidentiality and privacy, intellectual property, and the right to dignity are respected, and no conflicts of interest are declared Also, all respondents were aware of being part of the survey by having verbal informed consent. The survey was conducted in January–May, 2020.

Research results and discussion

Firstly, we discuss results from DAP and DPE scales. Both are part of the world values survey (WVS), and cross-national surveys support their validity. According to some scholars (Welzel & Inglehart, 2005; Ariely & Davidov, 2011), it is possible to define democratic (though not liberal-democratic) values through these eight four-point statements.

DAP scale

On this scale, students rated four statements on different types of government. Figure 1 shows students view unlimited strong leaders and military governments as essentially bad ones; the more neutral positions are outlined with the rule of experts, while representative democracy is aggregately rated as “good.”

Figure 1.

School students’ respondes on DAP scale.

We grouped these data according to different independent variables and examined for possible statistically significant differences. Results from an independent T-test show that on the DAP scale school type, statistically significant differences are outlined in three statements:

• Support for army rule, among private (M = 1.89, SE = 0.068) and public (M = 2.08, SE = 0.063) pupils. t (295) = −2.011, p < 0.05;

• Support for strong unlimited leaders, among private (M = 1.49, SE = 0.054) and public school (M = 1.68, SE = 0.058) pupils. t (295) = −2.339, p < 0.05

• Instead of an elected government, to support the governance of field specialists among private (M = 2.73, SE = 0.063) and public pupils’ (M = 2.53, SE = 0.07). t (295) = 2.138, p < 0.05

Interestingly, public school students assess the general rule of the military and strong leaders more positively than private school students, who mostly welcome the decisions made by experts in the field. The result demonstrates that public school students view autocratic governments negatively, and their responses are less radical. As for the sex of the students, the T independent test showed that the statistically significant difference in the given variable among the students is revealed only in support of unlimited strong leader girls (M = 1.46, SE = 0.048) and boys (M = 1.7, SE = 0.063) between t (295) = −3.082, p = 0.002. It seems that girls value autocratic tendencies more negatively than boys although it is difficult to say the same in representative democracy. By combining the results of both variables, we see that private school girls most negatively assess the rule of the unrestricted leader. Besides, we examined possible statistically significant differences between the student’s favorite subject and their answers on this scale. Analysis of Variances (so-called ANOVA) shows that on the idea of supporting democracy difference is outlined between students’ favorite subjects: social sciences (M = 3.16, SE = 0.1) and “the Georgian language and literature” (M = 2.68, SE = 0.151) F (9; 287) = 1.947, p < 0.05. Consequently, students whose favorite subjects are civic education, geography, and history are most likely to support representative democracy. The teacher survey results on the DAP scale did not reveal statistically significant differences by school type, teacher gender, or subject. Nevertheless, we compared the differences between teachers and students by school type (see Figure 2). Reviewed academic literature (Alpert & Breen, 1989; Campbell, 2008; Parker & Parker, 1979) suggests that generally, girls are more liberal than boys, and it somehow appears from the results of the DAP scale. Nevertheless, we compared the differences between teachers and students by school type (see Figure 2). Interestingly, the trends are similar, although teachers are more pessimistic about autocratic governments and more supportive of representative democracies, which may be explained by the vast majority who have experienced living in the Soviet Union. However, differences between private/public school students remain unexplained. Interestingly, students whose favorite subject is social sciences are much more likely to support democracy which can be explained by the aims and content of the social sciences that declare to spread and instill democratic principles and values. At the same time, another explanation can be made that those who favor democracy for other reasons (e.g., family values, socio-cultural environment, etc.) also favor social sciences. It can be explained by the social sciences curriculum that indicates why liberal-democratic values can be better than others.

Figure 2.

Responses from teachers and students on DAP scale.

DPE scale

On DPE, students rated four different statements dealing with democracy. Results show that most students agree with statements that criticize the functioning system of democracy. However, the perception of democracy as the best government has the highest support (M = 3.22). Results suggest that despite the respondent acknowledging democratic governance as the best form, they do not deny its various shortcomings (see Figure 3)

Figure 3.

Responses from students on DPE scale.

On the DAP scale, a statistically significant difference between private (M = 2.06, SE = 0.063) and public (M = 2.25, SE = 0.07) school students can be observed in only one case: the poor performance of the economy in a democracy. The findings seem interesting as students from private schools are seen to be from higher SES families. Also, ANOVA shows, there is a statistically significant difference between students’ favorite subjects: “Georgian language and literature” (M = 2.5, SE = 0.121) and “Natural sciences” (M = 1.98, SE = 1.98). So, students whose favorite subjects are physics, chemistry, and biology, unlike native language and literature, are least likely to believe that economics works poorly in democracies. The situation may explain that nowadays, professions linked to school subjects like physics, chemistry, and biology are relatively high-paying. Statistically significant differences are not outlined on the DAP scale in the case of teachers. However, by comparing students, we present the results from private and public school teachers who value democracy more positively than students (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Reponses from teachers and students on DPE scale.

The Lib-dem scale

Although DAP and DPE scales are used cross-nationally, they cannot measure liberal-democratic values. Thus, based on the synthesis of different frameworks, we proposed a new scale (called the “Lib-Dem scale”) consisting of ten statements on a scale of 0–8. To avoid giving only one answer from the respondents when filling out the self-administered survey, we inverted the content of some of the questions. Some of the provisions align with liberal-democratic values, while others are contrary. To represent the provisions given on this scale as a single variable, to ensure internal consistency, we measured Cronbach’s alpha, which is +0.895 for students and +0.926 for teachers. These show that the provisions are well agreed.

On the Lib-dem scale, students aggregated results are shown in Figure 5. The least supported statement is/statements: “Even a less educated citizen knows better what is better for him/her than an experienced politician” and the statement on the compatibility of Georgian and liberal values. It must be said that the first one is the classic thesis of liberal democracy but somehow may be opposed to the modern understanding of representative democracy. The second statement echoes the illiberal-democratic political position that “liberal” and “national” contradict each other. As both statements are linked to the pure understanding of liberal democracy, it can be a reason why these are the least supported ideas.

Figure 5.

Responses from students on Lib-Dem scale.

The most supported statement is related to having a foreign neighbor, which is less problematic for most surveyed students. It may be explained by the fact that Georgia and especially Tbilisi’s research fields are/Tbilisi is historically multinational, and it is not uncommon to have a foreign neighbor. Moreover, the statement about the court’s admissibility of an anti-government decision is strongly supported by students. It may be explained by the students’ scarce connection to the issue and their possible support for the idea of separation of powers. On the Lib-Dem scale, statistically significant differences are outlined by the sex of the students and the type of school. In the first case, girls demonstrate more liberal-democratic values than boys. It can be explained by discussing theories that boys tend to be more aggressive and authoritarian while girls are more tolerant and cooperative (Parker & Parker, 1979; Alpert & Breen, 1989). An independent T-test shows that statistically significant differences are outlined on only six statements:

• In comparison of good income and freedom of speech among girls (M = 6.35, SE = 0.139) and boys (M = 5.64, SE = 0.157). t (297) = 3.385, p < 0.05

• Having the right to become the ruler of the country regardless of religious or ethnic origins among girls (M = 5.97, SE = 0.173) and boys (M = 5.3, SE = 0.196). t (297) = 2.539, p < 0.05

• The presence of a foreign neighbor is revealed between girls (M = 6.97, SE = 0.134) and boys (M = 6.48, SE = 0.153). t (297) = 2.421, p < 0.05

• The closure of a newspaper or television in the interests of the state between girls (M = 6.25, SE = 0.155) and boys (M = 5.73, SE = 0.183). t (297) = 2.174, p < 0.05

• Anti-government rulings by the court between girls (M = 6.47, SE = 0.144) and boys (M = 6. SE = 0.173). t (297) = 2.117, p < 0.05

• Church-state interaction between girls (M = 5.87, SE = 0.1731) and boys (M = 5.33 SE = 0.192). t (297) = 2.094, p < 0.05. For a better understanding, see Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Responses from students on Lib-Dem scale (by gender).

Statements with no statistically significant difference are, at the same time, relatively less supported among students in this survey. Interestingly, private school students share liberal-democratic stances from the first to eighth statements. In contrast, public school students do the same on the 9th (the idea of who knows better about people’s demands: less-educated citizens or politicians) and 10th (compatibility between concepts of liberal and Georgian) provisions. According to the aggregative data, these two statements have minor support among all students. Moreover, an independent T-test shows that statistically significant differences are found in the surveyed students on four statements, see Figure 7.

Figure 7.

Responses from students on Lib-Dem scale (by type of school).

As we can see, unlike their peers from public schools, private school students support the right to revolt, the idea of secularism, and find it less unpleasant to have a foreign neighbor. Two main factors may explain these results. First, private school students seem to be more supportive of diversity, as their schools are multiethnic. Also, SES is essential, which may be associated with sharply anti-autocratic and highly secular ideas. However, it seems public school students see themselves in the role of the citizen rather than experienced politicians. In contrast, peers from private schools have a primarily neutral approach to this statement. Results echo the work of Campbell (2008), which claims private schools share more liberal values than public ones. However, the significant reasons and rationales for it should be studied in detail: why and how it happens. We also examined the territorial factor (by comparing students studying in Tbilisi’s central and peripheral districts), but it did not make a statistically significant difference. Also, the curriculum should be taken into account.

Interestingly, an independent T-test conducted on all statements of the Lib-Dem Scale shows that the type of school has not demonstrated any statistically significant differences. In contrast, a similar difference is observed between girls (M = 60.24, SE = 1.035) and boys (M = 55.66, SE = 1.253), which means that the student’s gender is a predictor of support for these values.

After analyzing each scale’s results independently, it is important to consider the possible relationships between these variables. Logically, as the rule of government elected by the people, r = 0.175, [0.090; 0.257], p < 0.05, as well as statement that about democracy as the best political regime, r = 0.338, [0.249; 0.423], p < 0.05 positively correlates with support for liberal-democratic values. Also, we examined the relationship between these variables and found that the more students favor the rule of an unlimited strong leader, the fewer responses they have to liberal-democratic values r = −0.173, [−0.088; −0.259], p < 0.05. Such a weak, negative, but statistically significant connection suggests that liberal-democratic values are the opposite of the rule of an unlimited strong leader. The same trend can be observed with statements on army rule, r = −0.278, [−0.358; −0.191], p < 0.05. Therefore, we can assume that the Lib-Dem index can be a relevant tool for assessing liberal and democratic positions.

Examining results from teachers, there can be some interesting findings with the statements on: secularism between private (M = 6.18, SE = 0.228) and public (M = 5.24, SE = 0.25) schools, T (120) = 2.788, p < 0.05; issue of freedom of speech between private (M = 6.84, SE = 0.185) and public (M = 6.33, SE = 0.229) schools, T (120) = 1.673, p < 0.05; the right to revolt between private (M = 6.42, SE = 0.202) and public (M = 5.66, SE = 0.244), T (120) = 2.338, p < 0.05; compatibility between Georgian and Liberal between private (M = 6.25, SE = 0.228) and public (M = 5.52, SE = 0.218) T (120) = 2.245, p < 0.05.

Interestingly, statistically significant differences are shown in both students and teachers, with only two statements (about secularism and the right to revolt). As it turns out, private school teachers and students are highly supportive of the right to rebellion against tyranny and support the non-interference of the church in state affairs and vice versa, which can be explained by a similar school climate (Ehman, 1980) and approach of student-teacher relationships (Sampermans & Claes, 2018).

Results show that teachers demonstrate more liberal-democratic positions than school students. So, how can we explain the results in Georgia? Firstly, many teachers may reveal mainstream political and cultural trends linked to supporting liberal and democratic framework in Georgia, mainly from the 2003 Rose Revolution. Secondly, there may be an increasing skepticism on democracy and its features among pupils born in independent (after 1991) Georgia. However, the overall score of students' Lib-Dem index is 65 (out of 80), which is relatively high. Also, in this index, some statements (e.g., having a foreign neighbor is not problematic) statistically have more significant support than others. Such results need to be explained in more contextual factors, for instance, the experience of the diverse and multicultural living experience, especially in Tbilisi. Interestingly, in both target groups, a similar trend can be observed: those who consider Georgia more democratic are less supportive of liberal-democratic statements, believe that “Georgian” and “Liberal” cannot fit perfectly together, and vice versa. Therefore, we can assume that discourses of liberal and democratic exist in different patterns and forms in Georgian reality.

Socialization/democracy assessment

At the end of the questionnaire, two statements are presented: a sense of pride in being a member of Georgian society (to determine the possible degree of socialization) and an assessment of the level of democracy in the country (the possible connection between the form of government and the perception of the country’s political system). Independent T-test shows that there is no statistically significant difference between the students of private (M = 5.9, SE = 0.172) and public (M = 5.64, SE = 0.197) school students, p = 0.315, in contrast to the gender, between girls (M = 5.5, SE = 0.176) and boys (M = 6.07, SE = 0.19), T (295) = −2.196, p < 0.05. Thus, the surveyed student boys are much more proud of being members of Georgian society than the girls. However, at the same time, they are less supportive of liberal-democratic values than girls. As for the assessment of democracy in Georgia, according to the independent T-test, there is no statistically significant difference between either private (M = 4.03, SE = 0.137) and public (M = 3.77, SE = 0.154) school students, p = 0.222 and neither between girls (M = 3.81, SE = 0.14) and boys (M = 4.01, SE = 0.154), p = 0.824. After analyzing students' responses, it is noteworthy that a weak positive relationship is outlined between statements proud of being a member of Georgian society and assessing Georgia as a democratic state, r = 0.173, [0.058; 0.290] p < 0.05. At the same time, students with higher Lib-Dem index are less democratically assessing Georgia, r = −0.159, [−0.271; −0.042], p < 0.05.

Interestingly, in the case of teachers, there is a statistically significant difference between both of these statements: the pride of being Georgian community member among private (M = 5.93, SE = 0.298) and public (M = 6.67 SE = 0.223) schools, T (120) = −2.036, p < 0.05 and on the democratic assessment of the country: among private (M = 3.38, SE = 0.284) and public (M = 4.51, SE = 0.241) school teachers, T (120) = −3.044, p < 0.05. Thus, one interesting trend is clear: public school teachers are proud of their Georgian society and consider it more democratic. At the same time, they have less liberal-democratic responses and agree that “Georgian” and “Liberal” are incompatible (see Figure 8). These differences may be explained by respondents who support liberal-democratic values and are highly skeptical of Georgian society and its democracy, which shows less connection to the existing socio-political system. Conversely, teachers (mostly from public schools) who are less supportive of liberal-democratic ideas are proud of their membership in the society and consider Georgia more democratic, probably because of public school teachers on a higher-level feel like part of the state. In the Georgian reality, one of the main differences between private and public school teachers may be their involvement in a state-established teacher professional development scheme. Hence, our study shows that private school teachers are freer from state regulations and less tied to them. Public school teachers, who receive salaries from the state budget, see Georgia as more democratic, are more proud of being members of Georgian society and at the same time are less supportive of liberal-democratic statements. In contrast, private school teachers share more secular and pro-freedom statements.

Figure 8.

Responses from teachers on Georgian-Liberal concepts and ideas.

Conclusions

The article aims to determine the positions of students and teachers of the Georgian upper secondary school regarding liberal-democratic values. Despite not being generalizable, the survey results reflect several important trends and leave room for a more detailed study of the issue.

Firstly, the first hypothesis is rejected, as the results from the aggregate-level analysis show that teachers demonstrate more liberal-democratic positions than school students. Interestingly, various studies (Tabatadze & Gorgadze, 2014; Tabatadze, 2015; Malazonia et al., 2017 etc.) show that intercultural and multicultural competencies are low in both students and teachers in Georgia. Moreover, according to the WVS, the 2000s generation has more support for liberal ideas than their parents or grandparents. However, results suggest pupils’ support for certain statements is quite high.

Furthermore, the second hypothesis is rejected as the t-test did not show statistically significant differences between age, working experience, school subject, and teachers’ liberal-democratic positions. Therefore, in the case of both beginner and experienced teachers, attitudes towards liberal and democratic values do not change substantially.

In addition, the third hypothesis is approved, as in the case of students, a statistically significant difference is found between gender, type of school, and liberal-democratic positions. Indeed, gender is somewhat correlated with these positions. In particular, girls, compared to boys, are more opposed to authoritarian governments and more supportive of liberal positions: such as minority rights, a clear division of power, and a division of power. These results respond to international (Parker & Parker, 1979; Alpert & Breen, 1989) and local studies (Malazonia et al., 2017), which show that girls are more sensitive to minorities and less supportive of anti-democratic governments.

To sum up, this quantitative study is based on tested DAP and DPE scales on the one hand and the original questionnaire on the other. The article promotes the study of liberal-democratic and, generally, determining political positions among teachers and students that can enrich the sub-disciplines of political socialization and education studies. Moreover, new research questions have arisen: Are gender and school type predictors of liberal-democratic values? If so, why? How different are the positions of teachers and students on liberal-democratic values? Why? Does it connect to the generation gap? Can a similar trend be observed in Eastern Europe or/and in post-Soviet countries? Last but not least, the paper leaves room for a better understanding of supporting the liberal and democratic values among school society members.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Liberal‐democratic Values and Secondary School: The Case of Georgia

Supplemental Material for Liberal‐democratic Values and Secondary School: The Case of Georgia by Sandro Tabatadze, Salome Dundua, and Ketevan Chkuaseli in Journal of Eurasian Studies

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Sandro Tabatadze

Salome Dundua

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Sandro Tabatadze is PhDc in political science at Tbilisi State University MA in education sciences. Currently,he is the head of the office of research and development at the faculty of social and political sciences. He is the author/co-author of articles/conference papers dealing with education policy and administration,knowledge commercialization,far-right and Euroscepticism,and social movements. His current research project is about education policy transfer and general education policy.

Salome Dundua is Ph.D. in political science,associate professor at Tbilisi State University. She is the vice dean of the faculty of social and political sciences. Salome Dundua is the author/co-author of articles and conference papers dealing with education policy and administration,knowledge commercialization,social movements,ethnic minorities,and nationalism. Her current research projects are about political education and urban social movements.

Ketevan Chkuaseli is Ph.D. in pedagogical science professor at Tbilisi State University. She is the head of BA,MA,and Ph.D. programs in primary school teacher education,teacher education,education sciences,and others. She is the author/co-author of articles/conference papers related to education policy,social functions of pedagogy,teaching and learning evaluation,Etc. Her current research projects are about the didactics of education policy.

References

Almond

G. A.

Verba

(1963). The civic culture. Princeton University Press.

Alpert

Breen

D. T.

(1989). “Liberality” in children and adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(89)90011-0

Amna

Ekstrom

Kerr

Stattin

(2009). Political socialization and human agency. The development of civic engagement from adolescence to adulthood. StatsvetenskapligTidskrift, 111(1), 27-30. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:231686/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

Ariel

Davidov

. (2011). Can we rate public support for democracy in a comparative way? Cross-national equivalence of democratic attitudes in the world value survey. Social Indicators Research, 104(2), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9693-5

Bailey

K. D.

(1976). Continuity and change in children’s attitudes toward the president: Political crisis to the political celebration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia, November 4-6, 1976, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED132109

Bell

D. A.

Brown

Jayasuriya

Jones

D. M.

(1995). Towards illiberal democracy in Pacific Asia (163–167). Macmillan Press; St. Martin's Press.

Bollen

(1993). Liberal democracy: Validity and method factors in cross-national measures. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1207–1230. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111550

Campbell

D. E.

(2008). The civic side of school choice: An empirical analysis of civic Education in Public and private schools. BYU Law Review, 2008(2), 487-523. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/byulr2008&div=25&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals.

Chankseliani

(2014). Georgia: Marketization and education post-1991. In Ivanenko

(Ed.), Education in Eastern Europe and Eurasia (pp. 277–302). Bloomsbury Publishing.

10.

Chkuaseli

Kitiashvili

Sanadze

(2013). About legislative basis of secondary school education in Georgia. Education Sciences and Psychology, 2(24 eISSN:1512-1801), 97-110. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21089443.

11.

Coppedge

Lindberg

Skaaning

S.-E.

&Teorell

(2016). Measuring high-level democratic principles using the V-Dem data. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 580–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115622046

12.

Dahl

R. A.

(1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.

13.

DelliCaprini

M. X.

Keeter

(1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.

14.

Democracy Index , (2019, December, 15). https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

15.

Dixon

J. C.

(2008). A clash of civilizations? Examining liberal-democratic values in Turkey and the European Union1. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(4), 681–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2008.00215.x

16.

Duch

R. M.

Gibson

J. L.

(1992). Putting up with” fascists in Western Europe: A comparative, cross-level analysis of political tolerance. The Western Political Quarterly, 45(1), 237–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299204500116

17.

Dundua

Tabatadze

(2020). Liberal-demoratic values in the national curriculum of general education of Georgia. International scientific conference: Space, society, politics. https://dspace.tsu.ge/xmlui/handle/123456789/1096

18.

Easton

(1968). The theoretical relevance of political socialization. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 1(2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299204500116

19.

Ehman

L. H.

(1980). The American school in the political socialization process. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170032

20.

Eisgruber

C. L.

(2002). How do liberal democracies teach values? Nomos, 43, 58-86. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24219995?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents.

21.

Feldman

Newcomb

(1969). The impact of college on students. Jossey.

22.

Feu

Serra

Canimas

Làzaro

Simó-Gil

(2017). Democracy and education: A theoretical proposal for the analysis of democratic practices in schools. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 36(6), 647–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9570-7

23.

Foweraker

Krznaric

(2000). Measuring liberal democratic performance: An empirical and conceptual critique. Political Studies, 48(4), 759–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00282

24.

Freedom House . (2019). Georgia. https://freedomhouse.org/country/georgia/freedom-net/2019

25.

General Population Census Results (2014). The demographical distribution of the population and integral migration. http://census.ge/en/results/census1/test

26.

Geostat (2021). Georgia. https://www.geostat.ge/en

27.

Government of Georgia . (2004). Sakartvelos mtavrobis dadgenileba zogadi ganatlebis erovnuli miznebis damtkitsebis shesakheb [Resolution No. 84 on National Goals of General Education]Tbilisi. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/11098?publication=0

28.

Habashi

(2017). Reconceptualizing youth political socialization: A theoretical framework. Political socialization of youth. In Political socialization of youth (pp. 17–35). Palgrave Macmillan.

29.

Hadenius

(1992). Democracy and development. Cambridge University Press.

30.

Hayman

(1959). Political socialization. A study in the psychology of political behaviour. Glencoe: The Free Press.

31.

Hess

R. D.

Torney-Purta

J. V.

(2005). The development of political attitudes in children. Transaction Publishers.

32.

Human Rights Watch . (2019). https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/georgia

33.

Hyman

H. H.

Wright

C. R.

(1975). The enduring effects of education. University of Chicago Press.

34.

Ide

J. K.

Parkerson

Haertel

G. D.

Walberg

H.J.

(1981). Peer group influence on educational outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.4.472

35.

Janashia

(2015). The voucher system in Georgia. In Zajda

(Ed), Globalisation, ideology, and politics of education reforms (pp. 107–118). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19506-3

36.

Jennings

M. K.

Ehman

L. H.

(1976). Political attitudes of parents and social studies teachers: Comparisons and linkages. Theory and Research in Social Education, 4(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1976.10505984

37.

Jones

S. F.

(2006). The Rose revolution: A revolution without revolutionaries? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570500501754

38.

Kakachia

Lebanidze

(2019, December 10). Georgia’s dangerous slide away from Democracy. https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/80542

39.

Kakhishvili

(2021). Towards a two-dimensional analytical framework for understanding Georgian foreign policy: How party competition informs foreign policy analysis. Post-Soviet Affairs, 37(2), 174–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2020.1869455

40.

Kapidžić

(2020). The rise of illiberal politics in Southeast Europe. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2020.1709701

41.

Kindermann

T. A

(1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of children’s motivation in school. Developmental psychology, 29(6), 970-977. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.6.970.

42.

Kindermann

T. A.

McCollam

Gibson

(1996). Peer networks and student’s classroom engagement during childhood and adolescence. In Juvonen

Wentzel

(Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 279–312). Cambridge University Press.

43.

Kobakhidze

M. N.

(2014). Corruption risks of private tutoring: Case of Georgia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(4), 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.963506

44.

Kobakhidze

M. N.

(2018). Teachers as tutors: Shadow education market dynamics in Georgia. Springer. © CERC

45.

Kudrnáč

(2015). Theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches in political socialization research. Sociológia-Slovak Sociological Review, 47(6), 605-624. https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.cejsh-bed0d7a7-4e17-4f2f-b3d2-08f23772f3d8/tab/summary.

46.

Lambert

W. E.

Klineberg

(1967). Children’s views of foreign peoples. AppletonCentury-Crofts.

47.

Langton

K. P.

(1969). Political socialization. Oxford University Press.

48.

Lasswell

H. D.

(1948). The structure of function of communication in society. Lasswell, H. D. (1948). In Bryson

(Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). Harper and Row.

49.

Lekashvili

(2019). Management on innovations in Georgian higher educational institutions: Key problems with teaching economic science. Marketing and Management of Innovations 1(1), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.1-23

50.

Lipset

S. M.

(1963). Political man: The social bases of politics, Anchor Books.

51.

Lipset

S.M.

(1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited. American Sociological Review, 59(1), 1–22.

52.

Luskin

R. C.

(1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992793

53.

Malazonia

Maglakelidze

Chiabrishvili

Gakheladze

(2017). Factors of students’ intercultural competence development in the context of Georgia, Cogent Education, 4(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1302867

54.

McDevitt

Chaffee

(2002). From top-down to trickle-up influence: Revisiting assumptions about the family in political socialization. Political Communication, 19(3), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01957470290055501

55.

Nagorniak

K. M.

(2016). Scales of democratic values: Measurement invariance in post-socialist societies. Український соціум, 1(56) https://ukr-socium.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/43-53__no-1__vol-56__2016__ENG.pdf

56.

Newcomb

T. M

(1961). The adolescent society. Free Press.

57.

Nie

N. H.

Junn

Stehlik-Barry

(1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. University of Chicago Press.

58.

Palonsky

S. B.

(1987). Political socialization in elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 87(5), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1086/461512

59.

Parker

(1979). The myth of male superiority: Rise and demise. American Anthropologist, 81(2). https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1979.81.2.02a0003

60.

Pascarella

E.T.

Terenzini

P.T (

1991). How colledge affects students: findings and insights from twenty years of research. (1st ed., Vol. 1). Jossey-Bass.

61.

Pogatsa

(2017, November, 20). The political economy of illiberal democracy. .https://www.socialeurope.eu/the-political-economy-of-illiberal-democracy

62.

Polyakova

Taussig

Reinet

Kirisci

Sloat

Kirchick

Hooper

Eisen

Kenealy

(2019, February, 2). The anatomy of illiberal states: Assessing and responding to democratic decline in Turkey and central Europe (report, 2019, February, 2). https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/illiberal-states-web.pdf

63.

Quintelier

Stolle

Harell

(2012). Politics in peer groups: Exploring the causal relationship between network diversity and political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 65(4), 868–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911411099

64.

Reisman

(1952). Faces in the crowd. Yale University Press.

65.

Rosenstone

S. J.

Hansen

J. M.

(1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. Longman Publishing Group.

66.

Rupnik

(2016). The specter haunting Europe: Surging illiberalism in the East. Journal of Democracy, 27(4), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0064

67.

Ryan

A. M.

(2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational psychologist, 35(2), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3502_4.

68.

Sampermans

Claes

(2018). Teachers as role models in the political socialization process: How a good student–teacher relationship can compensate for gender differences in students’ gender equality attitudes. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl.13.1.105_1

69.

Schumpeter

J. A.

(1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Harper & Row.

70.

Searing

D. D.

(1986). A theory of political socialization: Institutional support and deradicalization in Britain.British Journal of Political Science, 16(3), 341-376. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400004440

71.

Sears

D. O.

(1975). Political Socialization. In Polsby

N. W.

Greenstein

F. I.

(Eds.), Handbook of Political Science (pp. 93-153). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

72.

Shubladze

Khoshtaria

(2020). The gap between support for democracy and liberal values in Georgia. Public Opinion In Georgia: New Caucasus Barometer Results, 4(116), 8-13. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000428141.

73.

Smith

E. R.

(1989). The unchanging American voter. University of California Press.

74.

Spellings

Barber

Olsen

(2012). Political activism of Palestinian youth: Exploring individual, parental, and ecological factors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 1084–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01002.x

75.

Steintrager

(1968). Political socialization and political theory. Social Research, 35(1), 111-129.

76.

Sullivan

J. L.

Marcus

G. E.

Minns

D. R.

(1975). The development of political ideology. Some empirical findings. Youth & Society, 7(2), 148–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X7500700203

77.

Tabatadze

(2015). Teachers’ approaches to multicultural education in Georgian classrooms. Journal for Multicultural Education, 9(4), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-07-2014-0031

78.

Tabatadze

(2021). Party-based Euroscepticism: The case of Georgia. Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization. preprint.

79.

Tabatadze

Gorgadze

(2013). Intercultural education research in primary grades of Georgia. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555612

80.

Tabatadze

Gorgadze

(2014). Intercultural sensitivity of primary school teachers of Georgia. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(6), 281-300. http://www.ijern.com/journal/June-2014/23.pdf.

81.

Tabatadze

Gorgadze

(2017). Approaches to multiculturalism in teacher education programs in Georgia. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 12(3), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2017.1342648

82.

Tabatadze

Gorgadze

Gabunia

Tinikashvili

(2020). Intercultural content and perspectives in school textbooks in Georgia. Intercultural Education, 31(4), 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2020.1747290

83.

Tangiashvili

Slade

. (2014). Zero-tolerance schooling: Education policy, crime and democracy in post-soviet Georgia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 24(5), 416–440. https://doi.org/10.11080/1060586X.2013.833400

84.

Verba

Schlozman

K. L

Brady

H. E.

(1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.

85.

Verba

Schlozman

Burns

(2005). Family ties: Understanding the intergenerational transmission of participation. The social logic of politics, Alan Zuckerman.

86.

Welzel

Inglehart

(2005). Liberalism, postmaterialism, and the growth of freedom. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906700500038579

87.

Welzel

Inglehart

(2005). Liberalism, postmaterialism, and the growth of freedom. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 81-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906700500038579.

88.

World Bank . (2022). Georgia. https://data.worldbank.org/country/GE

89.

Zakaria

(1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76(6), 22. https://doi.org/10.2307/20048274

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB