| Abstract [eng] |
Abstract This Master’s thesis examines the framing of Georgia’s “Transparency of Foreign Influence” law. It compels civil society organizations receiving foreign funding more than 20 percent of their income to register as “organizations pursuing the interest of a foreign power”.Compared to the first draft law proposed by the People’s Power in 2023, this new version changed “agents of foreign influence” to “organizations pursuing the interest of a foreign power”. Because of Differing opinions surrounding the law and its consequences after its adoption underscore the significance of understanding how this legislation is framed by various actors. These frames are critical for evaluating the future of Georgia’s civil sector, its broader democratic development, and its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. The aim of this analysis is to identify the differing frames surrounding the “Transparency of Foreign Influence” law in Georgia and to analyze the perspectives associated with each frame. Defended Statement: The Georgian government's framing of the "Transparency of Foreign Influence" as a national security measure represents a failed securitization attempt, as key audiences—domestic and international—have resisted accepting the issue as an existential threat. The core argument of the thesis is that the Georgian government’s attempt to securitize the law as a national security threat has failed. , as evidenced by the resistance from both domestic and international audiences in accepting the law as an existential threat. Public Resistance: Widespread protests across Georgia demonstrated the failure to convince the majority of the public that the law was a legitimate security threat, with the Georgian people being the main audience. International Opposition:statements from international representatives emphasized their support for Georgia’s European future. Sanctions imposed by the EU and the USA rejected the law's framing as a national security concern. Political Opposition Unity: Opposition parties rallied around the President’s "Georgian Charter" for the parliamentary elections, framing the choice as one between Europe (the opposition) and Russia (Georgian Dream). In both 2023 and 2024, Georgian Dream (GD) and People’s Power maintained dominant frames. In 2023, the most popular frame was the "false campaign," which asserted that the claim of similarity between the “Georgian law” and the "Russian law" was a lie. One of the key frames from GD was the law as a measure against "foreign intervention," which was often tied to the narrative of a "second front" and the “global war” conspiracy. This narrative suggested that the global war party aimed to drag Georgia into war. Additionally, the “sovereignty/national identity” frame was used, emphasizing the protection of Georgia’s independence, with the Orthodox Church playing a central role in the national identity narrative. Meanwhile, the President’s main frame in 2023 was that the law posed a threat to Georgia's European future. The President characterized the parliamentary elections as a choice between the ruling party, Georgian Dream (GD)—which was seen as representing Russia—and the opposition parties, which represented Europe. She argued that opposition parties must unite around the "Georgian Charter" for the country’s European future. On the other hand, the opposition framed the law as a tool for GD to suppress NGOs and “maintain power”. What concerns within the international community about the law’s threat to the country’s democracy and European future. For future research, I recommend expanding the analysis to include both dominant and secondary frames to gain a more nuanced understanding of the narrative dynamics surrounding the law. Additionally, broadening the range of media sources to include alternative and less prominent outlets could provide a more comprehensive view of how the law was framed across diverse platforms. |
