Scholarlink

Objectives <p>This article examines whether Georgia’s 2024 Law on Protecting Family Values and Minors represents a borrowed or homegrown form of anti-gender governance. It asks whether the measure reflects a similar Russian 2013 “gay propaganda” ban or represents a domestically constructed legislation. More broadly, it explores how the “family values” law functions as a symbolic technology of governance and as a signal of shifting geopolitical alignment.</p> Methods <p>The study employs a qualitative comparative design that combines legal and discourse analysis of legislation, supplemented by a review of public political statements and secondary sources covering 2012–2025 in Georgia. Policy-transfer and legal-transplant frameworks guide interpretation, treating influence as selective adaptation and symbolic convergence rather than direct imitation.</p> Results <p>The analysis shows that Russia’s and Georgia’s laws diverge in scope and logic: Russia’s model relies on censorship of “non-traditional” relationships, while Georgia’s centers on biological determinism, transgender exclusion, and the erasure of “gender” terminology. Yet both mobilize “family values” narratives to manage political legitimacy crises and reframe dissent as moral deviance.</p> Conclusions <p>Georgia’s anti-gender turn illustrates how moral governance travels through discourse, blending external cues with domestic political strategy.</p> Policy Implications <p>Anti-gender legislation functions as a technology of governance and an indicator of democratic backsliding, demanding closer attention from the EU and international rights-monitoring agencies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Borrowed or Homegrown? Examining Russia’s Influence in Georgia’s Anti-Gender Politics

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月4日

查看全文
  • Alexander Sasha Kondakov,
  • Sandro Tabatadze

摘要

Objectives

This article examines whether Georgia’s 2024 Law on Protecting Family Values and Minors represents a borrowed or homegrown form of anti-gender governance. It asks whether the measure reflects a similar Russian 2013 “gay propaganda” ban or represents a domestically constructed legislation. More broadly, it explores how the “family values” law functions as a symbolic technology of governance and as a signal of shifting geopolitical alignment.

Methods

The study employs a qualitative comparative design that combines legal and discourse analysis of legislation, supplemented by a review of public political statements and secondary sources covering 2012–2025 in Georgia. Policy-transfer and legal-transplant frameworks guide interpretation, treating influence as selective adaptation and symbolic convergence rather than direct imitation.

Results

The analysis shows that Russia’s and Georgia’s laws diverge in scope and logic: Russia’s model relies on censorship of “non-traditional” relationships, while Georgia’s centers on biological determinism, transgender exclusion, and the erasure of “gender” terminology. Yet both mobilize “family values” narratives to manage political legitimacy crises and reframe dissent as moral deviance.

Conclusions

Georgia’s anti-gender turn illustrates how moral governance travels through discourse, blending external cues with domestic political strategy.

Policy Implications

Anti-gender legislation functions as a technology of governance and an indicator of democratic backsliding, demanding closer attention from the EU and international rights-monitoring agencies.