The Issue of National and Religious Minorities in the Democratic Republic of Georgia

Otar JANELIDZE

Abstract: The Democratic Republic of Georgia became the first precedent in human history where a government was led by a social democratic party. This state existed for only three years, but left us with a remarkable experience and legacy of demo­cratic development, including in its treatment of minorities. The government and rep­resentatives of the opposition approached the issue of national and religious minori­ties based on the principle of protecting their rights and not violating the interests of the state.

In the Democratic Republic of Georgia, minorities had the full right and opportunity to participate in the political, economic, and cultural life of the state. Their rights were guaranteed by legislation, including the Law on the State Language, the Regu­lation on Citizenship/Subjecthood, and the Constitution. In areas densely populated by national minorities, where they constituted a majority, the use of the minority lan­guage in court alongside the state language was permitted.

The religious policy of the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Georgia was al­so characterized by tolerance. Despite the ongoing policy of secularization and the separation of church and state, and school and church, numerous synagogues, mosques, madrassas, and Orthodox churches operated throughout the country. Reli­gious rites were performed there unhindered.

Despite the targeted policies of the authorities of the Democratic Republic of Georgia, the civic integration of national minorities was delayed. The process of po­litical consolidation of the “fragmented nations” within the Georgian state was com­plex and could not be fully realized between 1918 and 1921.

In this article, various on a variety of primary sources, archival materials, periodi­cals, memoirs, and scholarly literature, we seek to analyze the issue of national and religious minorities in the Democratic Republic of Georgia, highlighting the positive results of measures taken in this field and the contradictions that accompanied the coexistence of Georgians and national minorities during the period under review.

Keywords: Georgia, national minorities, religious policy, cultural autonomy.

Introduction

The historical development of Georgia, situated on the crossroads of Europe and Asia, occurred in such a way that alongside Georgians, the representatives of various other eth­nic groups also found a home within its territory. On the eve of the restora­tion of state independence, the ethnic and confessional composition of Georgia resembled a mosaic. Along­side Georgians lived representatives of many different nationalities.

In the Democratic Republic of Georgia, whose population amounted to 2 466 630 people, approximately twenty percent consisted of national minorities¹. These included Armeni­ans, Turkic-speaking Muslims (then referred to as “Tatars”, later known as Azerbaijanis), Russians, Abkhazians, Greeks, Ossetians, Jews, Germans, Kurds, Ukrainians, and others. The approximate figures for the non-Georgian population were as follows: Armenians – slightly more than 200 000; Tatars – 85 000; Abkhazians – 60 000; Ossetians – 45 000; Russians – 45 000; Georgian Jews – up to 40 000; Jews – about 7 000; Greeks – 25 000; Germans – 8 000².

Thus emerged the demographic picture that Georgia, taken to the path of freedom, inherited as a puzzle leg­acy from the Russian Empire upon the restoration of its independence. Although Georgia’s ethnic diversity had been largely shaped artificially in the nineteenth century as a result of Russia’s colonial policy, the leaders of the Democratic Republic took into account the existing reality and pro­vided national minorities with full opportunities for civic integration.

Much has been written on this topic in both Georgian and foreign historio­graphy. Different authors have exami­ned the issue from various perspecti­ves, and their assessments often diverge.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the issue of national and reli­gious minorities in the Democratic Republic of Georgia, to demonstrate the positive outcomes of the measures implemented in this regard, and to highlight the challenges that accom­panied the coexistence of Georgians and national minorities during the period under considera­tion.

Methods

This article is based on a wide range of primary sources, archival materials, periodical press data, me­moirs, and scholarly literature. In the course of the research, the meth­ods of historicism, historical-comparative analysis, and document analysis were employed.

Minorities and Georgian Political Parties

In the Democratic Republic of Georgia, four main political groups were active: the ruling Social- Dem­ocratic (Labour) Party (led by Noe Jordania) and three opposition parties – the Socialist- Federalist Party of Georgia (Samson Pirtskhalava), the National-Democratic Party of Georgia (Spiridon Kedia), and the Socialist-Revolutionary Party of Georgia (Leo Shengelaya). So. Dem­ocratic Republic of Georgia was led by the Social-Democratic Govern­ment. It was a phenomenon that had no precedent before in the history of mankind. This Georgian state, which emerged in May 1918, was initially led by a coalition government, but in Fe­bruary 1919, after a great success in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the executive power was completely filled by the victorious party – the Social Democratic Party.

Upon assuming governance, the Georgian Social Democrats adopted a tolerant course toward national mi­norities. In the words of Noe Jordania, in Georgia “there was nei­ther Greek nor barbarian; we were all Greeks”³. The Social Democrats op­posed the oppression or discrimina­tion of one nation by another. They pledged to the population that within the borders of the Democratic Republic of Georgia, all nations would be equal and each would be granted full opportunity to satisfy its national needs⁴.

The Socialist-Federalist Party held that Georgian citizens of non-Georgian nationality should be grant­ed the right to form their own nation­al-cultural associations and the spe­cial administrative organs necessary to govern them. In its pre-election platform for the Constituent Assem­bly, the Federalists declared: “To those non-Georgian peoples who are dispersed among us, …we shall grant autonomy in the management of their cultural affairs. A portion of state revenues will pass into their hands, and their language will be introduced into local institutions”⁵. A similar attitude toward the non-Georgian population of Georgia was expressed by the Socialist-Revolutionary Party.

As for the National-Democratic Party of Georgia, it proclaimed that “every non-Georgian should see in Georgia a mother, not a stepmother”. The party’s program declared: “The cultural and national rights of all non-Georgian tribes are protected by law,” and “freedom of religion is guaranteed”⁶.

As early as November 1917, the National Congress of Georgia adopt­ed a resolution emphasizing that “the national minorities residing within Georgia shall receive full legal guar­antees for their cultural develop­ment”⁷. The Act of Independence adopted by the National Council of Georgia on 26 May 1918 proclaimed that “Georgia equally guarantees to all citizens of the Republic their civil and political rights and provides free conditions of development for all nations inhabiting its territory”⁸.

The establishment of the rights of national minorities – then referred to as “small nations” or “fragmented na­tions” – was a constant concern of the Georgian state. Every possible option was considered to ensure the protection of minority rights without infringing upon the interests of the state.

After prolonged debates, the gov­ernment of the Republic and the op­position political spectrum reached a consensus to grant the non-Georgian population national-cultural autono­my. This entailed the establishment of self-governing communities in compactly settled minority areas un­der the leadership of national admin­istrations, as well as the creation of national courts, national schools, and other similar institutions⁹.

Legislation on National Minorities

It is well known that until the end of the First World War, the rights of national minorities were not given due attention even in developed states. This issue had not yet become a serious concern of international law or international politics. Against this background, in the Democratic Re­public of Georgia, minorities enjoyed full rights and opportunities to partic­ipate in the political, economic, and cultural life of the state. All of this was guaranteed by legal acts, includ­ing the Law on the State Language, the Statute on Citizenship (Subjec­thood), and the Constitution.

In the Democratic Republic of Georgia, ethnic identity was not an obstacle for anyone to obtain citizen­ship or, among other rights, political participation. Many individuals of Russian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Os­setian, and other non-Georgian na­tionalities were employed in the cen­tral state administration as well as in local self-government bodies. Nu­merous representatives of national minorities held high and responsible positions in both civil and military institutions.

Each national minority in the Democratic Republic of Georgia had its own national council established to manage local affairs, and these councils functioned freely. Religious denominations, as well as cultural and educational institutions, operated without restriction. In Georgia, there were 80 Armenian, 60 Russian, and 31 Tatar schools, where education was conducted in native languages. Alongside Georgian – periodicals, newspapers and magazines were also published in Russian, Armenian, English, German, and French – among them Грузия, Закавказское слово, Մշակ, The Georgian Mes­senger, The Georgian Mail, Kaukasische Post, La Géorgie indé­pendante, La Répu­blique Géorgienne, and others.

The law “On the Representation of National Minorities in the National Council of Georgia”, adopted on 13 September 1918, allowed the “frag­mented nations” to elect 26 repre­sentatives to Georgia’s supreme leg­islative body. These included: Arme­nians – 10, Tatars – 4, Abkhazians – 3, Russians – 2, Ossetians – 2, Geor­gian Israelites – 2, Jews – 1, Greeks – 1, and Germans – 1.

Later, during the elections for the Constituent Assembly, participation was not restricted for political organ­izations formed on an ethnic basis. There were several such organiza­tions: the National Council of Mus­lims of Georgia (N 6), the Muslim Union of Borchalo District (N 12), the Hellenic Democratic Union of Georgia (N 15), the Armenian Dashnaktsutyun (N 4), and the Rus­sian Social-Democratic Labour Party (N 13).

It is noteworthy that the Georgian Social-Democratic Party included 20 representatives of national minorities on its list of 130 candidates. Other political parties had smaller numbers (Socialist-Revolutionaries – 4, Feder­alists – 1, National-Democrats – 2)¹⁰. As a result of the elections, deputies of nearly all nationalities residing in Georgia were represented in the Con­stituent Assembly, including 8 Ar­menians, 3 Abkhazians, 4 Russians, 2 Ossetians, 2 Germans, 2 Jews, 1 Greek, 1 Azerbaijani, and 1 Russian Molokan. Among the representatives of national minorities was also a fe­male deputy, Eleonora Ter-Parsegova (Makhviladze).

The issue of Georgian Jews and their legal status in the Democratic Republic of Georgia deserves partic­ular attention. The coexistence of Georgians and Georgian Jews had withstood the trials of history, and the latter had never felt like foreign­ers in the country. After Georgia re­stored its independence, Georgian Jews, like other national minorities, were nevertheless classified as an ethnic group whose political rights required additional guarantees, and parliamentary seats were allocated to them under a national quota.

One of the prominent representa­tives of Georgian Jews, the publicist Mikhako Khakhanashvili, regarded such an approach as mistaken, de­claring that Georgian Israelites did not require special protection. “We have always participated in elections together with the Georgians and not separately… Therefore, today, the deputies sitting in our National Council, elected by us together, are our deputies as well”¹¹.

The National Council of the Democratic Republic of Georgia had already adopted, on 16 July 1918, the Law on Citizenship (Subjecthood), which granted citizenship to all resi­dents of the Republic, including members of national minorities. (A resident was defined as any person registered in any administrative unit of Georgia prior to 19 July 1914)¹².

The Law on Citizenship of the Democratic Republic of Georgia, approved by the Constituent Assem­bly on 27 May 1919, further simpli­fied the process of obtaining citizen­ship. Representatives of national mi­norities were actively involved in drafting the Basic Law – the Consti­tution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia – a process led by the Con­stitutional Commission of the Con­stituent Assembly¹³.

The Constitution of the Demo­cratic Republic of Georgia, adopted on 21 February 1921, devoted an en­tire chapter (Chapter XIV) to national minorities, consisting of nine articles. These provisions codified the rights that national minorities had in prac­tice enjoyed during the years 1918-1921.

The Constitution fully reflected and legalized the policy and attitude that the Georgian government and opposition political forces had main­tained toward national minorities from the moment of the restoration of statehood until the end of the Demo­cratic Republic¹⁴.

During the period under discus­sion, national minorities felt more secure and comfortable in the Demo­cratic Republic of Georgia than in any other political entities of the Caucasus, because in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the Mountain Repub­lic, ethnic tensions were much more severe.

Religious Policy

Due to its geopolitical location, Georgia has for centuries been a place not only for dialogue between various cultures and civilizations, but also for the interaction of Eastern and Western religions. It is largely be­cause of these special circumstances that Georgians have become a toler­ant people. In Tbilisi, you can still find a mosque and synagogue next to an Orthodox cathedral. A little fur­ther away is a Catholic church, and before the establishment of Soviet rule, a Lutheran church also stood here.

It is well known that the Demo­cratic Republic of Georgia pursued a policy of secularism: the Church was separated from the state, and the school was separated from the Church. Nevertheless, the Georgian Orthodox Church welcomed the country’s liberation and the renewal of its sovereign life. On 2 June 1918, Catholicos-Patriarch Kirion II offered a thanksgiving prayer to mark the restoration of Georgia’s state inde­pendence. The clergy, in the presence of a large congregation, celebrated a service of thanksgiving at the Sioni Cathedral on 12 March 1919, the day of the opening of the Constituent As­sembly of Georgia.

Georgian Catholics also convened a gathering in Tbilisi, at the Church of Saints Peter and Paul, where they unanimously adopted an address congratulating all of Georgia on its independence and wishing success to the young Republic.

From the perspective of the Geor­gian Orthodox clergy, the state was expected to support the auto­cephalous Church of Georgia, which was in a difficult financial condition and struggled for survival. Church leaders likewise believed that, in an independent country, the traditional relationship between Church and state should continue, yet this did not occur.

As a result of the Democratic Re­public’s confessional policy, the rights and competence of the Church were significantly restricted. All types of theological schools were declared state property and placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education¹⁵. The Church was en­tirely excluded from the process of education and upbringing; the teach­ing of the Law of God in schools was prohibited by a special law¹⁶. The Church was deprived of property of historical significance – ecclesiastical lands, mills, forests, and other hold­ings.

By the law of 17 June 1919, sev­eral church holidays were abolished: Candlemas, Good Friday, the third day of Easter, Pentecost, the Trans­figuration, the Dormition, the Nativi­ty of the Virgin, the Elevation of the Cross, and the Presentation of the Virgin¹⁷.

The Church retained only the functions of maintaining and protect­ing churches, and of registering births, marriages, and deaths. For this reason, throughout the entire exist­ence of the Republic, the Church continued to receive financial support from the state budget.

It should be noted that the state was relatively more accommodating toward other confessions. For exam­ple, the prohibition of the Law of God instruction in schools applied in practice only to Georgian schools. As for non-Georgian schools, this law was not enforced upon them; in the schools of national minorities, reli­gion could be freely taught. Moreo­ver, in Muslim schools, the salaries of teachers of Sharia were paid by the State¹⁸.

Another noteworthy example is that the Ministry of Labor of the Democratic Republic of Georgia sent official letters to the national councils of Armenians, Muslims, and Jews, asking them to specify which days were considered religious holidays within their communities. The gov­ernment intended to exempt workers and employees of those nationalities from work on those days¹⁸.

Between 1918 and 1921, Geor­gian Jews enjoyed a form of religious autonomy. The government took their interests into account and ap­proved the “Statute on the Religious and Cultural-Educational Rights of Georgian Jews”, which confirmed their full freedom in spiritual and cultural-educational activities such as establishing Torah synagogues, pray­er houses, scientific, educational, and charitable institutions, and others²⁰.

The authorities of the Democratic Republic of Georgia also ensured, through legislative acts, the freedom of the Islamic faith. At that time, nu­merous mosques and madrasas oper­ated throughout the country, where religious rituals were performed without interference²¹. Religious communities of the Roman Catholic and Armenian-Gregorian Apostolic confessions likewise enjoyed full protection.

In the Democratic Republic of Georgia, no one ever questioned that citizens of other faiths were as legit­imate and complete members of the Georgian state as Orthodox Chris­tians. As the newspaper Sakartvelos Respublika (“The Georgian Repub­lic”) observed: “For the Georgian nation, the question has never been confined to religious boundaries. For it, every believer of any faith is equally Georgian – whether Ortho­dox, Catholic, Israelite, Muslim, or otherwise. All of them are children of one family – Georgia”²².

The 1921 Constitution enshrined these principles, declaring: “No reli­gion shall have any preeminence… Every citizen enjoys complete free­dom of conscience. No one may be persecuted or have their political or civil rights restricted because of reli­gion or belief. Everyone is free to profess any faith they choose, to change their faith, or to belong to no religious denomination at all”.

Language Policy

On 1 October 1918, the National Council of Georgia enacted a law declaring the Georgian language as the state language. The same law stipulated that “a representative of a national minority who does not know the state language may deliver a speech in his or her mother tongue”²³. A subsequent law, the Regulation on the Use of Language, further clarified this provision, stating: “A representa­tive of a national minority who does not know the Georgian language may speak, besides his or her native tongue, in any minority language that is understood by at least one member of the presidium”.

Legislation also regulated the use of languages in local self-government bodies. It was specified that “if more than half of the citizens residing within a local self-governing unit speak a non-Georgian language, the self-governing body may, by its own decision, allow the use of this majori­ty language alongside the state lan­guage”²⁴.

National minorities were entitled to receive education in their native languages; however, the law also required that they study the state lan­guage. In the regions compactly pop­ulated by minorities, where they formed a majority, judicial proceed­ings could be conducted in minority languages in parallel with the state language²⁵. The Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia fur­ther guaranteed national minorities access to education and the right to cultural self-determination, ensuring the principle of non-interference by the state²⁶.

A segment of the Armenian popu­lation demanded that, alongside Georgian, the Armenian and Russian languages be granted the status of official administrative languages. The Russian National Council in Georgia and other Russian nationalist groups supported maintaining the dominant position of the Russian language, seeking to preserve their “political and social privileges through linguis­tic supremacy”²⁷. The Georgian gov­ernment, however, remained firm in its position and did not satisfy these demands. As a result, the Armenian press accused the Georgian authori­ties of national discrimination and violations of human rights.

The Armenian National Council in Tbilisi advocated for self-gov-ernment among the Armenian popu-lation, criticized the govern­ment’s policy of nationalization, and req-uested that the Armenian lan­guage be equalized with Georgian in local administrations and courts²⁸.

Certain minority groups expressed dissatisfaction with the policy of “Georgianization” in schools, which introduced the compulsory teaching of the Georgian language, Georgian history, and Georgian geography in all educational institutions. The gov­ernment did not revise this state-oriented decision but agreed to a par­tial compromise: for those who did not know Georgian, the above sub­jects could be taught in Russian. To assist citizens unfamiliar with the state language, special Georgian lan­guage courses were established, and civil servants were granted a six-month period to learn Georgian.

Overall, the language policy of the Democratic Republic of Georgia did not contradict democratic princi­ples. The state did not oppress any national group; rather, it showed be­nevolence even toward foreign na­tionals who had fled the civil war in their own countries. In this regard, the Republic became a safe haven for many Russian intellectuals, including almost the entire troupe of the Moscow Art Theatre, who continued their artistic work in Tbilisi under favorable conditions. Among those who found refuge in Georgia in 1920 was the distinguished poet Osip Mandelstam, along with other promi­nent Russian cultural figures.

Civil Integration Challenges

A significant portion of Georgia’s national minorities identified them­selves with the Georgian state and shared the values promoted by the newly established sovereign republic. However, a smaller segment became alienated from the independent Georgian state. Their unfriendly atti­tude toward Georgia’s independence complicated the timely and success­ful resolution of the national ques­tion. For instance, while the majority of Armenians residing in Georgia remained loyal to the Democratic Republic, the population of Armeni­an villages compactly settled in Borchalo District sided with the Ar­menian army during the Georgian-Armenian military conflict in De­cember 1918. Moreover, a large cache of weapons was discovered in the office of the Armenian National Council in Tbilisi, intended by the leaders of the Dashnaktsutyun party for distribution among the city’s Ar­menian population. As a result, the Ministry of Internal Affairs conduct­ed searches in the Armenian-populated districts of the capital and arrested several individuals with anti-Georgian sentiments. By government decision, around two thousand Ar­menians were temporarily resettled from Tbilisi to western Georgia. The absolute majority of Armenians who maintained loyalty to the Georgian Republic were not subjected to any repressive measures.

At the same time, the Georgian government extended assistance to Armenian refugees who had fled to Georgia, allocating 40 million maneti (the Georgian currency) for their re­lief in 1918, whereas only 3 million maneti could be raised for Georgian refugees in need²⁹.

During the period under consider­ation, national minorities felt more comfortable in the Democratic Re­public of Georgia than in other politi­cal entities of the Caucasus region, where ethnic conflicts in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the Mountain Repub­lic were far more acute.

Despite this reality, some repre­sentatives of non-Georgian ethnic groups residing in Georgia refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the Georgian state and attempted to dis­tance themselves from it. In Abkhazia and in Ossetian-inhabited villages of Inner Kartli, separatist movements emerged under slogans of secession from Georgia and unifi­cation with Soviet Russia. These movements were led by local (includ­ing Georgian) Bolsheviks, who en­joyed significant support from the Kremlin.

The Ossetians demanded the crea­tion of a “South Ossetian Autono­mous Region,” with Tskhinvali as its administrative center, while the gov­ernment’s proposal envisaged only a district (mazra) with Java as its cen­ter³⁰. Ossetian communities rose against the Democratic Republic of Georgia several times, alternately demanding autonomy, independence, or incorporation into Russia. Bolshe­vik uprisings aimed at establishing Soviet power also took place in Abkhazia³¹.

The Democratic Republic of Georgia successfully prevented sepa­ratism and safeguarded the country’s territorial integrity. The Abkhazians, who had no other homeland, were constitutionally granted political au­tonomy within Georgia, whereas the Ossetians – whose principal home­land lay in the North Caucasus – were not entitled to and did not re­ceive such status.

The government of the Democrat­ic Republic of Georgia was obliged to protect the sovereignty of the new­ly created state, ensure internal peace and stability, and therefore, individu­als involved in anti-state activities, regardless of their ethnicity, were sometimes imprisoned or expelled from Georgia. These circumstances, along with migratory processes, somewhat altered the demographic composition of the Georgian capital. By the summer of 1920, for every 100 Georgians in Tbilisi there were: 125 Armenians, 49 Russians, 13 Ta­tars, and 18 others³².

While recognizing, protecting, and respecting the rights of national minorities, the state also required them to fulfill certain civic obliga­tions. The prevailing approach was as follows: “Everything that can be granted without harm to the state should be granted”, yet “the minority must understand that our republic is their republic, and whatever harms the state harms them as well”³³. For example, representatives of national minorities were subject to the same military conscription – service in the armed forces, whether in the regular army or militia – as Georgian men aged 20 to 40.

It must be noted that the non-Georgian citizens of the Republic who were loyal to the Georgian state performed this duty conscientiously and contributed to strengthening the country’s defense capability.

Foreign authors also drew atten­tion to the difficulties faced by the Democratic Republic of Georgia in its relations with national minorities. Unfortunately, some of them were unfamiliar with Georgian primary sources. For instance, Firuz Kazemzadeh, whose book – based mainly on Russian Bolshevik litera­ture – was published in 1951, even spoke of “Georgian nationalism and imperialism,” writing that as a result of this policy, in Georgia “tens of thousands Russian officials, telegraph and postal employees, and even rail­way workers, lost their jobs”³⁴.

The complete opposite of nation­alist policy is demonstrated by an event that occurred in 1918. At the end of that year, the authorities per­mitted the settlement of Yazidi Kurds, persecuted by the Ottoman government, and some Muslim Kurds in Georgia³⁵.

The American historian Stephen Jones also identifies certain short­comings in the Democratic Repub­lic’s treatment of national and reli­gious minorities. However, he offers an explanation, noting that “the Democratic Republic of Georgia was a nation-building, nationalizing state. For newborn states that need modern­ization, unification, and consolidation of legitimacy, this is a normal condi­tion.” He further emphasizes that for the Georgian government, the ethnic question was simultaneously “a ques­tion of national security”³⁶.

Conclusion

The Democratic Republic of Georgia existed less than three years. Despite this short period and the many external and internal challeng­es that accompanied the construction of the Georgian state, the foundations of liberal democracy were set up, with its inherent equality of individu­als, civil liberties, separation of pow­ers, multi-party system, universal suffrage, and so on. Among the dem­ocratic values ​​affirmed in this state, the rights of national and religious minorities were particularly promi­nent. Freedom of religion, speech, and expression was protected, and individuals were not subjected to dis­crimination. The republic’s leadership understood well that the country’s internal strength and stability largely depended on the correct and reasona­ble regulation of interethnic relations. This is precisely why, in Georgia from 1918 to 1921, no nation or na­tionality was subjected to oppression on the basis of nationality.

Despite the Georgian govern­ment’s consistent policy, the civil integration of national minorities progressed slowly. The process of political consolidation between the “fragmented nations” and the Geor­gian state unfolded in a contradictory manner and was not fully achieved during the years 1918-1921.

Notes

• Peradze, „The Population of Georgia According to the 1917 Census, Central Statistical Office of the Georgian SSR”, Statistical Bulletin, Nr. 1, Tbilisi, 1921, pp. 14-15.
• Newspaper Sakhalkho Sakme (Public Affair), 10 September 1918.
• Jordania, My Past, “Sarangi” Publishing House, Tbilisi, 1990, p. 104.
• Newspaper Ertoba (Unity), 22 January 1919.
• Newspaper Sakhalkho Sakme, 26 January 1919.
• Newspaper Sakartvelo (Georgia), 29 January 1921.
• Ibidem, 21 November 1917.
• National Archives of Georgia, Central Historical Archive, Fund 1836, ref. 1, cas. N 99, sheet 1.
• Ibidem, Fund 1825, ref. 1, cas. N 126, sheet 34.
• The First General Democratic Elections in Independent Georgia, Tbilisi, 2018, pp. 35, 39, 42, 49.
• Newspaper Sakhalkho Sakme, 1918, August 3-4.
• Collection of Legal Acts of the Democratic Republic of Georgia, 1918-1921, Tbilisi, 1990, p. 46.
• Collection of Laws and Government Decrees, Tbilisi, 1919, Nr. 8.
• Janelidze, N. Sadghobelashvili, „The Issue of National Minorities in the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia”, e-Journal History, Archaeology, Ethnology, Vol. XII, 2024, p. 182.
• National Archives of Georgia, Central Historical Archive, Fund 1836, ref. 1, cas. N 258, sheet 12.
• Collection of Legal Acts of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. 1918-1921, Tbilisi, 1990, p. 110.
• Ibidem, pp. 273-274.
• National Archives of Georgia, Central Historical Archive, Fund 1836, ref. 1, cas. N 261, sheet 3.
• Newspaper Sakhalkho Sakme, 18 September 1920.
• Ephremashvili, The History of the Jews of Georgia, Vol. 1, Tbilisi, 2023, pp. 337-339.
• National Archives of Georgia, Central Historical Archive, Fund 1836, ref. 1, cas. N 258, sheet 12.
• Newspaper Sakartvelos Respublika (The Georgian Republic), 9 August 1918.
• Collection of Legal Acts of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. 1918-1921, Tbilisi, 1990, pp. 80-81.
• Ibidem, pp. 83, 206.
• Newspaper Ertoba, 23 September 1919.
• Khvedeliani, Educational Policy and the Formation of National Identity in the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921), PhD Dissertation in Cultural Studies, Tbilisi, 2022, p. 165.
• Newspaper Sakartvelos Respublika, 8 August 1918.
• Memorandum to the Constituent Assembly on the National Self-Government of Armenians in Georgia, 1919, p. 74.
• Kvachantiradze, „The Migration of Armenians to Georgia in 1918”, Clio, Nr. 11, 2001, p. 92.
• Janelidze, The Democratic Republic of Georgia 1918-1921, Georgian National Museum, Tbilisi, 2018, p. 48.
• Idem, „The Abkhaz Issue in the Constituent Assembly of Georgia”, Global Journal of Human-Social Science: F Political Science, Vol. 21, Issue 4, Version 1.0, 2021, pp. 1-7.
• Jurnal chveni qalaqi (Our City), 1920, Nr. 4-5, p. 46.
• National Archives of Georgia, Central Historical Archive, Fund 1833, ref. 1, cas. N 180, sheet 177.
• Kazemzadeh, The struggle for Transcaucasia (1917-1921), Philosophical Library, New York, 1951, pp. 197-200.
• Janiashvili, „Ethnocultural Processes in Georgia”, in the book Ethnos in Georgia, Tbilisi, 2008, p. 18.
• Jones, „The Legacy of the First Republic”, Journal Georgian Parliamentarism, Vol. 6, N 2 (12), 2024, p. 4.

Bibliography

Archival documents

National Archives of Georgia, Central Historical Archive, Fund 1825, ref. 1, cas. N 126.

IDEM, Fund 1833, ref. 1, cas.  N 180.

IDEM, Fund 1836, ref. 1, cas. N 99,  N 258, and N 261.

Document

Collection of Laws and Government Decrees, Tbilisi, 1919, N 8.

Collection of Legal Acts of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. 1918-1921, Publishing House  „Iverta mchare”, Tbilisi, 1990.

Memorandum to the Constituent Assem-bly on the National Self-Government of Armenians in Georgia, 1919.

The First General Democratic Elections in Independent Georgia, Tbilisi, 2018.

Periodic press materials

Our City, Nr. 4-5, 1920.

Unity, January 22, September 23, 1919.

Georgia,  November 21, 1917, January 29, 1921.

Public Affairs, August 3-4, September 10, 1918, January 26, 1919, September 18, 1920.

The Georgian Republic,  August 9, 1918.

Books

JANELIDZE, O., The Democratic Republic of Georgia 1918-1921, Georgian National Museum, Tbilisi, 2018.

JANIASHVILI, L., „Ethnocultural Processes in Georgia”, in Ethnos in Georgia, Tbilisi, 2008.

EFREMASHVILI, I., History of the Jews of Georgia, Vol. 1, Tb., 2023.

JORDANIA, N., My Past, “Sarangi” Publishing House, Tbilisi, 1990.

KAZEMZADEH, F., The struggle for Transcaucasia (1917-1921), Philosophical Library, New York, 1951.

KHVEDELIANI, A., Educational Policy and the Formation of National Identity in the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921), PhD Dissertation in Cultural Studies, Tbilisi, 2022.

Articles and studies

JANELIDZE, O., „Abkhaz issue in the Constituent Assembly of Georgia”, Global Journal of Human-Social Science: F Political Science, Volume 21, Issue 4 Version 1.0 Year 2021.

JANELIDZE, O., SADGHOBELASHVILI, N. The Issue of National Minorities in the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia, e-Journal History, Archaeology, Ethnology, Vol. XII, 2024.

JONES, S., „The Legacy of the First Republic”, Journal Georgian Parliamentarism, Vol. 6, Nr. 2 (12), 2024.

KVACHANTIRADZE, E., „The Migration of Armenians to Georgia in 1918”, Clio, Nr. 11, 2001.

Peradze, G.,  „The Population of Georgia According to the 1917 Census”, Central Statistical Office of the Georgian SSR, Statistical Bulletin, Nr. 1, Tbilisi, 1921.