Article contents
Affect and Autocracy: Emotions and Attitudes in Russia after Crimea
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 September 2020
Abstract
Our understanding of modern authoritarianism lacks a satisfying explanation for the genuine popularity of autocrats. While most of the literature on authoritarianism focuses on coercion, institutional manipulation, or clientelism, many contemporary autocrats clearly enjoy enthusiastic support even in times of economic stagnation or decline. We argue that part of the solution lies in unpacking the role of emotions in building support for rulers. Drawing on a unique panel survey conducted shortly before and after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, we discover that the resulting “rally” around the authoritarian flag involves much more than simply support for the leader or a simple increase in nationalism. Rather, we witness a broad shift in respondents’ emotional orientation. Driven by the shared experience of the Crimean “moment,” this shift improves people’s evaluation of their social, political, and economic surroundings in the present, the future—and even the past. The result is a new explanation of the nonmaterial means through which autocrats may succeed in bolstering their legitimacy.
- Type
- Special Section: The Postcommunist Democratic Failure
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association
Footnotes
A list of permanent links to Supplemental Materials provided by the authors precedes the References section.
Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/M7YQXO
They thank the editors and reviewers of Perspectives on Politics, as well as discussants and participants at the APSA annual meeting; at the University of Wisconsin–Madison; New York University; the École des hautes études en sciences sociales; Saint Anthony’s College, Oxford; the University of Alabama–Tuscaloosa; The New School for Social Research; King’s College London; the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at George Washington University; and the Department of Sociology at UNC Chapel Hill. They also acknowledge the generous financial support of the Smith Richardson Foundation.
References
- 26
- Cited by