Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:32:37.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comrades into Citizens? Russian Political Culture and Public Support for the Transition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Donna Bahry
Donna Bahry*
Affiliation:
The Department of Government, Vanderbilt University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since 1989, the question of public values has been one of the most critical and the most controversial in the study of postcommunist politics. While there seems to be a consensus that people should accept democratic and market-based norms, there is little agreement on how much they actually do so—or on how much they need to, if markets and democracy are to survive.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 58 , Issue 4: Special Issue: Ten Years after 1989: What Have We Learned? , Winter 1999 , pp. 841 - 853
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Evans, Geoffrey and Whitefield, Stephen, “Political Culture versus Rational Choice: Explaining Responses to Transition in the Czech Republic and Slovakia,” British Journal of Political Science 29, no. I (January 1999): 129–55Google Scholar.

2. The literature is too extensive to cite here. For a careful overview of the findings to date, see Fleron, Frederic J., Jr., and Ahl, Richard, “Does the Public Matter for Democratization in Russia? What We Have Learned from the ‘Third Wave’ Transitions and Public Opinion Surveys,” in Eckstein, Harry et al., eds., Can Democracy Take Root in Russia? Explorations in State-Society Relations (Lanham, Md., 1998), 287–330 Google Scholar.

3. Gibson, James L. and Duch, Raymond M., “Political Intolerance in the USSR: The Distribution and Etiology of Mass Opinion,” Comparative Political Studies 26, no. 3 (October 1993): 286–329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Fleron, Frederick, “Post-Soviet Political Culture in Russia: An Assessment of Recent Empirical Investigations,” Europe-Asia Studies 48, no. 2 (1996): 225–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fleron and Ahl, “Does the Public Matter.”

5. Fleron, “Post-Soviet Political Culture.”

6. Eckstein, Harry, “A Culturalist Theory of Political Change,” American Political Science Review 82, no. 3 (September 1988): 789–804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alexander, James, “Surveying Attitudes in Russia: A Representation of Formlessness,” Communist and Postcommunist Studies 30, no. 2 (June 1997): 107–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. The mass surveys include studies fielded in Russia in 1992–93 and 1997–98. The in-depth interviews include conversations with elite respondents from 1989 on. They also include several sets of interviews in 1995, 1998, and 1999 with selected groups of nonelite respondents—males of working age with less than higher education. (The selection criteria were chosen to allow comparisons with respondents in Lane's, Robert Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does [New York, 1962])Google Scholar.

8. These issues are treated in more detail in Reisinger, William, “The Renaissance of a Rubric: Political Culture as Concept and Theory,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 7, no. 4 (Winter 1995): 328–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Eckstein, “A Culturalist Theory”; Elkins, David J. and Simeon, Richard E. B., “A Cause in Search of Its Effect, or What Does Political Culture Explain?” Comparative Politics 11, no. 2 (January 1979): 127–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Converse, Philip, “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Apter, David, ed., Ideology and Discontent (London, 1964)Google Scholar.

11. See, for example, Sears, David O. and Citrin, Jack, Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California (Cambridge, Mass., 1982)Google Scholar.

12. Free, Lloyd A. and Cantril, Hadley, The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion (New Brunswick, N.J., 1967)Google Scholar; McClosky, Herbert and Zaller, John, The. American Ethos: Public Attitudes toward Capitalism and Democracy (Cambridge, Mass., 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. The classic study is by Prothro, James W. and Grigg, Charles M., “Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement,” Journal of Politics 22 (1960): 276–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Hansen, John Mark, “Individuals, Institutions and Public Preferences over Public Finance,” American Political Science Review 92, no. 3 (September 1998): 513–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also, Welch, Susan, “The ‘More for Less’ Paradox: Public Attitudes on Taxing and Spending,” Public Opinion Quarterly 49 (Fall 1985): 310–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Max Kaase and Kenneth Newton reach the same conclusion for a broad sample of European countries. See Beliefs in Government (Oxford, 1995), 82 Google ScholarPubMed.

15. The idea is that people make use of a general store of information to interpret specific events and information. Abstract beliefs may be viewed as heuristics that allow people to make sense of new stimuli. See, for example, Hurwitz, Jon and Peffley, Mark, “How Are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model,” American Political Science Review 81, no. 4 (December 1987): 1099–1120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Peffley, Mark and Hurwitz, Jon, “Models of Attitude Constraint in Foreign Affairs,” Political Behavior 15, no. 1 (March 1993): 61–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. Feldman, Stanley, “Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values,” American Journal of Political Science 32 (May 1988): 416–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Hurwitz and Peffley, “How Are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured?”

18. Sniderman, Paul et al., The Clash of Rights: Liberty, Equality and Legitimacy in Pluralist Democracy (New Haven, 1996)Google Scholar.

19. Feldman, Stanley, “Economic Individualism and American Public Opinion,” American Politics Quarterly 11 (1983): 3–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Sniderman et al., The Clash of Rights; Elkins, David, Manipulation and Consent: How Voters and Leaders Manage Complexity (Vancouver, 1993)Google Scholar. Note, though, that levels of sophistication vary, by education, by level of information, and by other factors. John Zaller assesses them in The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion (Cambridge, Eng., 1992)Google Scholar.

21. Kaase and Newton, Beliefs in Government, 68–71. The countries included West Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, and Norway. David Mason also found mixed attitudes, using somewhat different questions and a sample including West Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and the United States, in “Attitudes toward the Market and Political Participation in the Postcommunist States,” Slavic Review 54, no. 2 (Summer 1995), 391 Google Scholar.

22. Haller, Max, Hollinger, Franz, and Raubal, Otto, “Leviathan or Welfare State? Attitudes toward die Role of Government in Six Advanced Western Nations,” in Allwin, Duane et al., eds., Attitudes to Inequality and the Role of Government (Rijswicjk, Netherlands, 1990), 33–62 Google Scholar.

23. Gibson, James L. and Duch, Raymond M., “Support for Rights in Western Europe and the Soviet Union: An Analysis of the Beliefs of Mass Publics,” Research on Democracy and Society 1 (1993): 245 Google Scholar.

24. Muller, Edward N., Pesonen, Pertti, and Jukam, Thomas O., “Support for the Freedom of Assembly in Western Democracies,” European Journal of Political Research 8 (1980): 265–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Sullivan, John L., Shamir, Michal, Walsh, Patrick, and Roberts, Nigel S., Political Tolerance in Context: Support for Unpopular Minorities in Israel, New Zealand, and the United States (Boulder, Colo., 1985)Google Scholar; Gibson, James L., “The Paradoxes of Political Tolerance in Processes of Democratisation,” Politikon 23 (1996): 5–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. Denisovsky, Gennady, Kozyreva, Polina, and Matskovsky, Mikhail, “Twelve Percent of Hope: Economic Consciousness and a Market Economy,” in Miller, Arthur, Reisinger, William, and Hesli, Vicki, eds., Public Opinion and Regime Change: The Next) Politics of Post-Soviet Societies (Boulder, Colo., 1993)Google Scholar; Duch, Raymond, “Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union,” American Political Science Review 87, no. 3 (September 1993): 590–608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rose, Richard and Haerpfer, Christian, “Mass Response to Transformation in Postcommunist Societies,” Europe-Asia Studies 46, no. 1 (1994): 3–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rose, Richard and Makkai, Toni, “Consensus or Dissensus about Welfare in Postcommunist Societies?” European Journal of Political Research 28 (1995): 203–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

27. See, for example, Duch, “Tolerating Economic Reform.”

28. See, for example, Richard B. Dobson, “Is Russia Turning the Corner? Changing Russian Public Opinion, 1991–1996” (paper, Russia, Ukraine and Commonwealth Branch, Office of Research and Media Reaction, United States Information Agency, report R-7–96, September 1996), 58–59.

29. Tikhonova, Natalia, “Mirovozzrencheskie tsennosti i politicheskii protsess v Rossii,” Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost', 1996, no. 4:15–27 Google Scholar.

30. Dahl, Robert, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven, 1971)Google Scholar; Przeworski, Adam, Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America (Cambridge, Eng., 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. See, for example, Gibson, James L., Duch, Raymond M., and Tedin, Kent L., “Democratic Values and the Transformation of the Soviet Union, “Journal of Politics 54 (1992): 329–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gibson argues that, “In some areas, there is strong and widespread support, as for instance in the willingness to assert a panoply of political, social, and economic rights against the major institutions of society. Moreover, there is fairly broad support for a pluralistic media. Competitive elections and a multiparty system seem to be coming under increasing scrutiny, however, with a concomitant rise in ambivalence. The weakest evidence of a … democratic political culture … may be found in measures of political tolerance” (964; the analysis in this case is based on data from Russia and Ukraine). Gibson, James L., “The Resilience of Mass Support for Democratic Institutions and Processes in the Nascent Russian and Ukrainian Democracies,” in Tismaneanu, Vladimir, ed., Political Culture and Civil Society in the New Stales of Eurasia (Armonk, N.Y., 1995), 53–111 Google Scholar.

32. Arthur Miller, Vicki Hesli, and William Reisinger confirm the primacy of personal freedom in public conceptions of democracy, in “Conceptions of Democracy among Mass and Elite in Post-Soviet Societies,” British Journal of Political Science 27, no. 2 (April 1997): 157–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. See, for example, Bahry, Donna, Boaz, Cynthia, and Gordon, Stacy Burnett, “Tolerance, Transition and Support for Civil Liberties in Russia,” Comparative Political Studies 30, no. 3 (August 1997): 484–510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gibson and Duch, “Support for Rights.”

34. See, for example, “Otnoshenie naseleniia k chastnoi sobstvennosti,” Voprosy ekonomiki, 1990, no. 2: 67–72 Google Scholar.

35. Dobson, “Is Russia Turning the Corner?” 52, 54.

36. Krosnick, Jon, “The Stability of Political Preferences: Comparisons of Symbolic and Nonsymbolic Attitudes,” American Journal of Political Science 35 (August 1991): 552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Reisinger, William M., Miller, Arthur H., Hesli, Vicki L., and Maher, Kristen Hill, “Political Values in Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania: Sources and Implications for Democracy,” British Journal of Political Science 24, no. 2 (April 1994): 183–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bova, Russell, “Political Culture, Authority Patterns, and the Architecture of the New Russian Democracy,” in Eckstein, Harry et al., eds., Can Democracy Take Root in Post-Soviet Russia? (Lanham, Md., 1998), 177–200 Google Scholar; Vainshtein, Grigorii, “The Authoritarian Idea in the Public Consciousness and Political Life of Contemporary Russia,” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 11, no. 3 (September 1995): 272–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. The question of “which one Russia needs more of now” (order or democracy) is a standard one in the “Monitoring” surveys by the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research. The vast majority of Russians opt for order. See, for example, Sedov, Leonid, “Changes in the Country and in Attitudes towards the Changes,” Sociobgical Research 35 (1996): 33–42 Google Scholar.

39. Sedov, “Changes in the Country,” reports that from one-fifth to one-third of respondents in repeat surveys from February 1992 to December 1994 responded with “hard to say.”

40. Ellen Carnaghan provides an analysis of when and why people fail to respond in “Alienation, Apathy or Ambivalence? ‘Don't Knows’ and Democracy in Russia,” Slavic Review 55, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 325–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41. The question was included in my 1992–93 survey in Russia.

42. Evans and Whitefield make a similar case in “Political Culture versus Rational Choice.”

43. For a test of this argument, see Shiller, Robert, Boycko, Maxim, and Korobov, Vladimir, “Popular Attitudes toward Free Markets: The Soviet Union and the United States Compared,” American Economic Review 81 (June 1991): 385–400 Google Scholar; and Shiller, Boycko, , and Korobov, , “Hunting for Homo Sovieticus: Situational versus Attitudinal Factors in Economic Behavior,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, no. 1 (1992): 127–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. This could, of course, be read as a critique of standard questions. But my point is quite different. Standard questions are vital for understanding when and how individuals differ. The key issue is how the questions are interpreted.