Alexandra Samarina
The approval ratings of the country's leaders are still afloat only because the electorate is unaware of the depth of the crisis.
The Russian Academy of Sciences has conducted a study of the political views of Russians. The RAS Sociology Institute has analyzed the data on focus groups in six cities across the country: large, medium, and small. The results of the survey are in many ways paradoxical. They are discussed below by Olga Kryshtanovskaya from the Institute's Center for the Study of Elites.
Q.: Your study focuses on how people behave in elections. How different is the Russian attitude toward elections from that of the Western electorate?
A.: Our team has discovered an interesting phenomenon. When surveys are conducted in old democracies, people are asked: "Do you believe you have made a difference in the election results?" More than 60% of respondents in Western countries reply, yes, if I have gone to the polls I have made a difference to the state of affairs in my country. Here, people answer: "Yes, I have gone to the polls, but my vote makes no difference whatsoever." Here, only a little over 10% of those who go to the polls believe that their vote influences the outcome.
We have tried to understand the difference by analyzing the answers. We see a huge alienation of people from power: people often vote out of habit, having been told since childhood that this is their civic duty. In other words, our people think that the outcome of the elections is predetermined.
Q.: What is people's attitude to power? To what extent do they put the blame for their problems on the powers that be?
A.: I have discovered a tangle of contradictions in the results of the last series of focus groups. Respondents feel that the powers that be care only about their own personal interests, are lining their pockets, protecting the interests of the oligarchs and bureaucrats - a very negative assessment. When asked about [Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin, [President Dmitry] Medvedev, and United Russia, the answers were strikingly different. That is, Mr Putin is good and Mr Medvedev is good (because he is Mr Putin's "political son," his successor, and can therefore be trusted).
That pattern is still deeply entrenched. We have not found any people who believe that Mr Medvedev is an independent politician who sets the country's course. Everybody believes that Mr Putin is still in the driver's seat or that it is a tandem. And yet everybody is berating the authorities and is sure that the governing party pursues nothing but its own selfish interests. More than 50%, however, consider United Russia to be their own party that expresses their interests.
Q.: Why?
A.: Because there are no other parties, all the others are just windbags. UR at least is doing something, it can draw the governor's attention to the need to mend water pipes - in short, it is a party that does the little things. The respondents say the party is doing at least something for the people, unlike the other parties, which engage in demagogy. A small percentage of respondents believe that Vladimir Zhirinovsky's party makes sense; Mr Zhirinovsky has a following. Judging from our focus groups, there are only two parties in Russia. All the other parties are considered to be puppets.
Q.: The Communists claim they have a big electorate at present.
A.: But they don't have a new wave. If you look at quite elderly people, there are those among them who believe in the ideal. In general, people think that Gennady Zyuganov is collaborating with the authorities. The Communist electorate is dwindling. Young people might be ready to join the KPRF if they saw a new wave among the Communists. If, for example, a neoconservative trend arose within the party, as is happening in the West.
A.: How do people assess the democratic groups?
A.: The democrats are still in disarray because of the departure of Grigory Yavlinsky and Boris Nemtsov. There is no optimism on that flank, and the new party in the making - well, that information has not reached the people. I have sympathy for the efforts of the authorities, who apparently want to see a right-wing flank. You see, a large part of the electorate is without a party.
The people who used to vote for the democrats formed nearly a quarter of the country's population, but the overall mood today does not favour the political right. The revolutionary wave of hope in the 1990s has been replaced with apathy, which the authorities used to counter the reforms. In retrospect, it appears that those were wasted years when nothing good was accomplished. The Westernizing ideas have been defeated and the stake has been put on "native soil" advocates who have the support of much of the population.
Q.: How do people assess the progress of A Just Russia Party?
A.:A Just Russia is not seen as an independent political force among the major parties. It is seen as a crutch for Mr Putin's left leg, with the help of which the governing party is keeping some sort of balance.
Q.: Do you expect people's sentiments to change as the crisis deepens?
A.: The crisis is a cascade that flows from the top and in time will reach the lowest level. As long as it affects only the rich, only the business community, the government's approval rating does not fall. When the office plankton began to be sacked, i.e. our middle class, that already affected the people. The crisis will gradually deepen and reach the ordinary people who don't have a lot of money. They have no big savings in banks or big salaries. This will be a catastrophe. I think the authorities should seek not only to rescue the economy, the banks, and the oil companies, but try to preserve a modicum of political stability. If the crisis hits the grassroots, it will create a revolutionary situation, and that would be dangerous. The opposition will recruit these people.
Q.: One theory is that the crisis would precipitate Mr Putin's return to the presidency. Do you think that is a possibility?
A.: Some analysts claim that this is the aim of the constitutional amendments that have been made. They say that Mr Putin will leave the economy in the lurch and will defect to the presidential post. I don't share their view. First, this is not a manly way to behave. Second, he is an officer and a responsible politician and he is unlikely to leave the post of Prime Minister as a coward at a difficult moment. Some say that his popularity rating would fall, so he would have to jump off the train before it is derailed. That is rubbish. If there is a groundswell of popular anger, it will reach him at the Kremlin just as quickly as at the White House. Thus, I give no credence to this theory.