Paul
Goble
Staunton, January 30 – A majority of
Russians today does not feel any sympathy for the Putin regime or is not prepared
to show any “active support” or “active opposition” to it, according to Lev
Gudkov, head of the Levada Center. Instead, they manifest a kind of “inert
indifference” about those in power and focus instead on their more immediate
needs.
This reflects the new reality in
Russia, the independent sociologist told Galina Mursaliyeva of “Novaya gazeta”
that they do not feel that they have any chance to “do something” about the
power structures and thus have little or no willingness “to participate in
political life” (www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/56510.html).
But
that widespred popular indifference to what goes on at the top of the Russian
political pyramid, combined with the willingness of some segments of the Russian
population to say they favor this or that act of the regime, however
repressive, provides “a foundation” of a sort “for the existing powers that be.”
Indeed,
Gudkov suggested, the Kremlin, provided as it is with reassuring data by
government-employed polling agencies who are prepared to skew the data to show
what they know is wanted, probably “does not understand” just how little real
support it has and remains “convinced that people need a great and powerful
state at any price.”
Mursaliyeva
began her interview by asking Gudkov to explain why his agency found so much
lower support for Putin’s law prohibiting the adoption of Russian orphans by
foreigners than did other agencies. He noted that “sociological agencies
working for the authorities put questions which push people toward the required
answer” and not to the truth.
Recalling
that the Levada Center found two years ago that “85 percent of Russians
consider that they cannot influence the situation in the country” and that this
represented “the complex of a prisoner,” the “Novaya” journalist asked if the
situation had changed and that support for protest had increased.
Gudkov
responded that the fundamental situation had not changed and that his center’s
polls show that “the absolute majority of people do not see any prospects [for
affecting change] and that they do not have any idea about the future of the country
or even about the future of their own families.”
With
regard to the political sphere, he continued, it has been “sterilized: there
are no discussions, no competition, and the entire sphereof the future has been
absolutely closed.” That has led people
to choose to focus on the present “without hoping for anything from the authorities”
and “without a future.”
The
“main trend” among Russians, Gudkov said, is a focus on the family and on “the
possibility of consumption: everyone want to eat better, dress better, and
acquire more. A consumer society has begun to appear, something that didn’t
exist earlier.” But that does not mean that a middle class in the Western sense
has emerged. It hasn’t.
That
is clear from the results of open-ended surveys about what are the most
important events of the year: Most name disasters, then various government
ceremonies, then corruption scandals, and only in fourth place are opposition protests.
“Social activismhas been suppressed, as has the meaning of a common life”
broader than the individual and his family.
Over
the past 20 years, Gudkov says, “people in the country of course hve begun to
live more confidently, but their horizons” have not expanded. A majority simply
doesn’t have any notion about even the mid-range future, living instead “from
paycheck to paycheck, from pension to pension with a very short horizon.”
Russia’s “consumer society” is thus quite different from its
Western counterpart, Gudkov says, because “there people owe their well-being to
their own efforts” and thus have reasons to be motivated about what they want
for the future. In Russia, such “motivations
are weak because one’s professional status is little connected with income and
way of life.”
“In
other words,” the sociologist continued, “salary or earnings depend to a grat
extent on one’s position in the power structures rather than on the quality of
your work.” That leads to a situation in which people by a three to one
majority view the authorities now as acting only in their own interests. As a
result, “politics is an absolutely discredited sphere.”
Russin
citizens at present do not want and cannot participate in it, he said, because
they do not feel themselves to be citizens,” the result of “the falsification
of elections, the increasingly harsh repression, ccensorship in the mass media,
and also fabricated cases against opposition leaders.”
About
30 percent of the population will say that they support harsh measures in order
to “preserve order and stability.” Most of these are the elderly and those who
live in the villages and today that is “Putin’s base.” Even when people
understand tht, he continued, they don’t want to personally get involved in
protests because they don’t believe such actions will matter.
Russians
are prepared for “moral protest,” but that is about attitudes not about
actions, Gudkov suggested. And without
such actions, it does not constitute a threat to the regime. What it does produce, however, is an
individual entirely suitable to be managed.Such an individual “doesn’t believe
anyone, wants to consume” and doesn’t care much about rules.
For
him, “corruptioin is not a moral problem, but a technical task of reaching
agreement about interests and thus a more or less effective mechanism of
interacting with the authorities.” Such
attitudes open that individual up to manipulation and certainly mean that he
will not protest against the powers that be.
Some
Russians – approximately one in five -- will say what the regime wants to hear,
that they want “a powerful military power.”
But 78 percent say that what they want is “a comfortable live in which
in the first place are the interests of the individual, his well-being and the
opportunities for development.”
If
Gudkov’s analysis is correct, the Putin regime does not realize just how few
supporters it has, but at the same time, the regime’s opponents from whatever
part of the political spectrum currently have little chance to mobilize a
population little concerned with political issues for political ends.
