A Majority of Russians Want Change But Many Fear Instability, Moscow Institute of Sociology Study Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, July 5 – “A relative majority of Russians” believe that the country’s economic and political arrangements need to be changed, Vladimir Petukhov of the Moscow Institute of Sociology says, especially those in the most active social groups. But at the same time, “no small number” worry that any change could threaten the country’s stability.

            Petukhov, who heads the institute’s center for complex social research, drew those conclusions on the basis of the latest poll of 4,000 Russians throughout the country. Over the past decade, he says, poll have shown that “respondents preferred stability to change” (rg.ru/2019/07/04/vyzhutovich-rossiiane-hotiat-peremen-no-ponimaiut-chto-nuzhna-stabilnost.html).

            But in the fall of 2017, the share of those who supported change reached 51 percent, with higher figures among younger age groups.  “Supporters of reform formed a majority in the megalopolises, oblast centers and – unexpectedly – among rural residents,” while backers of stability retained their majority in district centers and settlements of an urban type.

            This desire for change, Petukhov says, “has arise from the prolonged crisis: now the status quo and stability are associated in the minds of many with economic problems and a decline in the standard of living.”  And it has intensified as people have concluded that Russia isn’t going to get out of the current situation anytime soon.

            In reporting these findings in Rossiiskaya gazeta, commentator Valery Vyzhutovich spoke with Academician Mikhail Gorshkov who oversaw Petukhov’s work. According to the academician, “the authorities have a broader understanding of change” that does the population. The powers that be “connect it both with domestic life and with international relations.”

            Ordinary Russians in contrast “want a transition to a new quality of life but this does not especially concern the transformation of political institutions.” Their interest in change therefore is not necessarily a threat to those institutions but simply an indication that they want a better life.

            According to Gorshkoov, the authorities need to make use of this set of attitudes, but unfortunately, none of them except the president is ready to do so at present. Instead, most of them avoid interacting with the population, “even though now society is ready for dialogue” and would respond positively to it.

            Vyzhutovich points out that the Institute’s findings are consistent with those of the Public Opinion Foundation and VTsIOM. And he notes in particular the finding of the latter that “in the opinion of the Russian majority, democracy is “needed but ‘a very special kind corresponding to the national traditions and specific features’ of the country.” 

            “Almost 45 percent of those queried [by VTsIOM] are certain that Western democracy will bring Russia chaos and destruction.” Such attitudes have been intensified by the conclusion of nearly two-thirds of all Russians that relations between Russia and the West will always be distrustful. Only 24 percent think they could ever be friendly.

            Vyzhutovich sums up: “The absence of any demand for civic freedoms is explained besides everything else by paternalistic attitudes. These attitudes as before remain very strong. Therefore, demands of a significant part of society are directed to the authorities” rather than directed against them.

            “In this sense,” the commentator says, “the demand for change which citizens understand in their own way does not in their understanding go beyond the limits of the economy and social spheres.”