Public’s Fears have Different Political Impact in Democracies than in Authoritarian Systems like Russia’s Today, ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’ Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Feb. 2 – When people are fearful, their fears have political consequences, the editors of Nezavisimaya Gazeta say; but these are very different in democracies where the population expects that it will have the chance to change those in charge relatively soon than in authoritarian systems where people have little or no expectation that they can change rulers.

            In democracies, fearful people often blame those in power and seek to replace them, often falling victim to populists who promise solutions but can’t deliver; but in authoritarian systems, the editors of the Moscow paper say, those who fear often rally around the leader even if they blame him or her for their problems (ng.ru/editorial/2026-02-02/2_9428_red.html).

“In systems where power changes little or not at all despite the formal existence of democratic institutions,” they write, “the ruling elite still fears that anxious citizens will behave in the same way as people in the first type of society. Because of this, restrictions may be tightened; and populism or mechanisms of ‘a social state’ may be activated.”

It appears, the paper argues, that “the authorities seem to distrust the stably functioning psychosocial mechanism that they themselves have been preserving and supporting year after year,” one based on the logic that “fear does not lead to questioning the competence of the authorities (except perhaps at a very low level) but on the contrary, to rallying around them.”

As a result, however “paradoxical” it may seem, the paper says, “the approval ratings of the authorities in periods of anxiety in such systems do not decrease, and often even increase.” Moreover, the editors add, such societies if fears intensify, can be “calmed down quite quickly even if the anxiety-inducing context remains unchanged.”