Öffentliche Unterstützung für Demokratie und Autokratie in Russland

Putin genießt innerhalb der russischen Bevölkerung immer noch hohe Zustimmungswerte. Diese werden oftmals als öffentliche Akzeptanz gegenüber dem autoritären Kurs, der während Putins ersten beiden Amtszeiten als Präsident und seiner Zeit als Premierminister eingeschlagen wurde, interpretiert. Die Ergebnisse einiger Meinungsumfragen scheinen dieses Bild zu bestätigen. Allerdings könnte es auch sein, dass diese Befunde verzerrt sind und weniger Unterstützung für Demokratie anzeigen, als es tatsächlich der Fall ist. Die Herausforderung besteht nämlich darin, Zustimmung zu Demokratie in einem Land zu messen, in dem es gar keinen demokratischen Institutionen gibt. In Gesellschaften, die sich entweder auf dem Weg hin zu Demokratie oder weg von ihr bewegen, ist oft unklar, was »Demokratie« tatsächlich bedeutet. Institutionen und Praktiken, die das Label »Demokratie« tragen, handeln oft nicht so, wie es allgemeinen demokratischen Normen entsprechen würde. Interpretiert man die erwähnten Umfrageergebnisse unter diesem Gesichtspunkt, dann lassen sich Hinweise auf ein höheres Maß an passiver Unterstützung für Demokratie in Russland finden, als für gewöhnlich angenommen. Hingegen sind nur wenige bereit, sich aktiv politisch zu engagieren

А порядка в ней нет

Russian-language edition: One common explanation for the failure of democracy to take root in Russia more quickly and more thoroughly than it has points to inherited cultural values that predispose Russian citizens to favor an autocratic type of governance. Ellen Carnaghan takes aim at this cultural-determinist thesis in her study of Russian attitudes, based on intensive interviews with more than sixty citizens from all walks of life and a variety of political orientations. What she finds is that, rather than being influenced by an antidemocratic and anticapitalist ideology, these ordinary citizens view the economic and political system in Russia today very critically because it simply does not function well for them in meeting their everyday needs. They long for order not because they eschew democracy and free markets in any fundamental way, but because they experience them currently as chaotic and unpredictable, leading to constant frustration. As a result, there is reason to be optimistic about further progress in democratization: it depends on improving the functioning of existing institutions, not transforming deep-rooted cultural norms. In the Conclusion, Carnaghan applies her argument to elucidating the reasons why Russians have responded favorably to what Westerners see as moves in an antidemocratic direction by Vladimir Putin’s government

End of organised atheism. The genealogy of the law on freedom of conscience and its conceptual effects in Russia

In the current climate of the perceived alliance between the Russian Orthodox Church and the state, atheist activists in Moscow share a sense of juridical marginality that they seek to mitigate through claims to equal rights between believers and atheists under the Russian law on freedom of conscience. In their demands for their constitutional rights, including the right to political critique, atheist activists come across as figures of dissent at risk of the state's persecution. Their experiences constitute a remarkable (and unexamined in anthropology) reversal of political and ideological primacy of state-sponsored atheism during the Soviet days. To illuminate the legal context of the atheists’ current predicament, the article traces an alternative genealogy of the Russian law on freedom of conscience from the inception of the Soviet state through the law's post-Soviet reforms. The article shows that the legal reforms have paved the way for practical changes to the privileged legal status of organized atheism and brought about implicit conceptual effects that sideline the Soviet meaning of freedom of conscience as freedom from religion and obscure historical references to conscience as an atheist tenet of Soviet ethics

The fact that Russians favour the basic tenets of democracy ensures that the emerging opposition is not without a potential base of support

Since 2000, Vladimir Putin has spent two terms as Russia’s President and one as Prime Minister. Now that he has regained the presidency, many commentators are concerned that the Russian public has become more accepting of his increasingly autocratic government. Ellen Carnaghan argues that in societies undergoing political change like Russia, the concept of ‘democracy’ may vary widely from accepted norms, and using survey data, finds that the Russian public’s support for democracy may be greater than previously thought

А порядка в ней нет

Russian-language edition: One common explanation for the failure of democracy to take root in Russia more quickly and more thoroughly than it has points to inherited cultural values that predispose Russian citizens to favor an autocratic type of governance. Ellen Carnaghan takes aim at this cultural-determinist thesis in her study of Russian attitudes, based on intensive interviews with more than sixty citizens from all walks of life and a variety of political orientations. What she finds is that, rather than being influenced by an antidemocratic and anticapitalist ideology, these ordinary citizens view the economic and political system in Russia today very critically because it simply does not function well for them in meeting their everyday needs. They long for order not because they eschew democracy and free markets in any fundamental way, but because they experience them currently as chaotic and unpredictable, leading to constant frustration. As a result, there is reason to be optimistic about further progress in democratization: it depends on improving the functioning of existing institutions, not transforming deep-rooted cultural norms. In the Conclusion, Carnaghan applies her argument to elucidating the reasons why Russians have responded favorably to what Westerners see as moves in an antidemocratic direction by Vladimir Putin’s government

Public Opinion Polls and Political Culture

ISSN:1863-042