In the following paper the attempt shall be made to compare Russia and Zimbabwe with
regard to their political culture. The first impression might suggest that there is an immense amount of differences which make a comparison between these countries rather
implausible. Nevertheless I assume to discover a couple of similarities as far as the political culture is concerned. This assumption is based on the fact that both countries are nominal democracies with constitutions, party systems, elections being held etc. but with a strong deflexion towards authoritarianism. It is generally agreed nowadays that democracy as a form of government can only be successfully implemented if the actors and citizens
internalise it as a form of life and thinking as well – so maybe a failing democracy can also be explained by a failed internalisation of democratic values. Secondly, from its independence until the breakdown of the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe has been fairly oriented in the direction of the communist Russia.
After having explained the basic theoretical background of the issue of political culture, I am going to give a brief summary of important, more recent historical developments in the countries. Subsequently, I am going to examine the political culture of both Russia and Zimbabwe which will finally lead to a comparison and conclusion.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Theoretical Background
III. Historical Background
(a) Russia
(b) Zimbabwe
IV. Political Culture
(a) Russia
(b) Zimbabwe
V. Comparison & Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to conduct a comparative analysis of the political cultures in Russia and Zimbabwe, exploring how nominal democratic structures in both nations tend toward authoritarianism and how societal internalisation of democratic values influences this development.
- Comparative analysis of political cultures in Russia and Zimbabwe.
- Examination of the divergence between democratic structures and authoritarian practices.
- Evaluation of political socialisation and the role of civil society in both nations.
- Analysis of recent historical developments and their impact on current political climates.
- Assessment of the role of political elites in maintaining power through rhetoric and control.
Excerpt from the Book
(a) Russia
The reform package built by Mikhail Gorbachev under the name of “Glasnost” should advance more openness and transparency in Russian politics and society. It initialised wider participation among the Russian people and thereby led to a gain in power of the opposition. On the other hand, actors and institutions lost parts of their authority but a rapprochement towards the West had been successfully achieved.
Whereas during the Soviet regime political socialisation – and thus the political culture – was bluntly exposed to the indoctrination with the Marxist ideology, the influence by means of media, education and culture has become less ostentatious and shifted towards an emphasis of national pride. This is also reflected in the name of Vladimir Putin’s party, “United Russia”, that Russia expert Luke March classes among the “amorphous parties” or “parties of power” which base their campaigns on values or statements one cannot disagree with.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: This chapter outlines the motivation for comparing the political cultures of Russia and Zimbabwe and presents the hypothesis regarding their shared tendency toward authoritarianism despite nominal democratic frameworks.
II. Theoretical Background: This section defines political culture and its components, exploring concepts like political socialisation, civil society, and social capital as essential complements to rational choice theory.
III. Historical Background: This chapter provides a chronological overview of recent political developments in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union and in Zimbabwe since its independence.
IV. Political Culture: This chapter examines the specific political cultures of Russia and Zimbabwe, focusing on the influence of media control, opposition suppression, and societal attitudes toward authority.
V. Comparison & Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the findings, highlighting commonalities such as the legacy of suppressed participation and differences in how political elites manage economic and social pressures.
Keywords
Political Culture, Russia, Zimbabwe, Democracy, Authoritarianism, Civil Society, Political Socialisation, ZANU-PF, United Russia, Political Participation, Glasnost, Elite Control, Comparative Politics, Power Relations, Marginalisation
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper examines and compares the political cultures of Russia and Zimbabwe to understand why both countries, despite having democratic institutions, exhibit strong authoritarian tendencies.
What are the primary themes addressed in the work?
Key themes include the role of political socialisation, the impact of civil society on democratic processes, the influence of historical developments on present-day political behaviour, and the manipulation of national rhetoric by political elites.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to identify similarities and differences in how political values are internalised by citizens and exploited by ruling elites in Russia and Zimbabwe.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a comparative political science approach, integrating theoretical definitions of political culture with historical analysis and current political reporting.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical definitions of political culture, the recent historical paths of Russia and Zimbabwe, and detailed analyses of how each nation's political culture is shaped by media control, opposition management, and societal trust.
Which keywords best describe this research?
The core keywords include Political Culture, Democracy, Authoritarianism, Civil Society, Political Socialisation, and Comparative Politics.
How does the author define the "hourglass society"?
The term describes a political system where there is a significant disconnect between the political parties and their constituents, leading to a state where party labels have little actual meaning in the eyes of the citizens.
Why is the economic situation in Zimbabwe considered a factor in political instability?
The author notes that Zimbabwe's worsening economic crisis, characterized by hyperinflation and social collapse, makes the current political situation more prone to escalation compared to Russia's more stable, consensus-driven environment.
What role does the media play in both countries according to the analysis?
In both nations, the media landscape is largely controlled or influenced by the government, which uses it to promote nationalistic narratives and limit the effectiveness of opposition movements.
- Quote paper
- Lisa Wegener (Author), 2009, Political Culture in Russia and Zimbabwe, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/123386
