Russia is an enigma. In the western hemisphere, respectively the countries of the European Union and USA, it produces a lot of suspicion and resentments. Its vast spatial dimensions, in terms of size; its controversial history and its stubborn focus on sovereignty, when it comes to foreign policy and the international community, are the most prominent sources for difficulties of understanding. In addition, the Russian people liketo sustain a hint of mystery themselves, in claiming that no other nationality can understand them. Apart from stereotypes and prejudices about typical Russian people and characteristics, there are a handful of assumptions one encounters that cling to public opinion about Russia’s political landscape:
(1) Political opposition does not exist, civic opposition is marginalised.
(2) The independence of the judiciary system is a façade and de facto does not effectively monitor the executive.
(3) The Soviet imprint on Russian people led to a mentality of subordination, inflexibility and obedience to any kind of authority.
(4) The Russian media are corrupted and controlled by the Kremlin.
(5) Putin only won the election due to massive vote manipulation.
In line with the mentioned assumptions, Western media coverage tends to be polemic and jaundiced. As Russia is perceived as a watchdog of Sovereignty in the international community and in that sense with a tendency to veto humanitarian missions , criticism is very easily formulated.
This work will treat the Russian political system as a contemporary phenomenon. Let us assume all of those assumptions are held true; why does the Russian population still accept those deficits? The fact that the circumstances can be that unpromising, and not many people try tochange something, leaves many spectators speechless. Where does the popular support of society for President Putin come from? What is the source of stability? Why were the civil opposition movements in 2012/2013 mostly ignored by the majority? What are the reasons for the lack of proneness to protest? Do Russians perceive the political system differently; do they maybe put another focus? Or do they simply fear oppression?
The central question, which will be answered, consequently reads "Why does the Russian population supports Putin’s political system and regime?"
Table of Contents
Part 1 Introduction
1.1 State of Affairs
1.2 Hypothesis
1.3 Structure
Part 2 Theory
2.1 Democracy
A western view on the concept of democracy: Robert Dahl's Polyarchy
2.2 Legitimacy
2.2.1 Glaser: Three-Criteria Theory
2.2.2 Scharpf: Dimensions of Legitimation
2.3 Lippmann: Public Opinion
2.4 Path Dependence
2.5 Berg-Schlosser: Input/Output-Dualism and indicators of Democracy
Part 3 Case Study Russia
3.1 State of Inquiry
3.1.1 Result 1: "The Russian Political System is defect and dysfunctional"
3.1.2 Result 2: "A majority of Russians support President Putin's presidency"
3.1.3 Result 3: "Russians are in favour of democracy, respect democratic values and hope for further democratization"
3.1.4 Contradiction: Russians are fully aware of the intrinsic systemic dysfunctions and undemocratic inconsistencies, and support President Putin, although they yearn for democracy
3.2 Russian Peculiarities
3.2.1 Presidential legacy
3.2.2 Russian path dependence: The Trauma Path
3.2.3 Dubin: Dimensions of Identity – The Personal-Social Gap
Part 4 Explaining the contradiction
4.1 The Triple-S Pattern (S3P)
4.1.1 Stability
4.1.2 Security
4.1.3 Sovereignty
4.2 Legitimation through S3P
4.3 Lippmann's tools of Public Opinion shaping in the Russian context
4.4 Huntington's Development Theory and Institutionalization
Part 5 Results and further Research
5.1 Summary of Results
S3P applied to the Pussy Riot incident
5.2 Reflection and free Association
Is Democracy promotion a form of Paternalism?
Goal and Research Focus
This thesis examines the apparent contradiction in the Russian political system, where a population that seemingly yearns for democracy and is aware of systemic dysfunctions simultaneously grants high levels of support to President Putin. The work aims to identify the underlying mechanisms of value-creation in Russian history and how legitimacy is constructed through the prioritization of specific state values.
- Analysis of democratic legitimacy and its input/output dimensions.
- Evaluation of the "Triple-S Pattern" (Stability, Security, Sovereignty).
- Examination of Russian path dependence and historical trauma.
- Application of political communication theories to Russian media control.
- Case studies on the Russian political environment and the Pussy Riot incident.
Excerpt from the Book
1.1 State of Affairs
Russia is an enigma. In the western hemisphere, respectively the countries of the European Union and USA, it produces a lot of suspicion and resentment. Its vast spatial dimensions, in terms of size; its controversial history and its stubborn focus on sovereignty, when it comes to foreign policy and the international community, are the most prominent sources for difficulties of understanding. In addition, the Russian people like to sustain a hint of mystery themselves, in claiming that no other nationality can understand them. Apart from stereotypes and prejudices about typical Russian people and characteristics, there are a handful of assumptions one encounters that cling to public opinion about Russia’s political landscape:
(1) Political opposition does not exist, civic opposition is marginalised.
(2) The independence of the judiciary system is a façade and de facto does not effectively monitor the executive.
(3) The Soviet imprint on Russian people led to a mentality of subordination, inflexibility and obedience to any kind of authority.
(4) The Russian media are corrupted and controlled by the Kremlin.
(5) Putin only won the election due to massive vote manipulation.
In line with the mentioned assumptions, Western media coverage tends to be polemic and jaundiced. As Russia is perceived as a watchdog of Sovereignty in the international community and in that sense with a tendency to veto humanitarian missions, criticism is very easily formulated.
Summary of Chapters
Part 1 Introduction: Defines the research puzzle regarding Russia's political system and sets the stage for the academic debate.
Part 2 Theory: Introduces foundational concepts including Robert Dahl’s Polyarchy, legitimacy theories by Glaser and Scharpf, and Lippmann’s public opinion framework.
Part 3 Case Study Russia: Evaluates empirical evidence regarding the Russian system, focusing on systemic defects and public support for President Putin.
Part 4 Explaining the contradiction: Develops the Triple-S Pattern (Stability, Security, Sovereignty) as an analytical tool to explain the legitimacy of the Russian regime.
Part 5 Results and further Research: Synthesizes findings, applies the theoretical model to the Pussy Riot case, and reflects on democracy promotion.
Keywords
Democracy, Legitimacy, Russia, Putin, Sovereignty, Stability, Security, Path Dependence, Public Opinion, Political Culture, Authoritarianism, Polyarchy, Media Control, Institutionalization, S3P.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this thesis primarily about?
The work investigates why the Russian population supports President Putin despite being aware of systemic political failures and desiring democratic change.
What are the central thematic fields?
The central themes are democracy, legitimacy, path dependence, and public opinion, analyzed within the specific context of contemporary Russian politics.
What is the primary research question?
The central question is: Why does the Russian population support Putin's political system and regime?
Which scientific methods are used?
The study uses qualitative analysis of political theory and existing opinion polls to confront conflicting theoretical paradigms.
What is discussed in the main part of the thesis?
The main part analyzes the Russian political system's characteristics, historical imprints, and introduces the "Triple-S Pattern" (Stability, Security, Sovereignty) as an explanatory model.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include democracy, legitimacy, S3P, path dependence, political culture, and sovereign democracy.
What role does the "Triple-S Pattern" play in the author's argument?
The S3P is the core explanatory mechanism showing how the Russian leadership redirects public dissatisfaction toward abstract national values to gain output-oriented legitimacy.
How does the author explain the Pussy Riot incident?
The incident is analyzed as a litmus test where the regime successfully used the S3P framework to frame the protesters as a threat to national security and stability, thereby retaining legitimacy.
- Citar trabajo
- Jonas Wolterstorff (Autor), 2013, Theories of Democracy in Comparison: The Russian Case. Output-oriented Legitimacy, Defect Democracy, Political Culture, Path Dependence and Public Opinion, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/281667
