Getty
Show Hide image

A very special version of Russian democracy

When asked whether their country is a democracy, Russians struggle to find a comprehensive answer.

Russia cannot be understood with mere intellect

Or measured by a common yardstick.

Russia is so special 

That you can only believe in it.

These famous lines, written by a Russian poet Feodor Tutchev in 1866, are rightfully timeless. Last week an independent Moscow-based market research agency Levada Centre published the results of its recent survey on democracy in Russia. At the risk of asking the obvious (according to its constitution, Russia is a democratic, federal republic), the respondents were given multiple choice questions and asked to determine whether democracy existed in Russia today. 62 per cent of Russians were certain or fairly certain that demos (the people) had kratos (the power) in Russia in 2015, as compared to 36 per cent five years ago. In addition, more people thought that things were getting better or at least fewer people were worried that the democratic standards were slipping (11 per cent in 2015 vs 20 per cent in 2010). 

Does democracy exist in Russia today?

 

March 2010

November 2015

Yes, definitely

4%

16%

Yes, to some extent

32%

46%

Not yet

36%

19%

There is becoming less of it lately

20%

11%

I don’t know

8%

9%

When asked “What kind of democracy does Russia need?”, almost half of the respondents (46 per cent) replied that Russia needed its own, very special version of democracy, in line with the country’s norms and traditions. It is this answer that prompted me to investigate what Russians meant by the “special kind of democracy”, which cannot be measured by a common yardstick. I asked Russians who live in Moscow as well as Russian expats in London and Zürich, who have been exposed to western values for over a decade.  

Most people I spoke to have indeed picked the “distinct form of democracy”, arguing that “an American model is unsuitable” for Russia. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no one could elaborate on the specifics of the desired model. One woman volunteered that “the ideal ruler for Russia would be someone like Peter the Great.” Once we have cleared that Russia under Peter was absolute monarchy, my respondent explained her reasoning: “Russia needs a strong leader, a disciplinarian. Russians cannot be ruled with a carrot, they understand only the stick.” In her view, Russians are too emotional and if they are granted too much freedom, they turn into loose cannons. She has a point. When Yeltsin, the most liberal head of state Russia has ever known, finally fuelled economic reforms, initialised by Gorbachev, the unprecedented market freedom has resulted in chaos, which culminated with Russia’s financial default in 1998.

The idea of a “strong ruler with wider powers” than would be implied by a Western constitution was echoed by others. “Russia needs a master,” said a mother of two who lives in Britain. “Russian people need clear directions and control, otherwise they’d just sit there like Brits on benefits, watching TV and complaining all the time.” Her argument gave a nod to Goncharov’s Oblomov, a fictitious nineteenth century character who wasted his life because he was lazy and lacked purpose. This disillusion with freedom explains well why Stalin has recently re-emerged in Russia as a symbol of order and united national spirit. 

A few people I spoke to were convinced that Russia did not need any democracy at all. They too citied Russia's history and its achievements under Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible and Josef Stalin. It’s little wonder that 85 per cent of the population supports Putin, according to the December 2015 poll by the Levada Centre. The special feature of the Russian mentality is that anyone but the tsar is to blame. Corruption, lawlessness, lack of social infrastructure and inequality are evident to all, but these are the problems associated with the “local imbeciles” and oligarchs, not the person presiding on the throne. 

Russians appear to be particularly allergic to the democracy of the “American kind”. “Look at the United States and what their democracy did to the Middle East. What about Ukraine, seduced by the US and Western promises, and now suffering from economic hardship?” said one entrepreneur. “The Brits may not want to bomb Syria, but their MPs voted to do it anyway,” pointed another. 

Western values, such as protection of the human rights, freedom of speech and equal opportunities for the minorities, appear to be too remote from the day-to-day lives to be considered as priorities. Another recent survey revealed that 58 per cent of Russians “have enough money for food and clothes, but considering such purchases as a TV set or a fridge would be a problem.” 14 per cent have enough money for food but not clothes and 3 per cent struggle to buy food. Just 3 per cent “can afford to buy a car”. Some people I spoke to offered that “minority rights contradict traditions of Russian Orthodox church”. Sadly, this religious argument to support the curtailment of the LGBT rights has become the focal point, as if the disabled in Russia enjoy fair treatment or the racism does not exist. “We have too many people for today’s oil price!” said my former classmate. I can only hope he was joking.  

It is, of course, not at all surprising that no one could come up with an eloquent description of an ideal model of democracy, especially moulded for Russian mentality. Quite simply, Russia has no experience of it. From the absolute monarchy, Russia barely had a chance to get used to having a parliament (or Duma), when the Bolshevik revolution had erased all traces of it and kept it under locks for 70years. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia did the best it could to draw a new constitution, draft new laws and declare individual freedoms. Inevitably, there were teething issues, but instead of nurturing the nascent democracy, Russia’s current governing elite has been busy using its power over media to feed people an old tale about Russia’s unique path. “The Western model won’t work here”, the emphasised values of integrity, orthodoxy and “the national spirit” have once again conquered the Russian minds just like these ideas had been advocated by the tsar Nikolai I in the nineteenth century. New terms, such as a “governed democracy” and “sovereign democracy” have popped up to entertain the inquisitive minds. Other minds probably don’t even care. 

So what is Russia today? A special democracy or a just failed one?

Getty
Show Hide image

Forget the flat caps - this is what Labour voters really look like

Young, educated women are more typical than older, working-class men. 

In announcing the snap election, Theresa May set out her desire to create a “more united” country in the aftermath of last year’s referendum. But as the campaign begins, new YouGov analysis of over 12,000 people shows the demographic dividing lines of British voters.

Although every voter is an individual, this data shows how demographics relate to electoral behaviour. These divides will shape the next few weeks – from the seats the parties target to the key messages they use. Over the course of the campaign we will not just be monitoring the “headline” voting intention numbers, but also the many different types of voters that make up the electorate. 

Class: No longer a good predictor of voting behaviour

“Class” used to be central to understanding British politics. The Conservatives, to all intents and purposes, were the party of the middle class and Labour that of the workers. The dividing lines were so notable that you could predict, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, how someone would vote just by knowing their social grade. For example at the 1992 election the Conservatives led Labour amongst ABC1 (middle class) voters by around 30 percentage points, whilst Labour was leading amongst C2DE (working class) voters by around 10 points.

But today, class would tell you little more about a person’s voting intention that looking at their horoscope or reading their palms. As this campaign starts, the Conservatives hold a 22 per cent lead amongst middle class voters and a 17 per cent lead amongst working class ones.

Age: The new dividing line in British politics

In electoral terms, age is the new class. The starkest way to show this is to note that Labour is 19 per cent ahead when it comes to 18-24 year-olds, and the Conservatives are ahead by 49 per cent among the over 65s. Our analysis suggest that the current tipping point – which is to say the age where voters are more likely to favour the Conservatives over Labour – is 34.

In fact, for every 10 years older a voter is, their chance of voting Tory increases by around 8 per cent and the chance of them voting Labour decreases by 6 per cent. This age divide could create further problems for Labour on 8 June. Age is also a big driver of turnout, with older people being far more likely to vote than young people. It’s currently too early to tell the exact impact this could have on the final result.

Gender: The Conservative’s non-existent “women problem”

Before the last election David Cameron was sometimes described as having a “woman problem”. Our research at the time showed this narrative wasn’t quite accurate. While it was true that the Conservativexs were doing slightly better amongst young men than young women, they were also doing slightly better among older women than older men.

However, these two things cancelled each other out meaning that ultimately the Conservatives polled about the same amongst both men and women. Going into the 2017 election women are, if anything, slightly more (three percentage points) likely overall to vote Tory.

Labour has a large gender gap among younger voters. The party receives 42 per cent of the under-40 women’s vote compared to just 32 per cent amongst men of the same age – a gap of nine points. However among older voters this almost disappears completely. When you just look at the over-40s, the gap is just two points – with 21 per cent of women and 19 per cent of men of that age saying they will vote Labour.

With both of the two main now parties performing better amongst women overall, it’s the other parties who are balancing this out by polling better amongst men. Ukip have the support of 2 per cent more men than women, whilst the gender gap is 3 per cent for the Lib Dems. 

Education: The higher the qualification, the higher Labour’s vote share

Alongside age, education has become one of the key electoral demographic dividing lines. We saw it was a huge factor in the EU referendum campaign and, after the last general election, we made sure we accounted for qualifications in our methodology. This election will be no different. While the Conservatives lead amongst all educational groupings, their vote share decrease for every extra qualification a voter has, whilst the Labour and Lib Dem vote share increases.

Amongst those with no formal qualifications, the Conservative lead by 35 per cent. But when it comes to those with a degree, the Tory lead falls to 8 per cent. Education also shapes other parties’ vote shares. Ukip also struggles amongst highly educated voters, polling four times higher amongst those with no formal qualifications compared to those with a degree.

Income: Labour’s tax increase won’t affect many Labour voters

John McDonnell, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, has already made income part of this campaign by labelling those who earn above £70,000 a year as “rich” and hinting they may face tax rises. One of the reasons for the policy might be that the party has very few votes to lose amongst those in this tax bracket.

Amongst those earning over £70,000 a year, Labour is in third place with just 11 per cent support. The Conservatives pick up 60 per cent of this group’s support and the Lib Dems also perform well, getting almost a fifth (19 per cent) of their votes.

But while the Conservatives are still the party of the rich, Labour is no longer the party of the poor. They are 13 per cent behind amongst those with a personal income of under £20,000 a year, although it is worth noting that this group will also include many retired people who will be poor in terms of income but rich in terms of assets.

Chris Curtis is a politics researcher at YouGov. 

0800 7318496