Suchergebnisse

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.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Tables -- Acknowledgments -- A Note on Transliteration -- 1 Out of Order -- 2 The Tangled Web of Culture -- 3 Russians in Their Own Words -- 4 Abstract Notions of Democracy Versus Current Experiences -- 5 Views of Markets: Russians Confront Inequality -- 6 Views on Order, Disorder, and Democracy -- 7 Views of Change: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same -- 8 What Russians Want -- 9 Conclusion -- Appendixes -- References -- Index

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.

Invisible Hands, Russian Experience, and Social Science: Approaches to Understanding Systemic Failure. By Stefan Hedlund. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 324p. $95.00, cloth, $35.99 paper.In recent decades the study of social phenomena has been characterized by the increasing specialization of academic subdisciplines. At the same time, social science has had great difficulty in accounting for instances of systemic failure that challenge the artificial typologies often promoted by specialized scholarship. Increasing theoretical sophistication thus arguably has come at the expense of grasping the particular and unique nature of historical events. In Invisible Hands, Russian Experience, and Social Science, Stefan Hedlund examines the postcommunist Russian encounter with capitalism and the global financial crisis as examples of unprecedented events that challenged social scientists' assumptions about the causes of human behavior and the functioning of social and political institutions. In this symposium a group of political scientists have been asked to critically assess the book's account and to comment more broadly on what systemic failure can tell us about social science theorizing.—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

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.