В статье рассматривается взаимосвязь между журналистикой и общественным мнением. Современная практика изучения общественного мнения исторически возникла в ходе развития социума, находящегося на демократических путях развития, когда стала осознаваться необходимость учета мнений масс. Журналистика, в свою очередь, родилась как отражение необходимости удовлетворять определенные потребности масс. И то, и другое привело к такому феномену, как результаты опросов общественного мнения в прессе. ; The article deals with the relations веtween these practices. The modern polls were born during the democratic tendencies in societies, when the large role of the mass became clear. Journalism, also, appeared as a neediness to reflect the complex demand of these mass, demand to know public opinion.
Рассматриваются проблемы и социальная значимость общественного мнения в законотворческой деятельности. Подчеркивается необходимость учета и использования при изучении влияния общественного мнения на законотворчество таких аспектов, как воздействие на принятие законопроекта и включенность исследований в законотворческий процесс. Предлагаются предложения о создании в парламенте исследовательской службы, независимого психолого-социологического центра (службы), которые могли бы проводить параллельные исследования по сходной тематике, обеспечивая таким образом взаимный контроль за их результатами.There is a consideration of problems and of the social importance of public opinion in legislative activity. Necessity of the account and use of aspects is underlined. It is important when studying the influence of public opinion on lawmaking: influence on acceptance of the bill and an inclusiveness of researches in legislative process. Positive and negative sides of the basic approaches and methods of studying of public opinion in lawmaking are described. There is a suggestion of creation of the research service in parliament, of the independent psychological and sociological centre (service) which could carry out parallel researches on similar subjects, thus providing the mutual control over their results.
В статье исследуется вопрос о формах проявления и роли общественного мнения в республиканском Древнем Риме. Авторы показывают, что в Древнем Риме республиканского периода оно выступало в форме общественного трибунала римского народа, было весьма уважаемым, вездесущим, всепроникающим и изменчивым. ; The article deals with the forms of the public opinion manifestation in the Republican Rome. The authors show that in the Roman Republic the public opinion existed in the form of the 'public tribunal' of the Roman people that was respected, omnipresent, all-pervading and volatile.
Анализируется опыт выявления и изучения состояния общественного мнения в 1987-1989 гг., реализованный в цикле передач «Общественное мнение» Ленинградской студии телевидения (ЛСТ). Представлен анализ, сделанный в 1988 г., дана современная оценка ему. В прямом телеэфире проводилось голосование зрителей по актуальным темам, специально отобранным экспертами для обсуждения. Дискуссию в студии вели две группы экспертов, аргументировавших обозначенные позиции. Оперативный социологический комментарий к результатам голосования обеспечивался компьютерной обработкой данных. Социологи-аналитики, принимавшие участие в передаче, сообщали результаты телефонного голосования и социально-демографические характеристики его участников. Общий вывод из анализа результатов голосования: водораздел мнений как по возрастным группам, так и по группам занятости проходил внутри каждой группы, а не между ними. Специфичной оказалась молодежная часть выборки наиболее радикально настроенная, независимо от того, какой именно обсуждался вопрос. Группы субъектов цикла передач «Общественное мнение» как социального явления: 1) ученые специалисты (обществоведы, экономисты, юристы); 2) представители власти, руководители; 3) простые люди с улицы. Анализ поведения этих групп обнаружил следующие проблемы: относительно низкий уровень профессионализма и очень высокий уровень самоцензуры экспертов; недоверие к словам представителей власти со стороны простых людей; отсутствие практики и, как следствие, беспомощность представителей власти в общении не с массами, а с конкретными людьми по конкретным вопросам. Анализируя поток писем в адрес передачи, удалось выделить и описать наиболее часто встречающиеся типы общественного сознания и высказать предположения о степени их распространенности. ; The author gives an attempt to study and describe public opinion in 1987-1989 based on The Public Opinion TV program of the Leningrad TV Studio (LST). The paper presents an analysis carried out in 1988 and delivers its comprehensive assessment. The TV audience was asked to express the opinion on actual topics online. The studio discussion was hosted by two groups of experts who had to prove their positions. Computer data processing was used to provide continuous sociological commentary. Social analysts who took part in the TV program announced the results of the telephone-based survey as well as socio-demographic profile of the respondents. The basic conclusion drawn from the survey results are as follows: people were divided in their opinions according to both age groups and employment group; the division was inside the group rather than between groups. Young respondents had their specifics: they were radical regardless of the type of question. The following social groups were involved in the Public Opinion TV program: 1) scientists from various fields of study (social scientists, economists, lawyers); 2) representatives of authorities, leaders; 3) ordinary people. The analysis of the groups revealed the following problems: rather low professional level and extremely high level of self-censorship among experts; ordinary people distrusting the representatives of authorities; lack of practice resulted in inability of authorities to communicate with each person separately but not with the masses. A great volume of letters sent to the TV editors was analyzed to describe the most common types of public consciousness and their prevalence.
The process of the state separating from society that had taken place in European countries as far back as in the XIX century and provided legal frameworks for modern law states remains an issue of the future for Russia. Therefore neither public opinion nor the state (institutions) are unable to view each other "from outside". In such situation the routine set of questions of participation/non-participation of citizens in political life, the availability of interest in and possibility of such participation, etc., makes a researcher look for correlation between mass imagination and a world of fictitious, pseudo-political formations and categories. In order to understand the meaning of the findings received it is necessary to make it clear all the time what "politics" and "political activity" mean (in modern situation and public opinion), in what way mass participation in it is (or may be) expressed, there being no criterion of actual political participation in public opinion (both appropriate institutional basis and mass experience of whatever participation are lacking). For the majority of respondents power is associated mainly with particular public figures -the President, the government, local officials. Depersonalized institutions ("the state", "the law") come forward quite seldom. Respondents loyal to the present authorities more often demonstrate the wish to see effective officials as heads of the country, and the opposition share romantic notions about enthusiastic devotion to the people. Today's personalization of power is inseparably connected with the trend of depersonalizing the power bearers themselves. The principal foundation of the complex of the Russian citizens' attitudes towards power structures activities (lack of interest, unwillingness to participate, and possibility of deception) is made up of deeply rooted detachment of an ordinary person from the state affairs. It's not surprising that the supporters of the acting President pay more attention to the power activity ("is controlling.") than his opponents, but the differences in opinions are relatively insignificant. Both have one thing in common: control over authorities and mutual control of power and citizens are rarely mentioned, and mutual fraud is referred to most often. Consequently citizens' dependency on power proves to be to a great degree ostentatious, "sly". As for any under-institutionalized society the transition of power from one group to another in the history of our country of recent decades turns out to be an arduous ordeal which exposes and threatens the entire construction of power relations. ; The process of the state separating from society that had taken place in European countries as far back as in the XIX century and provided legal frameworks for modern law states remains an issue of the future for Russia. Therefore neither public opinion nor the state (institutions) are unable to view each other "from outside". In such situation the routine set of questions of participation/non-participation of citizens in political life, the availability of interest in and possibility of such participation, etc., makes a researcher look for correlation between mass imagination and a world of fictitious, pseudo-political formations and categories. In order to understand the meaning of the findings received it is necessary to make it clear all the time what "politics" and "political activity" mean (in modern situation and public opinion), in what way mass participation in it is (or may be) expressed, there being no criterion of actual political participation in public opinion (both appropriate institutional basis and mass experience of whatever participation are lacking). For the majority of respondents power is associated mainly with particular public figures -the President, the government, local officials. Depersonalized institutions ("the state", "the law") come forward quite seldom. Respondents loyal to the present authorities more often demonstrate the wish to see effective officials as heads of the country, and the opposition share romantic notions about enthusiastic devotion to the people. Today's personalization of power is inseparably connected with the trend of depersonalizing the power bearers themselves. The principal foundation of the complex of the Russian citizens' attitudes towards power structures activities (lack of interest, unwillingness to participate, and possibility of deception) is made up of deeply rooted detachment of an ordinary person from the state affairs. It's not surprising that the supporters of the acting President pay more attention to the power activity ("is controlling.") than his opponents, but the differences in opinions are relatively insignificant. Both have one thing in common: control over authorities and mutual control of power and citizens are rarely mentioned, and mutual fraud is referred to most often. Consequently citizens' dependency on power proves to be to a great degree ostentatious, "sly". As for any under-institutionalized society the transition of power from one group to another in the history of our country of recent decades turns out to be an arduous ordeal which exposes and threatens the entire construction of power relations.
The century horizon is the greatest century boundary open to ordinary sight. The time structure in a "century" case is set forth by imagination, expectation of, etc. not so much practical but of ideological (socio-mythological) character. Transition from the 19th to the 20th century was expected in Europe in the atmosphere of tension and some fabulousness: over the threshold of "the century of progress" which it (the 19th) seemed to be both were expected, the collapse of traditional values (morals, beauty, religion, social order) and bringing about social and technical Utopias. The end of the 20th, the most catastrophic century in humanity's memory doesn't seem a disaster, it is rather perceived as carnival-festival event. Actually all mass processes typical for the 20th century have proved to be controlled, both by social organizations and by specific means of mass influence (mass propaganda and advertising through mass media). On a closer look the behavior of modern "crowds" also depends on ideological and psychological attitudes of mass influence systems. If the 17th century was considered to be "the Age of Reason", the 18th the Age of Enlightenment, and the 19th the Age of Progress, the 20th century was mainly the Age of Nations (this latter symbol being evidently deprived of positive values colouring). Two World wars and all the processes of national self-assertion on the outskirts of Europe and in post-colonial world occurred under this sign. The 20th century witnessed the downfall of all tremendous social constructions that envisaged a certain plan of rational, optimal, just, etc. organization, as it seemed to its developers, to be imposed on society. It's important in this case to draw attention to mass "component" in all the processes, events, and cataclysms of the passing century. Dictatorship regimes in the 20th century are the regimes of violence towards masses by organized masses (mass parties, movements, systems of mass support). And the dictators themselves are the leaders lifted up and loved by masses, who both order them about and need their support. The essence of the 20th century events have rather been cataclysms and collisions connected with contradictions of modernization processes, "lagging behind" modernization, peculiarities of modernization processes at various socio-cultural levels. It was only in the 20th century that public opinion was recognized as a factor of social life, as well as a subject of special study. There are two principal patterns of modern public opinion. The first one is a pattern of open competitive public opinion where various positions compete. The second one is a pattern of closed public opinion with only one, wittingly true position expressed by the only possible "axis" system of leader-party-ideology. Public opinion polls, at least on political issues, are impossible in closed societies but situation in such environment may be described by other indicators, that is by the same mass (plebiscite) voting, mass expressions of demonstrative support of a leader or of hatred to hostile forces, by absence of protests, by type of political persecutions. In the destinies and tragedies of the 20th century public opinion plays an important role, not only as a mirror but as organizer, as a factor of cohesion of human multitudes, of making up the illusions, passions, idols, of justification (more seldom, condemning) mass crimes. One may believe that in understanding this century events the criticism of mass reason will sometime play its role ("criticism" in a sense of a classical period, as the analysis of possibilities, bounds, conditions of existence). The specific main character of the XXth century is a mass person. ; The century horizon is the greatest century boundary open to ordinary sight. The time structure in a "century" case is set forth by imagination, expectation of, etc. not so much practical but of ideological (socio-mythological) character. Transition from the 19th to the 20th century was expected in Europe in the atmosphere of tension and some fabulousness: over the threshold of "the century of progress" which it (the 19th) seemed to be both were expected, the collapse of traditional values (morals, beauty, religion, social order) and bringing about social and technical Utopias. The end of the 20th, the most catastrophic century in humanity's memory doesn't seem a disaster, it is rather perceived as carnival-festival event. Actually all mass processes typical for the 20th century have proved to be controlled, both by social organizations and by specific means of mass influence (mass propaganda and advertising through mass media). On a closer look the behavior of modern "crowds" also depends on ideological and psychological attitudes of mass influence systems. If the 17th century was considered to be "the Age of Reason", the 18th the Age of Enlightenment, and the 19th the Age of Progress, the 20th century was mainly the Age of Nations (this latter symbol being evidently deprived of positive values colouring). Two World wars and all the processes of national self-assertion on the outskirts of Europe and in post-colonial world occurred under this sign. The 20th century witnessed the downfall of all tremendous social constructions that envisaged a certain plan of rational, optimal, just, etc. organization, as it seemed to its developers, to be imposed on society. It's important in this case to draw attention to mass "component" in all the processes, events, and cataclysms of the passing century. Dictatorship regimes in the 20th century are the regimes of violence towards masses by organized masses (mass parties, movements, systems of mass support). And the dictators themselves are the leaders lifted up and loved by masses, who both order them about and need their support. The essence of the 20th century events have rather been cataclysms and collisions connected with contradictions of modernization processes, "lagging behind" modernization, peculiarities of modernization processes at various socio-cultural levels. It was only in the 20th century that public opinion was recognized as a factor of social life, as well as a subject of special study. There are two principal patterns of modern public opinion. The first one is a pattern of open competitive public opinion where various positions compete. The second one is a pattern of closed public opinion with only one, wittingly true position expressed by the only possible "axis" system of leader-party-ideology. Public opinion polls, at least on political issues, are impossible in closed societies but situation in such environment may be described by other indicators, that is by the same mass (plebiscite) voting, mass expressions of demonstrative support of a leader or of hatred to hostile forces, by absence of protests, by type of political persecutions. In the destinies and tragedies of the 20th century public opinion plays an important role, not only as a mirror but as organizer, as a factor of cohesion of human multitudes, of making up the illusions, passions, idols, of justification (more seldom, condemning) mass crimes. One may believe that in understanding this century events the criticism of mass reason will sometime play its role ("criticism" in a sense of a classical period, as the analysis of possibilities, bounds, conditions of existence). The specific main character of the XXth century is a mass person.
The Monitoring of social and economic change enables to estimate the consequences of social policy, in particular on the basis of the dynamics of such generalised estimates as people's attitude towards life, observance of social rights, material conditions of families, current mood, evaluation of the present times (namely how difficult they are), and readiness to protest. On the basis of the listed indicators, two significant points are noted: first, the obvious prevalence of negative estimates by practically all indicators (except readiness to protest); second, either an increase of negative estimates or their stagnation observed across all indicators. At present in society, the necessity of a deep social reform aimed at achievement of positive changes has become ripe, first of all in the area of social and labour relations and a system of social guarantees. In the contemporary world, labour behaviour increasingly becomes conditioned by attitudes to a remuneration adequate to workers' expectations and capable of satisfying their various needs and requirements (material, professional, status-related, and personal ones). Concerning the level of understanding of importance of motivation process for labour efficiency, Russia is noticeably behind the world's leading countries. The problem of earningsrate has become still more urgent than in the Soviet period. According to notions expressed by employed respondents, their average earnings today are approximately three-fold lower than they deserve. Under Russia's conditions, for most people work increasingly becomes the source of means for survival, whereas in the developed industrial countries the significance of socio-psychological "stimuli" is increasing (recognition and approval of results of work, need for respect from human environment, for recognition and approval of achievements, need for self-expression and realisation of personal potential, satisfaction -with results of -work, possibilities of creative and business career, professional promotion, success, need for communication, support, participation, responsibility, etc.). At present, the question must be creation of a new system of social guarantees, really ensuring social protection to every citizen in a society based on market relations. Despite deep changes in society, the public prefers a pattern of the development of social guarantees when the government assumes responsibility for satisfaction of the most significant social needs of people. The question is, in the first place, predominantly free school education and health services. It seems that the logic of mass consciousness in this case fully conforms to economic efficiency and social utility. ; The Monitoring of social and economic change enables to estimate the consequences of social policy, in particular on the basis of the dynamics of such generalised estimates as people's attitude towards life, observance of social rights, material conditions of families, current mood, evaluation of the present times (namely how difficult they are), and readiness to protest. On the basis of the listed indicators, two significant points are noted: first, the obvious prevalence of negative estimates by practically all indicators (except readiness to protest); second, either an increase of negative estimates or their stagnation observed across all indicators. At present in society, the necessity of a deep social reform aimed at achievement of positive changes has become ripe, first of all in the area of social and labour relations and a system of social guarantees. In the contemporary world, labour behaviour increasingly becomes conditioned by attitudes to a remuneration adequate to workers' expectations and capable of satisfying their various needs and requirements (material, professional, status-related, and personal ones). Concerning the level of understanding of importance of motivation process for labour efficiency, Russia is noticeably behind the world's leading countries. The problem of earningsrate has become still more urgent than in the Soviet period. According to notions expressed by employed respondents, their average earnings today are approximately three-fold lower than they deserve. Under Russia's conditions, for most people work increasingly becomes the source of means for survival, whereas in the developed industrial countries the significance of socio-psychological "stimuli" is increasing (recognition and approval of results of work, need for respect from human environment, for recognition and approval of achievements, need for self-expression and realisation of personal potential, satisfaction -with results of -work, possibilities of creative and business career, professional promotion, success, need for communication, support, participation, responsibility, etc.). At present, the question must be creation of a new system of social guarantees, really ensuring social protection to every citizen in a society based on market relations. Despite deep changes in society, the public prefers a pattern of the development of social guarantees when the government assumes responsibility for satisfaction of the most significant social needs of people. The question is, in the first place, predominantly free school education and health services. It seems that the logic of mass consciousness in this case fully conforms to economic efficiency and social utility.
В статье анализируется интерпретация понятия «легитимность» в социологии, устанавливается взаимозависимость общественного мнения и легитимности. Автор показывает, что формирование общественного мнения о власти с целью обеспечение ее легитимности может осуществляться с помощью многих демократических институтов, среди которых Интернет является самым независимым и потому наиболее эффективным ресурсом.The article analyzes the interpretation of the concept of legitimacy in sociology, establishing the interdependence between public opinion and legitimacy. The author shows that the forming of public opinion on government for ensuring its legitimacy can be achieved by many democratic institutions, and the Internet is the most independent and useful resource among them.
В статье исследуется процесс становления общественного мнения как феномена общественно-политической жизни. Общественное мнение рассматривается в контексте формирования легитимности политической власти. Анализируется сущность легитимности власти, подходы к ее определению. Отмечается значение, роль легитимности в политической сфере как важного атрибута власти, что определяет актуальность развития и использования политических технологий воздействия на общественное мнение. Делается вывод о том, что фактор влияния общественного мнения на политическую сферу и положение тех или иных политических акторов в наши дни неоспорим, что привело к развитию отдельной отрасли политических технологий. Данные технологии включают в себя, в частности, набор информационно-пропагандистских и психологических приемов, радиус действия которых в настоящее время стал фактически неограниченным вследствие процессов глобализации и информатизации. ; The paper examines the process of developing public opinion as a phenomenon of social and political life. Public opinion is considered in the context of the legitimacy of political power. The author analyzes the essence of the legitimacy of political power and various approaches to its definition, notes the importance and the role of legitimacy in the political sphere as an important attribute of power, all of that contributes to the development and use of political technologies in order to influence on public opinion. It is concluded that influence of public opinion on the political sphere and the position of certain political players today is indisputable that leads to the development and evolution of political technologies. These technologies include a set of information manipulation, public propaganda and psychological techniques, now their range has become virtually unlimited due to the processes of globalization and informatization.
The article analyzes the results of sociological research which demonstrates Tambov citizens' preferences in relation to their social health, political commitment, perception of political parties' activity, major public authorities, and mass media at the beginning of electioneering 2007. ; The article analyzes the results of sociological research which demonstrates Tambov citizens' preferences in relation to their social health, political commitment, perception of political parties' activity, major public authorities, and mass media at the beginning of electioneering 2007.
В статье рассмотрена проблема изучения общественного мнения как основного критерия эффективности деятельности полиции. Авторы обращают внимание на первые результаты реформы, уровень доверия населения полиции, проблемы, которые привели к снижению авторитета полиции у населения. Приведены результаты эмпирических социологических исследований, проведенных при участии авторов статьи. Данные опроса о деятельности полиции как института гражданского общества в России показывают, что она должна быть ориентирована на координацию, конструктивное сотрудничество между обществом и полицией. В статье показано, как влияет общественное мнение на управленческие, административные функции полиции, обозначены этапы реформ, проведенных в силовых ведомствах. ; The article deals with the problem of studying public opinion as the main criterion of effective police activity. The authors draw attention to the first results of the reform, the level of people's trust in police, the problems which led to decreasing police status among civil population.The article provides results of empirical sociological research carried out with the participation of the authors. The survey of opinions on the police activity as institution of civil society in Russia shows that this activity should be more oriented on coordination and constructive cooperation between society and police officers. The article shows how public opinion influences the regulatory and administrative functions of police and highlights the stages of reforms implemented in power departments. The authors conclude that the analysis of public opinion is an important condition for the formation of the legal democratic society.
В статье рассматриваются актуальные проблемы формирования общественного мнения, прежде всего в разрезе развития гражданской общности. Автор анализирует феномен общественного мнения в аспекте новых социальных субъектов, представленности на различных уровнях общественного сознания. Статья представляет интерес для специалистов в области социальной философии, социологии, социальной психологии, а также как основа анализа современного общественно-политического процесса, в том числе на региональном уровне ; The actual problems of public opinion formation under condition of social democracy are analyzed in the article. The author contemplates the public opinion phenomenon in a social and philosophical vein that makes it possible to discover its essential grounds and tendencies of the development.
Муниципальный уровень играет особо важную роль в повышении эффективности государственного управления в связи с тем, что местная власть наиболее близка к реальным потребностям жителей и к специфике социально-экономического развития территории, находящейся в ее ведении. Одним из способов оценки эффективности государственного управления является анализ общественного мнения, который проводится Институтом социально-экономического развития территорий РАН в мониторинговом режиме. Целью исследования, результаты которого представлены в настоящей статье, выступило изучение факторов, формирующих общественное мнение жителей муниципальных образований. Для реализации цели был решен ряд задач: выявлены общие тенденции общественного мнения на различных территориях области, определены особенности восприятия политической, социально-экономической ситуации, социального самочувствия жителей районов, а также специфика суждений жителей городских округов. Методы, использованные в исследовании: сравнительный, статистический, анализ и синтез. Научная новизна исследования заключается в исследовании общественного мнения на различных территориях Вологодской области на основе социологического мониторинга Института социально-экономического развития территорий РАН. Для этого была разработана методика, позволяющая составить рейтинг районов по ключевым показателям общественного мнения. Использованы последние годовые данные опросов (за 2014 год). Проведенное исследование позволило сделать ряд выводов. Общие тенденции, характерные для большинства муниципальных образований региона, лежат в политической плоскости (негативная динамика суждений о политической обстановке в России, рост уровня одобрения деятельности). Оценки в городах более позитивны, нежели в районах, что связано с более высоким уровнем и качеством жизни горожан. В то же время в городах выше уровень протестного потенциала в силу более высокого уровня запросов и большего потенциала общественной активности горожан. На общественное мнение жителей муниципальных образований Вологодской области влияют как социально-экономические (реальная социально-экономическая ситуация, материальное положение населения), так и политические (внешнеполитический приобрел особую актуальность в 2014 году, внутриполитический как федеральный, так и муниципальный уровни управления) факторы. Таким образом, мониторинг общественного мнения, проводимый Институтом социально-экономического развития территорий РАН, дает возможность определять специфику общественного мнения на различных территориях и, следовательно, корректировать действия властей в соответствии с реальными потребностями жителей. ; The municipal level plays a particularly important role in improving the efficiency of public administration due to the fact that the local government is close to real needs of the residents and to specificity of socio-economic development of the territory. The effectiveness of state management can be evaluated in the basis of the public opinion monitoring, conducted by the Institute of SocioEconomic Development of Territories of RAS. The aim of the research, which results are presented in the article, is to study the factors that shape public opinion of municipalities' residents. To achieve the goal the authors solve several tasks: identify general tendencies of public opinion in various territories of the region, features of perception of the political, social and economic situation, social well-being of the residents and specific judgments of urban district residents. The methods, such as comparative, statistical, analysis and synthesis, are used in the study. Scientific novelty of the research lies in the study of public opinion in different areas of the Vologda Oblast on the basis of sociological monitoring of the Institute of Socio-Economic Development of Territories of RAS. For this purpose, the authors have elaborated the method that helps rank districts by key indicators of public opinion. They use the latest annual survey data (for 2014). The authors make several conclusions. The general trends common to most municipalities in the region refer to the political sphere (negative dynamics of judgments about the political situation in Russia, the increasing level of approval). The assessments in cities are more positive than in villages due to a higher level and quality of life of citizens. At the same time, cities are characterized by a higher level of protest potential due to a higher level of needs and greater potential of citizens' public activity. Public opinion of residents of the Vologda Oblast municipalities is influenced by both socio-economic (socio-economic situation, financial situation of the population) and political (foreign policy has become acute in 2014, domestic -both federal and municipal government levels) factors. Thus, the public opinion monitoring conducted by the Institute of Socio-Economic Development of Territories of RAS helps determine the specificity of public opinion in different areas and, consequently, adjust the authorities' activity in accordance with actual needs of the residents.
The article is based on the analysis of opinion polls on foreign policy that are regularly conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM). The authors analyze how important the public mood is in the elaboration of foreign policy decisions (the study includes historical retrospective). The attention is focused on the society's reaction to government's foreign policy steps. Comparing opinion polls data for several years, the authors reveal the tendency that Russia locks itself within its own limits, sticks to its own problems or, at most, those of the former Soviet republics and several distant foreign states (such as the USA, the European Union, China). This provokes loss of interest to foreign policy in general by VCIOM respondents'
Статья рассматривает проблему взаимодействия общественного мнения и верхних властных эшелонов. В основном, анализируется ситуация, определяемая демократическим контекстом. Ставятся и освещаются такие вопросы как роль общественного мнения и его учет при определении стратегии проводимых в России реформ; корреляция демократических процессов в новейшей России и восприятия демократических ценностей российским массовым сознанием. ; The author considers the problem of the interaction of public opinion and higher echelons of power, analyzes the situation determined by democratic context and covers such questions as public opinion role and taking it into account while choosing the strategy of the reforms conducted in Russia and the correlation of the democratic processes in the newest Russia and the perception of democratic values by the Russian mass consciousness.
