Abstract
In the last chapter we noted, in passing, that very few people in any country cited the postcommunist present as the best period this century for their country — around one fifth in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, 14 per cent in Hungary, 10 per cent in Russia and 8 per cent in Ukraine — although 37 per cent opted for the present in west Ukraine that was balanced by a mere 2 per cent in the much more populous east Ukraine.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Willerton and Sigelman have reported overwhelming pessimism about the economy but less about personal finances at an earlier stage in the postcommunist experience. See John P. Willerton and Lee Sigelman ‘Perestroika and the public: citizens’ views of the fruits of economic reform’ in Arthur H. Miller, William M. Reisinger and Vicki L. Hesli (eds) Public Opinion and Regime Change: The New Politics of Post-Soviet Societies (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993) pp. 205–23 at pp. 210–11.
The EU’s Eurobarometer surveys also show that, compared to publics in our ECE countries, FSU publics are much more critical of their countries’ inadequate respect for human rights in the posteommunist era. Since the Eurobarometer questions differ from ours, their findings are not strictly comparable to ours however. See Central and Eastern Eurobarometer 6 (Brussels: European Union, 1996) Annex figure 7
For other evidence of mixed views about the new regime in Russia compared to the old see Richard Rose and Christian Haerpfer, New Russia Barometer III: The Results (Glasgow: Strathclyde University Centre for the Study of Public Policy, 1994) pp. 27–9.
According to Rose, ‘civil society integrates individuals and the state… through intermediary social institutions that are independent of the state’; though, in a civil society, ‘individuals are not required to participate in politics’, participation is voluntary. See Richard Rose, ‘Russia as an hour-glass society: a constitution without citizens’, East European Constitutional Review, vol.4 no.3 (1995) pp. 34–53 at p. 34.
Troy McGrath, ‘The legacy of Leninist enforced de-participation’ in Peter Lentini (ed.) Elections and Political Order in Russia (Budapest: Central European University, 1995) pp. 226–45 at p. 228.
Nicholas Lampert, ‘Patterns of participation’ in Stephen White, Alex Pravda and Zvi Gitelman (eds) Developments in Soviet Politics (London: Macmillan, 1990) pp. 120–36 at p. 121 and p. 122 respectively
Vladimir Shlapentokh, ‘The destruction of civil society in Russia 1917–53’, in Chandran Kukathas, David W. Lovell and William Maley (eds) The Transition from Socialism: State and Civil Society in the USSR (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1991) pp. 82–106
But for contrary views see Chris Hann, ‘Civil society at the grass roots: a reactionary view’ in Paul Lewis (ed.) Democracy and Civil Society in East Europe (London: Macmillan, 1992) pp. 152–65
Guiseppe Di Palma, ‘Legitimation. from the top to civil society: politico-cultural change in eastern Europe’ in Nancy Bermeo (ed.) Liberal ization and Democratization: Change in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992) pp. 49–80 at p. 63 where he notes that communist regimes failed to suppress the re-emergence of civil society even before 1989
For a wide ranging symposium on participation under communism see Donald E. Schulz and Jan S. Adams (eds) Political Participation in Communist Systems (New York, NY: Pergamon, 1981).
Cynthia S. Kaplan ‘New forms of political participation’ in Arthur H. Miller, William M. Reisinger and Vicki L. Hesli (eds) Public Opinion and Regime Change: The New Politics of Post-Soviet Societies (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993) pp. 153–67 at p. 154
She was quoting Wayne DiFranceisco and Zvi Gitelman, ‘Soviet political culture and covert participation in policy implementation’, American Political Science Review, vol.78 (1984) pp. 603–21 at p. 611.
Remington quotes survey evidence of a ‘strikingly low level of [interpersonal] trust, perhaps half that of the US level’ in FSU countries. See Thomas F Remington, ‘Agendas - researching the emerging political cultures’ in Arthur H Miller, William M Reisinger and Vicki Hesli (eds) Public Opinion and Regime Change (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993) pp. 197–202 at p. 199. Our figures for general interpersonal trust in the FSU/ECE are somewhat lower than in Britain (see Chapter 20) but not ‘strikingly’ lower. McIntosh and MacIver report that interpersonal trust in ECE is ‘lower than in the US [but] higher than one might expect.’
Mary E. McIntosh and Martha Abele MacIver, ‘Coping with freedom and uncertainty: public opinion in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, 1989–92’ International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol.4 no.4 (1992) pp. 375–91 at pp. 379–80. Figures from the World Values Survey reported by Ester, Halrnan and Rukavishnikov suggests that interpersonal trust was relatively low in ECE but actually higher in Russia than in western Europe or north America
See Peter Ester, Lock Halman and Vladimir Rukavishnikov, ‘The western world values pattern viewed cross-nationally: a comparison of findings of the European and North American value study with recent Russian data.’ A paper to the symposium ‘Values and Work - a Comparative perspective’ Tilburg University, November 1994, p. 9. Times-Mirror surveys in 1991 found the levels of interpersonal trust in Russia and Ukraine slightly higher than in Britain, in Czechoslovakia much the same as in Britain, and in Hungary much lower
See Los Angeles Times-Mirror The Pulse of Europe: a Survey of Political and Social Values and Attitudes (Los Angeles, CA: Times-Mirror, 1991) Question Q113h.
McIntosh and MacIver report a rapid decline between 1989 and 1992 in ECE publics’ confidence in their governments which they characterise as ‘from jubilation to disillusionment.’ Mary E. McIntosh and Martha Abele MacIver, ‘Coping with freedom and uncertainty: public opinion in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia 1989–92’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol.4 no.4 (1992) pp. 375–91 at p. 375.
Though the Slovak constitution ‘juxtaposed strong government with a strong Presidency’ and ‘unlike the Hungarian and Czech constitutions, the Slovak constitution does not distinguish clearly’ between the powers of the president and the government. See Spencer Zifcak, ‘The battle over presidential power in Slovakia’, East European Constitutional Review, vol.4 no.3 (1995) pp. 61–5 at p. 64 and p. 61 respectively.
Fritz Plasser and Peter A. Ulram, ‘Monitoring democratic consolidation: political trust and system support in East Central Europe.’ Paper to IPSA (International Political Science Association) 16th World Congress, Berlin, August 1994, pp. 17–18. They make similar points in Fritz Plasser and Peter A. Ulram, ‘Of time and democratic stabilisation.’ Paper to WAPOR (World Association for Public Opinion Research) Seminar, Tallinn, June 1993
For other studies of institutional trust within the FSU/ECE see Richard Rose and Christian Haerpfer, New Russia Barometer III: The Results (Glasgow: Strathclyde University Centre for the Study of Public Policy, 1994) pp. 31–3
Richard Rose and Christian Haerpfer, New Democracies Barometer III: Learning from What is Happening (Glasgow: Strathclyde University Centre for the Study of Public Policy, 1994) Questions 48–62.
Anthony King, ‘Nation’s morale approaching a crisis’, Daily Telegraph, 22 February 1993, p. 4.
Thomas R. Dye, ‘Elite autonomy and mass disaffection: can elite competition undermine regime legitimacy?’. Paper to IPSA (International Political Science Association) 16th World Congress, Berlin, August 1994, at p7 and p. 13 respectively.
Others do not: Kaase and Newton conclude that ‘claims about the legitimacy crisis in late capitalist societies were largely mythical.’ See Max Kaase and Kenneth Newton, Beliefs in Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) Chapter 7 entitled ‘A crisis of democracy?’ at p. 168. Whoever is right about the West, the comparative point remains: trust in elected politicians was low in both East and West, and if that did not pose a problem of legitimacy in the West, it should not cause great alarm in the East either.
The distinction between these two aspects of politics was made by Almond and Verba in their classic study of democratisation in western Europe after the war. See Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963; New paperback edition, London: Sage, 1989) Chapter 3
For the distinction in a study of Soviet politics see Seweryn Bialer, Stalin’s Successors: Leadership, Stability and Change in the Soviet Union (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1980) pp. 166–7.
In one part of the FSU, Russia, Rose found that, on balance, people expected fair treatment from a doctor, and in a post office, bank, or grocer’s shop, but not from the police or in a social security office or municipal office. See Richard Rose, ‘Russia as an hour-glass society: a constitution without citizens’, East European Constitutional Review, vol.4 no.3 (1995) pp. 34–53 at p. 39. But he found higher expectations of fair treatment in the Baltic States
See Richard Rose, New Baltic Barometer II (Glasgow: Strathclyde University Centre for the Study of Public Policy, 1995). Technically the Baltic States are part of the FSU, but a very small and atypical part. Culturally they have more in common with ECE.
See for example Vladimir Shlapentokh, The Public and Private Life of the Soviet People: Changing Values in Post-Stalin Russia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) Chapter 9 entitled ‘Illegal life inside the state.’
See Olga Kryshtanovskaya and Stephen White, ‘From Soviet nomenklatura to Russian elite’, Europe—Asia Studies, vol. 48 no. 5 (1996) pp. 711–33.
Thomas A. Baylis, ‘Plus Ca change? Transformation and continuity amongst East European elites’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, vol. 27 no. 3 (1994) pp. 315–28
John Higley and Jan Pakulski, ‘Elite transformation in Central and Eastern Europe’, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 30 no. 3 (1995) pp. 415–35
John Higley, Judith Kullberg and Jan Pakulski, ‘The persistence of postcommunist elites’, Journal of Democracy, vol.7 no.2 (1996) pp. 133–47): or the special issue of Theory and Society vol. 24 no.5 (1995) entitled ‘Circulation vs reproduction of elites during the postcommunist transformation of Eastern Europe.’
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1998 William L. Miller, Stephen White and Paul Heywood
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Miller, W.L., White, S., Heywood, P. (1998). A Brave New World?. In: Values and Political Change in Postcommunist Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230377448_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230377448_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-39549-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37744-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)