Russians as Political Participants: Looking Away from Politics



So far the analysis could well leave the impression that most residents of Syktyvkar and Kirov focused on day-to-day survival and did not actively participate in Russia’s transition politics. Truthfully with the partial exception of voting, respondents did not participate extensively, as they did not perceive the political processes as open to them. In this way, the people model the behavioral domain: their strategy of action is to avoid political participation and their behavioral cue is the perception that there is no access. As we have just seen, people were not paying attention to politics, let alone participating in them.


Civil Society Political Party Political Participation Communist Party Political Culture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    T. Friedgut, Political Participation in the USSR (Princeton: Princeton Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Bahry, ‘Politics, Generations, and Change in the USSR’, in J. Millar, ed., Politics, Work and Daily Life in the USSR: A Survey of Former Soviet Citizens (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1987), pp. 61–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. DiFrancesco and Z. Gitelman, ‘Soviet Political Culture and “Covert Participation” in Policy Implementation’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, no. 3 (September 1984), 603–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Kaplan, ‘New Forms of Political Participation’, in A. Miller, W. Reisinger and V. Hesli, eds, Public Opinion and Regime Change: The New Politics of Post-Soviet Societies (Boulder: Westview, 1993), pp. 153–69.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Hahn, ‘Continuity and Change in Russian Political Culture’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 21, no. 4 (October 1991), 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Petro, The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture (Cambridge: Harvard, 1995).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See also P. Roeder ‘Modernization and Participation in the Leninist Developmental Strategy’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 83, no. 3 (September 1989), 859–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    P. Converse, ‘Attitudes and Non-attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue’, in E. Tufte, ed., The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems (Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970), p. 177.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    A. Swidler, ‘Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 51 (April 1996), 281. Swidler focuses on strategies of action durability during settled periods. Yet, her discussion can be extended to unsettled periods as well.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    T. Hobbes, Leviathan (Hackett, 1994).Google Scholar
  11. 17.
    Plato, The Republic (New York: Vintage, 1991).Google Scholar
  12. 19.
    A. Swidler, ‘Inequality and American Culture’, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 35, no. 4/5 (March/June 1992), 606–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 20.
    Converse, ‘Attitudes and Non-Attitudes’, op. cit. See also J. Zaller and S. Feldman, ‘A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences’, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 36, no. 3 (August 1992), 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 38.
    Peter Ordeshook, ‘Russia’s Party System: Is Russian Federalism Viable’, Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 12, no. 3 (1996), 195–217.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© James Alexander 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northeastern State UniversityTahlequahUSA

Personalised recommendations