Did “other Russians” turn out?

What is going on with the Rus-sian society and in the Rus-sian society? Are the protest actions really unexpected or were they predictable? This is what The Day discussed with Vladimir MAGUN, head of the personality stu-dies sector at the Institute of

Sociology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, leading scientist of the National Research University “High School of Economics” who was one of the guests at the Fifth International Sociological Readings in memory of Natalia Panina held on December 10 at the Institute of Sociology at the National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences.

“On the one hand, many experts, journalists, and just thoughtful observers have noted the unsatisfactory situation in the Russian society long time ago. They say that we are moving towards a deadlock and that the authorities have not been implementing any vital reforms in any areas of life for years. The country still does not have key social institutes of the modern society and everything is still hand-operated. Everybody understands that the reforms are needed. However, the people who make decisions are afraid of taking the responsibility since none of the reforms are painless.

“Besides, nearly everyone agrees that the changes should be expected from the top since the society is passive. That is why the recent developments in Russia are really unexpected.

“On the other hand, there was the information that the society is changing. A couple of month before the elections two documents appeared and became well-known. They concerned the fact that due to the better economic situation in Russia over the last decade the middle class has significantly grown which changes the whole social and political situation in the country. It is significant that one of these do-cuments (The Strategy-2020) had been ordered by the government and the other one (The Dynamics and Prospects of the Political Transformation in Russia) were prepared by the pro-governmental Center for Strategic Developments.

“The report concerning the dynamics reads that the middle class is not presented in the political spectrum of the country. There is no party that would formulate and protect the interests of these people. They live in big cities, they are educated, independent, they have their dignity and are relatively well-to-do. They are unlikely to keep silent for a long time. Thy make 20 to 30 percent if we calculate the adult population.”

This number is quite significant.

“Yes, of course, but I think that Yedinaya Rossiya [United Russia. – Ed.] represents the interests of some of them since the middle class comprises the bureaucracy, employees of the state companies, and the security workers. However, the most independent part of the middle class are the citizens with other interests, other requests of the political and public life. The official political system does not react at their requests and does not give them any political representation, vote or even a television picture adequate to their requirements. On the other hand, these people have another efficient tool of self-actualization and solidarity: the Internet.”

Did the government leave these reports unattended?

“Both texts were prepared for the government, so the authorities cannot say that they were not warned. However, the government has made an attempt to react at the new social groups: you have probably heard that last summer the Kremlin initiated the creation of the new political party headed by Prokhorov, and, as far as I know, the Kremlin stopped this project. They saw that even if a party is controlled and headed by this Frankenstein they will still have to share their power. Besides, it is not all about the individual decisions of the first persons of the state, there are po-werful state-oligarchic groups vitally interested in preserving the current state of affairs.”

It is dangerous if the interests of 20 percent of the society are not represented at the political level…

“This is the situation we have now. However, one cannot do everything inefficiently and clumsily but perfectly rig the elections! In the Internet age these falsifications get widely known. The surprise was that the elections crystallized the public unrest.

“Even during the preparation for the elections several campaigns were launched. Aleksei Navalny who has no access to the television managed to launch the slogan ‘Yedinaya Rossiya is the party of fraudsters and thieves’ and it got very popular. The opposition mobilized. The people decided to control the elections as intently as possible, by the way video filming was allowed (that has never been allowed before). Regardless of the resistance put up by the election committees controlled by the government the number of observers at the polling stations grew significantly. Interestingly, in Moscow whose inhabitants are the most progressive the largest number of falsifications was recorded.

“As a result, the elections were the lit match thrown into the mix of dissatisfaction poured over all the areas of life (by the way, the people in Russia and Ukraine are the most dissatisfied in Europe). The following day 10,000 people gathered in Moscow with the slogan ‘For the honest elections!’ It is a rare event in our country. Recently only the action for the protection of the Khimkinskiy forest gathered a si-milar number of people. And the Manezhnaya Square. Today while we are talking [on Saturday, December 10. – Ed.] about 50-60 thousand people gathered in Moscow and the meetings are held nearly in a hundred cities in the county.

“I would like to note that the people united to protest against an outrage upon them – they had been robbed! It is clear that rigging the elections is also a robbery but the robber does not take one’s purse or wallet but one’s deliberate choice, one’s vote.”

The presidential elections in Russia are due in spring. What do you think the developments will be?

“It is very important what the government does now. I do not worry about what the active part of the society will do. Of course, there are some radicals among them but in general, it is the intelligent and constructive part of the society.”

If we compare the people on Maidan in 2004 and those who turned out in Moscow, can you see the difference?

“I cannot say for sure but I think that in 2004 the actions in Kyiv were much larger. Probably, wider social groups were represented there. The national and geographical identity and the orientation to the West mattered and the professional and educational component was not that important, unlike the current protests in Russia.

“In Russia other type of people went into the streets. Formerly, there were ‘the new Russians’ but my colleague Maksym Rudniev and I suggested in one of the publications calling the people who differ from the majority by their views and values ‘other Russians.’

“Getting back to your previous question I would like to specify that the Russian society is in a difficult situation since even its progressive part is hardly structured and organized. However, I am yet less sure about the actions of the go-verning elite since they are so used to their absolute power, irresponsibility, and passive and silent society that I am afraid they are not able to reasonably compromise. Moreover, one of the leading groups of this elite are the top brass who do not understand the culture of public dialog and human rights respect.

“The government is used to suppressing the protests with money. However, in this situation it will not work: the people protest against the moral humiliation and not the material one.”

Will the number of those you call “other Russians” grow if Putin becomes a president for other 12 years as many people predict?

“Surprisingly, it will depend on the economy a lot. There is a rule that people’s values change when their welfare grows. When the elementary financial and security needs are met, there is a desire to fulfill oneself, influence the developments and unite with other people for a common cause. This is a very simple scheme, a lot of people are ironical about it but it works.

“Thus the economic growth automatically digs a grave for the authoritarian government. Not in the person of the proletariat as Marx said but in the person of the well-to-do groups. The concept of the democracy development suggested by Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel is the evidence of this. It emphasizes the ‘grassroots.’ Then the elites react at this, opposing the public expectations or supporting them if they are favorable.

“That is why the current developments in Russia are not a random emotional output and not the result of the foreign influence. It is the result of people’s life improvement. However, it would have been hardly possible without the market reforms the Russian authorities dared to implement in the early 1990s without being afraid of losing their popularity.”