DPIR’s Paul Chaisty and Stephen Whitefield have written a new book charting the evolution of Russian politics: How Russians Understand the New Russia | Princeton University Press

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 reshaped Russia’s borders and introduced a hybrid political economy that balanced markets and democracy with state intervention and authoritarianism. 

In How Russians Understand the New Russia – published by Princeton University Press - Paul and Stephen argue that this system initially stabilised public opinion but later faced challenges as territorial shifts disrupted support. 

They link growing political divisions to Russia’s nationalist turn, culminating in the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the revival of Soviet identities.

We caught up with Paul and Stephen to discuss the book and its key messages they hope to convey:

Can you briefly summarise the book, and what was your motivation for writing?

The book seeks to understand how Russian citizens came to terms with the revolutionary changes that transformed their country following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  We explore whether the system of political and economic power that emerged on the territory of the new Russia consolidated their support. We label this ’system’ a hybrid political economy. It combined stated support for the ideals of democracy and the market with practices that undermined the development of both. How did Russian citizens relate to this system? And what might have divided them in their stances? 

Broadly speaking, we find that a large proportion of the Russian population was strongly supportive of this system, at least until Vladimir Putin returned to the presidency in 2012. We show this through analysis of political attitudes and behaviours across a variety of policy and electoral domains. However, Putin’s re-election in 2012 triggered both electoral protests and a nationalist reaction by the regime that culminated in the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Support for the system then fell dramatically, so that by 2021 there were as many system opponents as supporters. Why did this happen?  The answer we argue lies in the third great transformation that has faced Russian citizens – the formation of a new nation state.   Throughout the post-Soviet period, many Russians continued to identify more strongly with the Soviet Union than with the new Russia, and these numbers grew dramatically again after 2012.  This revived Soviet identity was not readily compatible with support for democracy and the market, even as ideals, so when divisions reopened around the ‘stateness’ question, they rebounded on the system itself. 

The book - How Russians Understand the New Russia - provides the first longitudinal study of Russian public opinion on the system of political and economic power that replaced communism – how did you research public opinion – over what period of time? 

Our research is based on nationally representative surveys of the Russian population between 1993 and 2021. Each survey was conducted face-to-face and typically involved around 2000 respondents. We and other collaborators conducted a total of 12 surveys over this period.

What impact do you hope the book will have, and with whom? 

The book is aimed at both an academic and broader readership. It deals with concepts like electoral authoritarianism and system consolidation and contestation, which we hope will be of interest to students of political science. It also provides an empirically rich account of Russian politics over the last thirty years, augmenting existing area studies research. We have written the book in an accessible way, and we hope that the general argument will engage readers interested in the fate of Russia and its significance for the rest of the world.

What are you most proud of? 

The book develops an original argument supported by a unique set of data. The survey analysis captures the entirety of Russia’s post-Soviet history, leading up to the war in Ukraine, and it provides an important perspective on how Russian society has adapted to a period of historic transformation. We hope that the dataset accompanying the book will be useful for students and researchers.

Any other messages or key points you would wish to share with your audience (s)? 

We believe it’s important to analyse popular attitudes in modern authoritarian polities. Although opinion data has many limitations, and especially in an authoritarian context, it nonetheless provides important insights into patterns of political attitudes and behaviour. In the Russian case, this has global significance.