Translated material
The motherland is called
Three-quarters of Russians are confident that it is impossible to live without the constant care of the state
Data from a July Levada Center survey show that three-quarters of Russian residents, more than 15 years after the collapse of the USSR, still rely on government help to solve their life problems. According to analysts, Russians still have a chance to get rid of this relic of the Soviet Union in a few generations and learn to perceive the state not as an older brother or patron father, but as a partner.To the question “Will the majority of people in Russia be able to live without constant care and guardianship from the state?” 74% of sociologists surveyed answered negatively. Only 21% of Russians believe that the majority of the population can live without the help or care of the state (5% found it difficult to answer). Paternalistic views are inherent primarily in the poorest groups of the population (the main point of view is supported by 86% in groups with low consumption levels) and supporters of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (85%). The position of self-sufficiency and independence (“they must take the initiative and take care of themselves”) was chosen by 13% of citizens. In Moscow this figure increases to 24%.
There are also 4% of respondents who chose a unique model of behavior: in their opinion, “people should make some sacrifices for the good of the state.” At the same time, citizens see the effectiveness of private business, but they want to receive money from the state and still advocate a review of the results of privatization and the return of private assets to the state (37%).
Deputy head of the Center for Political Technologies Alexey Makarkin believes that several generations must change in Russia so that the majority of people stop “reaching out” to the state: “A significant part of the population experienced severe discomfort when the state in the early 90s said: live as you want, we We won’t interfere too much, but don’t make any special claims against us either. Here's your freedom, use it as best you can. Many simply do not understand how they can live without the active participation of the patron state.”
But, according to the expert, in any country there is a significant part of the population that thinks like this under any political model: “I don’t think that, for example, in Sweden or Germany people believe that the state should not take care of them. In many European countries, a social market economy has been established, but the word “social” plays a huge role.”
There is an opinion that 74% of respondents who gravitate towards a strong state in Russia are, nevertheless, by no means united in their attitudes, that is, they are unlikely to be all exclusively Soviet paternalists. “There are two different trends: adherents of the Western social market economy and the Soviet one,” says Mr. Makarkin. “Only after a change of several generations will people understand that, first of all, their well-being depends on themselves, which does not deny the active role of the state in social policy.”
At the same time, the majority of Russians are satisfied with the level of freedom that currently exists in the country. To the question “Do people in Russia now have enough freedom, too little freedom, or too much freedom?” The answers were distributed as follows: too little freedom - 12% of Russians, enough freedom - 57%, and 24% of citizens did not have too much freedom.
Prosperous young people or supporters of the party in power and political conformists feel comfortable with the current level of freedom. Today's freedom seems excessive mainly to older people (37% in the age group 55 years and older), as well as to citizens who make up a significant part of the left opposition (in the electorate of the Communist Party of Russia, 53% talk about excess freedom).
“Many citizens in Russia do not understand how to take advantage of freedoms,” says Alexey Makarkin. - Western people have clearer concepts of freedoms, and from early childhood they are taught that these rights are natural and inalienable. In our country, the dominant position is that freedom is necessary not in itself, but for something - freedom of speech, for example, is needed in order to offer the authorities the right solutions. Freedoms are perceived utilitarianly, this is a Soviet tradition. And it’s difficult to change it in a short period of time.”