The survey showed that participants in the protest camp had a striking agreement on priorities. Their cohesion weakened only under pressure from the authorities

One can often hear that political protest in Russia has no meaning and is devoid of prospects, since its participants are not able to put forward clear general demands: either because people of too different views participate in the same actions, or because many protesters themselves do not have enough have a clear idea of what they want. The results of a survey of about 650 inhabitants of the #OccupyAbai camp cast doubt on the fairness of this judgment.

The camp spontaneously arose in early May on Chistye Prudy, largely in imitation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, from which the idea of a general assembly as a form of public debate and decision-making was borrowed. Among the inhabitants of the camp, young people predominated (half were under 25 years old). #occupyAbai reflected the heterogeneity of Russian protest - liberals, conservatives, Trotskyists, monarchists and representatives of other political and social movements found themselves next to each other. The motives of the camp residents were also different - from rejection of the existing order of things and the search for a format for expressing their disagreement to the authorities to interest in a new form of communication and the desire to be with friends and like-minded people.

Despite this diversity, there was striking agreement among camp participants regarding the priorities of the protest movement. The most frequently mentioned topic is the need to strengthen the fundamental institutions of democracy and the rule of law, including judicial reform, freedom of speech and the media, the fight against corruption and guarantees of voting rights (at least one of these topics was named as a priority by more than 90% of respondents; more often than others a demand for genuine justice is put forward). This is followed by the “power bloc” (problems of the army, police, prisons and political persecution), accumulation of human capital (medicine and education; the development of science is included in this group), improvement of the living environment (local government, ecology, housing problem), economic problems (poverty alleviation, small business development, labor relations), non-discrimination (protection of the rights of national and sexual minorities, orphans, disabled people and women) and, finally, the block “Southern border - migration problems and conflict in the North Caucasus”.

The above data indicate that #OccupyAbai, copying the form of Occupy Wall Street, was noticeably different from its Western predecessors in political content. Participants in protest camps in New York and other cities in North America, Europe and Israel spoke primarily against the injustice of the existing economic order (“we are the 99%”), demanding a more equal distribution of income, employment growth, limiting the influence of banks and corporations, write-offs student loans and mortgage loans, etc. Among the “occupiers,” economic problems took a back seat and were mentioned two and a half times less often than the need for institutional reforms.

According to the survey, awareness of the importance of a particular political or economic problem does not mean immediate readiness to begin solving it - the gap between word and deed is well known to political scientists, and #occupyAbai was no exception. At the same time, if a camp visitor considered a particular task a priority, then, other things being equal, he was more ready to take practical steps to solve it. As a result, fundamental institutions retain leadership when assessing readiness for action: they are mentioned more than a third more often than investments in human capital, which came in second place. At the same time, the “power bloc” moved from second position to fifth, reflecting the respondents’ disbelief in the possibility of any noticeable influence on the state of affairs in the army and police, which are more closed to society.

The political priorities identified by the survey turned out to be extremely stable - their fluctuations depending on age, motive and other individual characteristics usually do not go beyond the limits of statistical error. At the same time, the readiness to act changes with age: the youngest are much more willing to declare a desire to deal with problems of courts, voting rights and corruption, while their older comrades tend to actively stand up for their rights, which are closer to everyday life. Women are noticeably more likely than men to be willing to fight discrimination and deal with issues of education and health care.

#OccupyAbai participants saw various ways to achieve their goals, including civic engagement (mass actions), dissemination of information, development of civil society infrastructure (associations and social networks), studying public problems and creativity in finding solutions.

The agreement of the “occupiers” regarding their tasks and a sense of common purpose contributed to the voluntary acceptance and compliance with internal democratic procedures and the effective organization of life and everyday life in the camp. The nationalists established security and order services, while the anarchists somewhat unexpectedly took over the infrastructure (information, cleaning the territory, a library, concerts and seminars). There were no incidents of violence at the camp, which were repeatedly noted at Occupy Wall Street. Harmony and tolerance were promoted by the elimination of barriers between different movements and freedom of discussion. In the camp, community standards arose that are characteristic of close-knit communities with a large supply of “social capital”: do not litter, do not disturb order, and ensure that those around you comply with the same standards.

At the same time, over time and under pressure from the authorities, the cohesion of the “occupiers” began to show cracks. After a series of crackdowns, the protest energy subsided, and the movement in the described form ceased to exist.

Despite its relative small numbers and short history, #occupyAbai gives a good idea of who is taking to the streets of Russian cities today and why, and what can be expected from the rise of political activity in Russia. According to modern social theories and, in particular, the works of Ronald Inglehart (head of the Laboratory of Comparative Social Research at the National Research University Higher School of Economics) and Christian Welzel, post-industrial development leads to profound cultural shifts and the displacement of “survival values” by new values of self-expression, independence and freedom of choice. The spread of such values creates public demand for strengthening democracy and the rule of law as fundamental prerequisites for successful self-realization.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the demand for democracy in Russia did not have this kind of cultural basis and was based on expectations of economic benefits from replacing a dysfunctional command economy with market democracy. The material motives for democratization turned out to be fragile and could not withstand the economic recession that came instead of the expected prosperity; as a result, public opinion turned away from democracy towards the “vertical of power.” Cultural shifts provide a much stronger basis for the movement towards democracy, and political elites cannot ignore the demand for urgent change.

The values of self-expression are especially strong among the educated part of society, the “creative class” and young people. Youth in itself does not push for political protest - young people can turn out to be conformists in both economically developed and backward countries. The political activity of Russian youth is due to the fact that the cultural values of this group developed in the conditions of an open society and a growing standard of living in the 2000s. These values require modern institutions, but exclude violence as a form of political struggle.

The #OccupyAbai experience demonstrates that an understanding of common interests ensures broad agreement on goals and means, despite seemingly mutually exclusive ideological views and predilections. When values of this kind become widespread enough, they inevitably entail political reforms.

Why do people need Occupy Abay?