Let you steal!

In Russia and in Israel, municipal elections were held last months and weeks, and in some regions they continue. Observing parallel to these processes, I again and again I am convinced of how different the election technologies and processes are in democratic countries and in countries with a “controlled” democracy. If in Russia the main struggle goes for organizing the correct list of candidates, for which spoilers to allow, and who to prevent the struggle, then in Israel it is not childishly shackled for the attention of voters, promises pour like from a cornucopia, everyone is seething, they are discussing the statements and actions of the candidates, many do not disdain to turn the dirty lady of competitors. In Russia, also candidates give promises, meet with voters, but the main struggle unfolds at the stage of forming a list of candidates - who will eventually go to the polls and who will create a mass. This approach is more than explained. Having formed the “correct” list of candidates, the authorities reduces the voter's doubts about who the real leader is and for whom it is necessary to vote.

In one of my recent texts, I drawn parallels and determined the differences between two types of leadership: based on popularity and based on authority. The Israeli politician (like politicians in most countries with developed democracy) works for popularity. The easiest way to get popularity is to engage in populism. At the end of 2014, I happened to take part in the election survey of public opinion of Israeli citizens. Soon after we summed up the research and formulated the conclusions, some of our finds appeared in the form of the election theses of some politicians. I understood that theoretically, political mechanisms work in countries with developed democracy, but in order to happen like this - directly, as in the song "In the morning in the battleship, in the evening in the newspaper," I did not expect. I then called this mechanism "what to deign, I promise everything, just let you steal!" Of course, in Western politicians, things often diverge with words, but not 100%. They must fulfill some of their pre-election promises, otherwise they will not have a chance of re-elect.

In Russia and some Asian countries, the voter does not choose a policy, but demonstrates loyalty to the leader. Historically, society in these countries is arranged so that the people do not choose their representative, but confirms loyalty to the leader. If there was an opportunity to choose, then it was necessary to quickly decide, “whose you will be”, that is, to quickly decide on whose team you are with whom you are. Accordingly, the psychologically voter in Russia does not choose a policy, but demonstrates loyalty to the most authoritative. For this, lists of candidates are compiled in a certain way - so that no one has doubts who we have the most important. First, undercover intrigues are unfolding, then coordinations are undergoing at various levels, and then the final candidate is demonstrated to the public for the solemn legitimization of an actual purpose. Accordingly, the candidate who will give the impression of the most authoritative will receive support for voters. Well, if a percentage is not enough, then they can always “finish” - in order to once again show who is the main one and on whose side power is.

The earned authority implies responsibility for its actions - in contrast to the administrative, donated by the Presidential Administration

In order to have no doubt left in the correct choice, the National Leader himself can personally support the candidate, thus giving him a little administrative support. Usually this was enough, but in the recent elections in Primorye the system failed, the people went and voted for the wrong candidate. A detachment of political technologists was urgently sent to the region and what do we see? The new candidate - it seems like already independent, his own, coastal, even a little opposition, launched a real election campaign, but scandals have already gone that some municipal deputies were strictly pushed: either put your signature, or leave the region. The usual political mechanism is beating, and no one knows what to do now. If it is impossible to “ship” a little authority to the right candidate from the Kremlin, then it means that you need to look for the one who has earned authority in the region with his long political or business career. But is it possible if only one who enlisted the well -being of the presidential administration has become a leader for the past 16 years?

If a democratic election system will be restored in Russia, then most likely it will not work to make tracing paper with the western. In order to make a potential candidate to earn authority, he will have to seriously work, learn to keep election promises, be able to resolve the conflicting interests of various groups, not to fall into corruption scandals, and indeed, as they say, to “protect the honor of a young man”. Unlike a Western politician: such a person who has grown up independently - a people's chosen one does not need to be a populist, he will not need to “bribe” voters with a raising pension or additional benefits. Justice and order will be required from him, and if it still turns out to establish the golden rule “what I wish for myself, then I offer people”, then there will be no prices for such a policy. The earned authority implies responsibility for its actions - in contrast to the administrative, donated by the presidential administration.

Arya Gotsdanker is an organizational psychologist, expert on the management of changes and the psychology of the masses

Opinions expressed under the section may not reflect the point of view of the editorial office