Broadcast of the press conference of Vladimir Putin Photo: Anton Novoderezhkin/TASS

An ordinary arsenal of sociological means (methods) of a study of public opinion involves the use of not only individual probe or diagnostic issues that record the current state of mass consciousness (“instantic picture” of public moods), but also their regular repetition, which allows you to see the dynamics of the opinions of society as a whole or vibration of moods, views, and the assessments of individual social groups.

In February 2021, in a regular monthly survey of Levada Center, several of our standard issues were reproduced, aimed at measuring public ideas about the relations of the authorities and the population, who were asked in previous years. The dominant of mass consensus (on average 69%) should be considered the denial of the very possibility of political representation of the interests of society, that is, recognition by the most part of the very fact of the refusal of the authorities to take into account the interests and views of society.

The share of such opinions increases over time, reaching 75%by 2021. In other words, the government acquires a sovereign character, its legitimacy does not depend on the attitude of the population to it.

The socio-demographic profile of the answers of the respondents received in the measurement of 2021 is as follows:

Internet for criticism

Although changes in opinions in society are on average insignificant, in some groups that differ in the functional role, noticeable redistribution of assessments have occurred in two years. The most important movements are recorded in the opinions of “leaders” (reduction of loyal opinions/“interests coincide” - from 33% to 17%; the increase in negative answers - from 65% to 83%), for students (reduction of the first by 14 percentage points, an increase in negative answers by 22 pp), specialists (–9 pp loyal to the authorities of the opinions, +9, paragraphs - negative).

The negative opinions of these more educated and competent groups apply to other social layers and groups (to medium -educated and poorly educated contingents), capturing peripheral cities (middle and small), move from low -income categories of the population to the most wealthy, which were always more loyal to those in power. Dissatisfaction, which is concentrated in the most active ages (25–39 years), captures related age cohorts - younger (18–24 years) and mature people (40–54). It should also be noted an important role of the Internet and social networks as a channel for the spread of critical assessments of the leadership.

Each separately the change can be considered statistically not very significant, but the overall vector of their displacement shows an increase in alienation from the authorities and signs of its delegitimation.

Over the past decade, the mass humble conviction has been strengthened that there have always been, there are and will have different goals and interests (the amount of positions No. 2 and No. 4 increased from 39% to 47–49%). The share of a more “neutral” version of the answer (No. 4) is reduced, and it is growing - and very noticeable - the idea that the authorities parasitize on society, exploit the population, deceiving people (specific gravity No. 2 grew from 18% to 34–38%). The lobes of “technocratic” (“no feedback”), nor “mobilization” (unity in critical situations) of representations (fluctuations fit into the permissible parameters of statistical accuracy of measurement) are practically not changed.

What is the disappointment

The structure of mass consciousness over 30 years that have passed from perestroika, the beginning of reforms and political changes in the country has practically not changed: the dominant attitude to power is resentification, chronic disappointment, dissatisfaction with state paternalistic expectations that the authorities will fulfill its promises: to ensure not only an acceptable level of public welfare, but also improving the quality of life. The basis of such ideological attitudes, or hope for the country's leadership, is very stable: this is not only 70 years of doctrination with socialism (the CPSU program proclaimed the construction of communism by 1980), but also the promises of the reformers to introduce capitalism and achieve an ambulance in the West, in “normal countries”, who changed more modest Putin's national projects, and the regular conclusions of the authorities in the readiness to increase in readiness to increase Life level by 2020, 2024, 2034 and subsequent years. Traces of Soviet ideology (“unity of the party and people”, “nationwide state”, “our authorities are folk”, etc.) are preserved mainly in older age, among pensioners, in low -educated and peripheral groups of the population, as well as among students who have not yet been freed from the doctrines of school social studies and demagogy.

The hierarchical consciousness of subjects (“leadership is a special group of people, an elite that lives only with its interests”) implies the usual consciousness of the distance and alienation of the population from the authorities, and its non -alternativeness, irremovability, the lack of political competition and the possibility of representing the interests of society, which, accordingly, turns into the political apathy of the townsfolk, the refusal to participate in public life, and irresponsibility.

At the same time, the suppressed resentment and dissatisfaction of the actions of the authorities (while maintaining the inertia of ideological views on power) can be expressed as an equally stable idea of the deceitfulness and corruption of higher leadership, including the intentional falsification of declarations of income and demagogy of care, the transparency of the sources of their well -being and wealth, confidence that there is no Russian court that there is no Russian court will accuse them of fraud (unless there is a conflict of interests with someone even stronger than they themselves).

Declarations against income

On average, over the past 10 years, only 4% of respondents believe that the reporting of the top leadership of the country (ministers, high -ranking officials) about the income they receive corresponds to the criteria for transparency and reliability required by law. If you do not take 2015 - the peak of Crimean euphoria and national consolidation, it turns out less than 3%, confident in the adequacy of the declared reporting. The absolute majority believes that the highest leadership of the country in this regard distorts its income, lies, hides the property, assets with their property, translates to relatives or dummies. People are sure that, occupying the highest positions in the state, allowing you to use the illegal possibilities of enrichment with impunity, the elite of public administration feels protected from accusations of corruption, fraud and forgery. In this case, sociology cannot argue whether such opinions are true or fair, it speaks only of the reality of such social ideas and their prevalence among the population.

The differences in respondents from different social groups are minimal, less acceptable statistical error. This indicates the absolute dominance and sustainability of such collective opinions in society. The only difference, and that is not too significant, lies in more distrust of the declarations of the country's leadership among Muscovites (5 percentage points). During the Crimean imperial, nationalist mobilization, distrust of power is weakened (from 77–78% in 2010–2011 to 65% in 2015), but then it is gradually restored and in the last measurement noticeably exceeds the average level over all 10 years of measurement (72% and 80%).

How a survey was conducted

The survey was conducted on February 18–24, 2021, according to the representative All -Russian sample of urban and rural populations, 1601 people aged 18 years and older in 137 settlements, 50 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The study is carried out at the house with the respondent by a personal interview. The distribution of answers is given as a percentage of the total number of respondents together with the data of previous polls.

The statistical error in the sample of 1600 people (with a probability of 0.95) does not exceed:

3.4% for indicators close to 50%;

2.9%for indicators close to 25%/75%;

2.0%for indicators close to 10%/90%;

1.5%for indicators close to 5%/95%.

ANO "Levada-Center" is forcibly entered in the register of non-profit organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent. See the director of the Levada Center, disagreeing with this decision, see here .

The discrepancy of the interests of the authorities and society