Popular support for an undemocratic regime: The changing views of Russians
Popular support for an undemocratic regime: The changing views of Russians
复制标题
DOI：
10.1057/ap.2012.8
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Ross Campbell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ross Campbell
没有几个人比理查德·罗斯（Richard Rose）和威廉·米什勒（William Mishler）与民主化研究的关系更密切了。自从苏联帝国的卫星国获得独立和苏联解体以来，这些作者对前社会主义公民适应民主的程度提供了连续的评论。这一令人印象深刻的工作范围足够广泛，涵盖了支持多元民主的价值观和态度综合症、代表性和领导力，以及对健康和政治参与的分析。然而，鉴于他们不可否认的成就，以及他们的知识范围，这本最新著作（与尼尔·芒罗合著）的理由必须是：（i）新的理论见解和/或（ii）新的实证分析。这本书有一个令人不安的最低限度的数量两者。这本书的基本前提非常重要。它试图分析专制政权如何以及为什么维持稳定。此外，俄罗斯是一个潜在的有趣案例研究，因为关于1991年后民主势头为何停止以及导致其滑回威权主义的因素的问题，是民主化研究的首要问题。然而，要获得深刻的见解，需要一个概念框架，其组成部分确定了威权主义的整体相关方面，然后可以在俄罗斯进行系统的测试。但这种分析是概念化的，而且是以一种相当随意、偶然的方式进行的。作者试图改编大卫伊斯顿的经典政治支持模型，以说明专制政权如何获得最低限度的民众支持，以提供经济繁荣（第15页）。但这只是伊斯顿模式的一部分。而且，由于未能明确指出其他部分--特别是长期行动者支持的不足--不仅使讨论变得乏味，而且为俄罗斯民主进步提供了有限的解决方案。然而，许多研究本可以形成一种概念上更微妙的方法的基础。亨廷顿（Huntington，1991）指出了民主的“反向浪潮”。r 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd.0001 -6810 Acta Politica Vol.47，3，321-323 www. palgrave期刊。com/ap/
Few names are more intimately connected with the study of democratisation than that of Richard Rose and William Mishler. Since the satellite states of the Soviet empire achieved independence and the Soviet Union disintegrated, these authors have provided a running commentary on the degree to which ex-socialist citizens have adapted to democracy. The impressive range of this work is sufficiently diverse to encompass the syndrome of values and attitudes underpinning pluralist democracy, representation and leadership, and analyses of health and political engagement. Yet, given their undeniable accomplishments, as well as the sweep of their knowledge, the justification for this latest book (co-authored with Neil Munro) must be either:(i) fresh theoretical insights and/or (ii) new empirical analysis. This book has a disappointingly minimalist amount of both. The underlying premise of the book is highly important. It attempts to analyse how and why authoritarian regimes maintain stability. Russia, moreover, constitutes a potentially interesting case study, for questions about why the post-1991 democratic momentum halted, and the contributing factors to the slide back into authoritarianism, stand at the head of democratisation research. To make insights, however, requires a conceptual framework, the components of which identify the integrally related aspects of authoritarianism, which can then be systematically tested in Russia. But the analysis is under-conceptualised, and it proceeds in a rather haphazard, hit-or-miss fashion. The authors attempt to adapt David Easton’s classic model of political support to show how authoritarian regimes can attain a minimum popular support for providing economically prosperity (p. 15). But this was only one part of Easton’s model. And, having failed to pinpoint those other parts–particularly the insufficiency of actor support in the long run–not only impoverishes the discussion, but provides limited scope for prescribing solutions to democratic progress in Russia. Yet numerous studies could have formed the basis of a more conceptually nuanced approach. Huntington (1991) noted the ‘reverse waves’ democracy. r 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0001-6810 Acta Politica Vol. 47, 3, 321–323 www. palgrave-journals. com/ap/