Main page                           
Eurasian Home - analytical resource


PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: THE RUSSIANS’ ATTITUDES AND THE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE A CHOICE

Print version

LEV GUDKOV, BORIS DUBIN,
Analytical Center of Yuri Levada, Moscow

We would like to present the recent results of the public opinion poll held by the Yuri Levada Analytical Center. The poll was conducted from February 8 to 11, 2008 by the all-Russia representative sample.

The bottom line is 78% of the respondents said that they were willing to take part in the presidential election. The turnout is likely to be below what’s declared – according to our assessments, 72-75% of the people will turn out to vote, which is explained by the fact that the election returns are quite predictable.

80% of those planning to participate in the election are going to vote for Dmitry Medvedev, 11% – for Gennady Zyuganov, and 9% – for Vladimir Zhirinovsky. About 0.5% of the respondents are ready to vote for Andrey Bogdanov. This figure is below the accuracy of measurement.

In comparison with the previous public opinion polls, the voter enthusiasm has become lower. But at the same time the number of those who are sure to come to the polling stations on March 2 has increased. Now it is 44%. Two months ago, when the prospects of the President’s successor started emerging, the number was 36%.

Most respondents and those who intend to vote are convinced that the outcome of the March election is predetermined, that the decision is taken by the official quarters and what is going on is nothing but imitation of the election. According to the last polls, 54% of the respondents think so. In January this figure was 48%. Moreover, the more educated and politically aware the Russians are, the more they are inclined to believe that the election results are predetermined. In Moscow this group makes up 79% and in the country-side – 51% of the respondents. Those people still think by force of habit that a kind of competition will take place.

The people, who have rather conservative views, form the greatest part of the electorate. This is explained by the fact that the people believe that the election’s purpose is to allow things to be as they are and to keep Vladimir Putin’s policy rather than to solve the issues of the political struggle. Women, uneducated people and the inhabitants of the provinces predominate over those who are going to take part in the election and who support Dmirty Medvedev. Those voters are the ones less informed and politically aware.

The majority of the respondents (75%) believe that when Dmirty Medvedev becomes President, he will follow Vladimir Putin’s political line. Therefore, one can assume that the voters of Medvedev inwardly believe that it would be the best scenario if Putin remained in power, but they are ready to vote for Medvedev to show Russia is not backsliding on democracy. The majority of Medvedev’s supporters consider that Putin should keep the presidential post.

The majority of the potential voters take Medvedev as a copy of Putin. Most respondents (64%) believe that even after the election Medvedev will be controlled by Putin. For the time being, it is unclear to the population how Medvedev and Putin’s powers will be distributed between them. 23% think that Putin will play first fiddle. Other 20% think that it is Medvedev who will be the leader.

Anyway, whatever the voters think, three quarters of the respondents (74%) believe that Putin will continue to influence the policy in Russia even after the presidential election. Thus, this is mass agreement with the continuity of policy as well as ensuring and demonstration of loyalty to the current authorities. On the one hand, this wish for the continuity guarantees that the election will be held according to plan. On the other hand, the question of power distribution is left open. Now the population fails to figure out how Medvedev could come to power, pursue the current policy as an independent policy-maker, and become the major figure in Russia. He is unlikely to be the major figure. There is some uncertainty here that can become apparent after the election.

Today Medvedev is expected to do the same things as Putin was expected to do in 2000 and 2004. The most popular expectations are firstly connected with prestige of a great power: Medvedev will support and favor the further establishment of Russia as a great power. Secondly, there are expectations of the population’s majority which is accustomed to paternalism, with the population being not very rich and not sure of themselves and their prospects. Those expectations concern ‘just distribution of incomes’, ‘ensuring of law and order’, ‘guaranteeing stability’.

For the majority of the population (63%), the television – the First Channel and “Rossiya” Channel – are the main sources of information about the candidates. It comes natural that TV defines the people’s views in many respects. At the same time, the Russians are not confident at all that the statements made by the mass media are impartial. Only 49% of the respondents are sure that the information is impartial. 39% adhere to the opposite opinion. As a result, we can see that the people want stability and the continuity of policy, but are not sure that all is good and that there is simple truth in what they are told and shown.

There is a difference between what the authorities would like to see and what the respondents think. In particular, it concerns Medvedev’s participation in the television debates. In January over 70% believed that he should take part in it. Now 61% (the majority) think so. Only 30% of the respondents accept the current situation. In other words, there is agreement with the authorities, but it is not full. In the main the people watch the television, but they do not trust it completely.

Medvedev’s main quality, which attracts voters, is his close connection with Putin and the President’s confidence in Medvedev. It was mentioned by 53% of the respondents. The other merits of Medvedev are assessed by the voters in the following way (downwards listing):

  • a refined and cultured man (36%);
  • businesslike, active, vigorous (31%);
  • well-educated, professional (29%);
  • pleasant, likeable, charming (25%).

It is important to note that women, who form the majority of voters, like Medvedev. This is proved by the fact that a great deal of the respondents said that attractiveness and charisma are Medvedev’s advantages. Unlike Sergei Ivanov, Medvedev does not frighten off some voters.

In general, Medvedev’s merits are that he could be a good bureaucrat granting the President’s wishes and who would not be independent. It is precisely the traits which the electorate likes. The voters do not expect that the future President will be a state policy-maker or a state leader. They expect that he will be an industrious and obedient official, peaceful and nice. The policy, which Medvedev could pursue, is of no importance to the voters. Only 9% of the respondents mentioned the consistent policy. Other 9% of the respondents said that Medvedev should be an independent politician. Those traits are the least important for Medvedev to be elected President.

42% of the respondents think that Medvedev expresses the interests of Putin's team. The second popular version is that Medvedev expresses the interests of the “middle class”– the people who are fairly well off according to the European standards (24%). The version that he expresses the interests of common people: employees, workmen and rural workers ranks third (19%). There is a need to say that unlike Putin’s image, that of Medvedev is more “civil”. In the people’s opinion, Putin above all expresses the interests of the security officials, bureaucracy and only then of the majority of the population. At the same time, recently the populist constituent part has become more apparent in the images of Medvedev and Pitin. The state propaganda, Medvedev’s having to do with the programs of the national projects and his marked attention to the social sphere, education and the medical problems contribute to this.

As a result, 47% of the respondents are convinced that Medvedev is the best candidate for presidency. Other some 18-20% believe that it would be better if another politician belonging to Putin’s entourage ran for President. 35-36% think nothing about or do not want to give their views on that. In other words, there is no absolute majority here either. There is relative majority but there is no unity. The answers to the question whether the people discuss this election campaign are revealing. Three of four respondents say that if in public transportation or in another public place strangers talked about the election campaign, they would not keep up the conversation. 40% of the respondents discuss the election campaign with their families and friends. Other 25% follow the discussions of the forthcoming election, but do not take part in it. Thus, the election campaign results are perceived by the people as predetermined and there is nothing to discuss there.

In other words, the problem of formal power transfer is solved. However the population does not know what will come of it. The people hope that nothing will change.

The material is based on the experts’ addresses to the press conference at the Interfax information agency office on February 14, 2008 on the subject “The presidential election: the Russians’ attitudes and the opportunities to make a choice”.

February 28, 2008




Our readers’ comments



There are no comments on this article.

You will be the first.

Send a comment

Other materials on this topic
Hot topics
Digest

11.12.2007

RFE/RL: RUSSIA: PUTIN PICKS HIS HEIR

The president has named a successor who embodies two key qualities. Medvedev is both loyal enough to allow Putin to continue de facto rule, and weak enough to avoid upsetting the delicate balance among the warring clans of security-service veterans.


Expert forum
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: RUSSIA'S NEW KENNEDY?

MARIA BOTCHKOVA, DMITRY UDALOV

28.02.2008

While the whole world is watching the development of the American presidential race, the Russian president elections seem to be simple: the Kremlin’s candidate Dmitry Medvedev is supposed to win it.



Analysis

28.02.2008

G7 CITIZENS CRITICAL OF PUTIN’S IMPACT ON RUSSIAN DEMOCRACY: BBC POLL

Eurasian Home publishes the results of the "G7 Citizens Critical of Putin’s Impact on Russian Democracy: BBC poll " conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the international polling firm GlobeScan for the BBC World Service.



Opinion
WHAT’S ON THE AGENDA FOR 2008?
Boris Kagarlitsky

18.01.2008

Welcome to 2008! This year we are to get a new president, further pension and housing and public utilities reforms in Russia; new administration in the USA... Perish the thought, but apart from that we might also get world economic crisis. Really, perish this thought, because forecasting economic recession is not an easy task.


THE PRESIDENT’S BLUNDER
Boris Kagarlitsky

29.12.2007

And so we are told that the Russian President Vladimir Putin stays in power. But if he becomes Prime Minister, what will Dmitry Medvedev do? Will he indeed become President?! Such reshuffles normally end in political instability and social woes. I can only hope that the both don’t mean what they’ve claimed.
The Putin-Medvedev tandem is not a bad strategic alliance in terms of the forthcoming presidential election.


THE VOTE IS OVER, FORGET ABOUT IT!
Boris Kagarlitsky

17.12.2007

The Central Election Commission has counted the vote returns – the parties that were meant to make it into the State Duma are already there occupying their places. Accuracy of the forecast given before the election by the Kremlin-friendly experts, keeps one guessing if the whole costly procedure was aimed at implementing into life a cooked-up scheme.


MEDVEDEV: WHAT I’D DO IF I WAS IN CHARGE
Jules Evans

06.06.2006

I managed to sneak into a private speech that Dmitri Medvedev, deputy prime minister of Russia, gave to around 100 editors at the World Editors Forum in Moscow. He launched into a rather boring speech about the Russian economy, when the interpreter ear-pieces broke down. So his speech was abandoned and we went straight to questions from the floor instead.



 events
 news
 opinion
 expert forum
 digest
 hot topics
 analysis
 databases
 about us
 the Eurasia Heritage Foundation projects
 links
 our authors
Eurasia Heritage Foundation