Bonjour, stagnation: Russia's next years

Abstract

THE MOOD IN A SOCIETY, whether it is in general optimistic or depressive, varies from one nation to another, and from one time to another. It is obvious that the character of the population's disposition is a significant factor in a society's social, economic and political life. The question about the 'American malaise' and the American spirit was an important issue in the debates between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan during the presidential election campaign of 1980. However, it is a moot question whether it is better for the survival and progress of a society to be generally discontent with the current state of affairs, or to be satisfied with life despite some negative developments. The famous 'fin du siecle' pessimism which was rampant throughout the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires at the end of the 19th century was to some extent responsible for the collapse of these empires. On the other hand, was not the famous American optimism one of the greatest causes of American progress over the past two centuries? The national mood is of special importance when a society is in a state of turmoil. What can better help a nation to cope with the problems which it faces-a critical spirit and a negative assessment of current life, or making every effort to adjust to the current situation and trying to rationalise developments as being 'normal'? In this article I will try to discuss this issue, analysing developments in post-communist Russia at the time of the last presidential election in summer 1996. By this period most Russians had clearly gravitated toward acceptance of their society's state of affairs as 'normal', despite all the 'objective indicators' of many pathological developments. Russians chose a different strategy than, for instance, the French, who now consider their society, with a huge permanent unemployment rate and curtailment of social benefits, as being chronically ill. Just as with sick individuals, who can chose from two strategies-ignoring their illness and considering their state of health 'normal', or being alert every minute, carefully studying each signal, each symptom stemming from their body, it is not easy to say which strategy is better for a society or an individual. It depends on a myriad of factors.