Transitional Citizens: Voters and What Influences Them in the New Russia by Timothy J. s> Colton (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS i8i Of course, if the logic of the development of informal institutions is not representedin the analysisto the extent to which it influencesthe practice,the process of institutionbuildingis bound to be seen as chaotic, which might not be the case from the perspectiveof informalinstitutions.The focus on formal institutions, however, has its uses. The details presented here of institution building in Russia during the I990s are reliable, chronologically organized, and sufficientlyreferencedto be helpfulto studentsof post-Sovietpolitics. School ofSlavonic andEastEuropean Studies A. V. LEDENEVA University College London Colton, Timothy J. Transitional Citizens:Voters and WhatInfluences Themin the New Russia.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, and London, 2000. xi + 324 pp. Notes. Tables. Figures.Index. ?44.95; LI 6.95. THEproblem is simple. In the early I990S subjects of the Soviet state were abruptlyturned into citizens of the new Russian Republic. Forthe participation in elections Russia, as a 'late-democratizingsociety', has an institutional infrastructurethat is 'rough-hewn'and, Colton writes,'the signalsthat parties and candidates emit are thin and static-filled'(pp. 2II-I 2). For this reason, when tryingto explain electoral behaviour, the variablesused for established democracies may not be adequate. So what factors haveexplained voting behaviour in Russia'sfirstfree elections?Are they entirelyidiosyncratic or perhapsvariationsto the explanatoryfactorsof elections in old democracies? Democracy is, in a quote borrowed from Adam Przeworski,'a system of ruled open-endedness, or organized uncertainty' (p. 7). Consequently, in transitionalRussian politics, voting takes place in an environment of 'semiorganized uncertainty' (p. I4). The behaviour of political actors is volatile. There is discord over the integrity of the electoral process. All pervasive at times is an acute fear (or, with some, hope) that democratic reformsmay be reversed.The electorateisunsureof itself.In suchsemi-organizeduncertainty, what factorsexplain how newly emancipatedRussiancitizensvote? Using the major studies of voting behaviour in established democracies, Timothy Colton has developed a voting model for transitionalRussia, which providesthe structureforhis book. In thismulti-stagemodel he systematically deals with bundles of explanatoryvariables,from the general to the specific. These include background social characteristics,voters' assessment of economic and political conditions, partisanshipand issue opinions, their retrospective evaluations of incumbents, leadership qualities and finally the prospectiveevaluationsof partiesand candidates.Colton appliesthe statistical technique of ordinaryleastsquaresregressionto datafromthreepanel surveys of the electorate. Panel surveysare public opinion surveysin which the same group of respondentsis interviewedseveraltimes;the firstwave of interviews took place during the campaign for the December I995 Duma elections, the second wave immediatelyaftertheseelections, and the thirdand finalwave in the weeks following the presidential election of I996. Almost 98 per cent of the first-waverespondentswere interviewedagain in the second wave, and 86 per cent in the thirdwave. This has the great advantagethat changes in views i82 SEER, 8o, I, 2002 can be tracedmore accuratelythan in consecutive surveysof different,though representative, groups of respondents. Colton's text is illustratedby a great numberof well-designedtablesand figures. So is Russianpostcommunistvoting behaviourentirelyerratic,the resultof chaos, fear and confusion, as some commentators have it? Colton finds that voting patterns 'hint at [. . .] the existence of tangible, offsetting pressures toward order and determinacy' (p. 2I2). In spite of the chaos surrounding them, the voters of postcommunist Russia have grasped what it means to make a political choice. They are not a tabularasa.After all, Colton adds, 'votingand voting sensiblyis easierthan buildinga flourishingstockexchange or bond market,as Russianshave found out to theirdismay'(p. 213). In general, Russianvoting behaviourin the mid-I990Scan be explained by roughlythe same factorsas in establisheddemocracies.But specificforRussia is, for example, that the age of voters 'is more of an influence on Russian votingbehaviorthan education,income, oranyothersocialattribute'(p. 2 I5). The variable that turns out to be strongest in Russia is partisan affinity, followed by voters'attitudestowardthe individualpartyleaders(in the Duma vote) and the retrospectiveevaluation of incumbents, that is the performance of presidentYeltsinduringhis firstterm. At the end of his book, trying to evaluate the contribution of electoral politicsto the strengtheningof democracy,Colton makesan effortto stressthe positive. He argues that Russian elections have tended to avoid two 'syndromes' that would harm 'responsible democratic choice'. These are voting 'chiefly on the basis of selfish pocketbook concerns' as prominent in some established democracies, and 'infatuation with charismatic leaders' (p. 223). Overall, Russiansareprettysensiblevoters. In the emerging literatureon Russian electoral behaviour, this is...