Research question, aim and research tasks

The master thesis concerned with contemporary perceptions of democracy among Russian and Chinese citizens. The research area include some fundamental components such as society political perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and value-orientations in emotional or psychological atmosphere of society. The topic deals with bachelor research about political orientations of Russian youth. The finding of the study brought some underlying ideas for current master thesis. Among them, the thesis attempts to provide comparative analyses of psychological climate in both Russian and Chinese societies

One of the most significant current discussions both in academic area and in public policy are concerned with prerequisites to democracy in non-democratic political regimes. The process of transition by society from any kind of non-democratic regime towards liberal democracy is defined as democratization or transition to democracy. In this aspect in political science, the definition of liberal democracy is formulated as “political system based on institutionalized and public competition among the political elites for the votes of the electorate with the object of achieving power and influence” [Urnov, 1965, P.65].

It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the fact that the range of factors can become a threat to the formation of democracy. Investigating democratization is a continuing concern within factors which are influencing the existence and stability of democratization. In the theory of democratization, scholars are paying more attention to the importance of economic factors while the question of political culture (the perceptions toward democracy) as a crucial factor of stability of democratization is getting less attention among other factors.

In addition to cultural and economic factors, there are indicators such as social-structural, technological, historical etc., which can be considered as an obstacle or a driver towards democratization. Although scientists claim that all this aspects are relatively independent, they still influence each other during the process of transition [Urnov, 2012, p. 65]. Thereby, it is almost impossible to define which factors are more important for the stability of democracy. However, cultural factors have one advantage. They reflect the common sense of real citizens, and it is almost impossible to change in short-term. Thus, it will be hard to create and save the stable democracy on the final phases of transition if population of the country is not willing to share value of liberal democracy.

In the master thesis, cultural factors are used to describe the prospects of democratization in both non-democratic countries, China and Russia. The political regimes in these countries seem extremely different from each other. On the surface, Russia appears to be at the final stage of transition to the liberal democracy: there are democratic elections, the multiparty political system, the democratic constitution, and non-government organizations. Although Russia does not fit the definition of liberal democracy provided by Joseph Shumpeter (“free competition for a free vote”) [Schumpeter, 1944, P. 271], its political system is still far closer towards democracy on the transition spectrum then China.

On the other hand, China seems to function as a classic communist one-party state. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been in power since 1949. The communist party restricted the advancement of civil societies, eliminated the authority of courts and prevented political protests [Jacobs, 1991].

Despite the political development of China and Russia has some common features that can made comparative analysis possible. Both countries can be characterized as transition societies, which are experiencing a long-term process of democratic transition after the challenges of non-democratic past in both countries. Besides, both countries are affected by Communist ideology: their perceptions and political orientations are moving towards similar direction.

Although both Russia and China are ideologically close to each other, they have chosen extremely different mode of transitions. Russian citizens experienced the radical liberal reform in 1990s. As for China, the process of transition in this country is still going around the stage of being one-party communist state, which haven't faced much shift towards democratization since 1989.

Regarding to modern perceptions, it seems that both Russia and China have special relations with democratic values. Perceptions of democracy in both countries may be influenced by “authoritarian syndrome”. Common sense of the majority citizens in both countries are not ready to reject traditional values such as a desire for strong power and paternalism.

In addition, the following tendency is to make the comparable analysis possible: Chinese public opinion has a better attitude towards democracy and they consider democracy as a value. While Russians are more likely to reject democratic values; especially, nowadays Russian has fundamental contradictions with the Western world. In 2010, 24% of Russian respondents do not consider democracy as a suitable political regime for Russia. Almost same amount of respondents (25%) choose the same answer in 2014. Only 19% of respondents in 2014 think that Russia needs western type of democracy while the majority of the respondents (almost 49%) think that Russia needs a special type of democracy that suits traditional Russian customs.

Although the meaning of democracy for Russians and Chinese is different, it seems like Chinese are more likely to consider democracy as a value then Russians do. On the range from 1 to 10 (wheres 1- Democracy is completely unsuitable and 10- democracy is perfectly suitable), the majority of Chinese respondents (30%) in 2008 chose the maximum rate (10) while less than 1% of respondents (0,2%, 0,1%, 0,3% , 0,5%) chose the minimum points 1, 2, 3, 4, which are close to the statement that democracy is completely unsuitable for the country.

The question which needs to be asked is that why Russian mass common sense rejects democracy as the value while Russia have gone all the way on the process of liberalization. Another question which needs to be asked is that why Chinese citizens, who are living in a one-party state, still consider democracy as a good thing? The reason for that can be found in the mode of transition in both countries are following: radical democratization or the way of radical reforms.

Following this logic, the research question addressed in the master thesis can be formulated in the following way: whether mass common sense in China and Russia can be characterized with “authoritarian syndrome”, and, if yes, which country has a stronger indication of “authoritarian syndrome” and why?

The main subject of the research: modern Russian and modern Chinese citizens

The subject matter: the combination of attitudes and perceptions toward democracy.

The aim of master thesis: to examine the differences in attitudes and perceptions of ordinary Russians and Chinese toward democracy. To succeed in this aim, it is necessary to complete the following research tasks:

• to define the theoretical basis for the research: the concept of democracy, democratization, transition, authoritarian syndrome and democratic values;

• to show the dynamics of transformations of Chinese and Russian perceptions in time and space on the basis of empirical data analysis;

• to compare Russian and Chinese attitudes toward democracy and define which country seems to be more influenced by “authoritarian syndrome” ;

• Base on the research findings, to define relationship between the path of transition and democratic values.

The chronological framework of the research was chosen due to limitations data reduction had brought to the research. The most recent data on Russian case can be found for both 2014 and 2015. In China; however, the most recent studies can be found from 2012.

Therefore, the modern perceptions of Russian and Chinese citizens the following period was chosen as chronological framework of the research: 2008 - 2014. Because perceptions of modern Russian citizens are highly influenced by radical liberalization of the 1990s, this period (1991-1998) are also included for the research to prove the differences in orientations of modern Russian citizens and Russian citizens of the 1990s.

Although the study is focused on the Chinese and Russian perceptions: in some questions about the meaning of democracy, Western citizens (Americans, French or British) are perceived to have maximum democratic values compare to Chinese and Russian citizens.

Variables and Hypothesis

The main question that will be tested in master thesis is that contemporary perceptions toward democracy of mass common sense in China and Russia are characterized with a lack of real democratic values: which instead, are replaced with authoritarian syndrome. But China and Russia are not similar in terms of democratic values. Thus, it is important to specify the differences in the formation of Russians and Chinese democratic values.

Hypothesis being tested in the research can be formulated in three statements:

· The system of political orientations of mass common sense in China and Russia is characterized with the lack of real democratic values, which are instead replaced with authoritarian syndrome.

· Mass common sense in Russia has a better understanding of democracy, then Chinese mass common sense while Chinese citizens are more likely to consider democracy as a value, than Russian citizens

· The "shock therapy" (Russian way of democratization) is more favorable for "authoritarian syndrome" and less favorable for the formation of democratic values instead of “gradual” mode of transition (Chinese way of democratization).

Topicality

The process of transition from authoritarian regime towards liberal democracy can be caused and influenced by many factors. The major source of uncertainty is the range of necessary conditions for democratization. The reasons why democracy is stable in some countries while it can easily be ruined in other countires raises a number of research questions in academic studies and public discussions in political sphere.

Some scholars claim that authoritarianism can be a real threat for the foundation of stable democracy even throughout the process of democratization. “Authoritarian syndrome” and non-democratic values can become real obstacles for the prospects of democratization [Urnov, 2012: P. 65]. The political culture of transition society, among other factors (social, economic and political dynamic), plays an extremely important role. “Authoritarian syndrome” as a set of non-democratic values and perceptions (for example, desire for strong leader and absolute power) can even cause rejection of democracy itself by transition society. Thus, democratic value of mass common sense in transition societies is a major area of interests within the field of prospects for democratization.

China and Russia are chosen as examples of transition societies. The prospects of democratization may also depend on political orientations of mass common sense in these countries. That is why a research topic which includes comparable analysis of Chinese and Russian perceptions of democracy seem rather relevant and important.

Methodology and methods

Methodological basis of the research will be influenced by post-behavioralism. The term "post-behavioralism" was coined by David Easton in 1969, who tried to sum up the impact of new social process on the traditions of the political science. According to Easton (a revolution of the post-behavioralism was more relevant to social problems instead of behavioralism, and it was being criticized for losing touch with reality and being stricter with research techniques.

The main principles of post-behavioralism being used for this research are as follow:

· “Substance must precede technique” [Easton, 1969; P. 1052]

· “Behavioral science conceals an ideology of behavioral conservatism”

· “To use qualitative method of research, as much as historical and value approach” [Irhin, 2009: Ñ. 95];

· “To take into consideration all factors for analysis political behavior. In other words to use the whole package of factors (even psychological and cultural ones)”.

These principles of post-behavioral paradigm were used to construct theoretical foundation for the research. The significance of cultural factors of political behavior (perceptions, attitudes and believes) is considered as the main principle of post-behavioral revolution. This main principle is implemented into this research about cultural factors as prerequisites or obstacles towards democratization. In Chapter 2 of this master thesis, the theoretical foundation of post-behavioral approach is demonstrated in more detail.

The post-behavioral approach considers a wide range of methods applicable towards research about political behavior. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are used for this master thesis.

Qualitative methods

Personnel perceptions and attitudes toward political categories

Perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and orientations of the majority toward political categories (such as political regime, political leaders, political ideology and party-system etc.) construct special psychological atmosphere of the society.

Apart from this, values, perceptions and beliefs are the main components of the value system. The term “value system” can be used in refer to “a hierarchical arrangement of values, a rank-ordering of values along a continuum of importance” [Rokeach, 1968: 552]. According to this definition provided by Milton Rokeach (“The Role of Values in Public Opinion Research”), the value system of a person can be divided into two main components: an instrumental value system (the beliefs that we should behave honestly, responsible etc.) and a terminal value system (beliefs in a world at peace, salvation, equality etc. [Rokeach, 1968: 552].

Perception toward democracy is considered to be a part of instrumental values, because this type of political orientations can influence political behavior of a person or group of people.

The concept of political orientations can be describe in two different prospectives:

· The nature of political orientations as a part of value orientation theory

· Functions of political orientations through political culture theory

The nature of political orientations

The roots for political orientation theory can be found in between 1940-1950 when a group of anthropologists with Clyde Kluckhohn begun to develop The Value Orientation Method. Nowadays the Value Orientation Method is used as a research method for a wide range of studies: from analyzing different aspects of political behavior to the studies of the different aspects of democratization.

Talcott Parsons in his book (“Toward a general theory of action”, (1965)) had gathered main ideas about the influence of person's values, attitudes and beliefs on his action. In the chapter “Categories of the Orientation and organization of Action (1965) he presents his ideas on the system of values and values orientations. According to Parson's view, the behavior of each individuum can be presented as an act of action. This act of action is influenced by the system of orientations. Each individuum has his own attitudes and perceptions toward different object around him.

Therefore, system of orientations following Parson's logi is a set of specific orientations of an actor each set contains a number of attitudes and perceptions (conscious/non-conscious; implicit/explicit) toward his wishes and desires, which appear at the process of his life-sustaining activity (Parsons, Shils, 1965). Basically, each specific orientation is a concept, which the actor gets from the situation in terms of what he wants (his desires) and what he sees (how the situation looks to him): more importantly, how he intends to get the things he want from the object he sees.

System of orientations is divided by Parsons into two groups. The first group - motivational orientations (plans and desires of actor toward different events). According to Parson's view, value orientations are included into the second group, which are defined as internally related system of cognitive, moral and ethical standards on the basis of which individual or group of individuals are making their choice [Yrnov, Casamara, 2011: P. 4.].

Following Parson's logic political behavior of the individuum is influenced by the system of his values orientations. Thus, perceptions toward democracy of individuum are the core principles that are ruling the choice and political behavior. The question that needs to be asked is that whether a group of individuals with common perceptions toward democracy can influence the prospects of democratization of the whole country.

Regarding to the influence of perceptions and attitudes on political behavior, it is highly important to define mechanism which make the whole system of value orientations a driving factor of individual behavior. Parsons claims that value orientations are driving the person's behavior with the help of selection of alternatives, and selection of alternatives has three basic functions:

• To decrease a number of various notions (value orientations separate reliable objects from the doubtful).

• To narrow a range of person's desires (value orientations separate suitable objects from the improper ones).

• To reduce a number of alternatives (this function responsible for separating moral strategies of behavior from immoral ones).

Due to these functions with the help of value orientation, an actor can predict consequences of the chosen decisions [Parsons, Shils: 1965£¬Ð.63]. Thereby, Parsons draws his basic conclusion in the following way: a process of making choice is one of the aspect of orientations, while those standards which are driving the choice is considered to be the value orientations system.

The concept provided by Clyde Kluckhohn does not contradict Parson's theory, instead of it Kluckhohn ideas (“Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification”) [Parsons, Shils, 1965] supplement Parson's theory.

According to Kluckhohn's view, value orientations can be described as a range of related judgments. It consists of values and existential elements.

Kluckhohn provides the following explanation for these existential elements: views and perceptions of a person or group of people towards some fundamental for each individuum objects (the structure of the world, relations between human and the world, relations between human and human).

In his studies, the term value orientations is used to define as internally organized and generalized concept of nature, human place in the world and personnel relations, which influence individual's behavior.

Ideas of Clyde Kluckhohn was developed and completed by his wife (Florence Kluckhohn) with a group of scientists (Frederick Strodtbeck) [Kluckhohn, 1965: P. 395]. They were working on the research about fundamental values within different cultures. The key research question of that study was concerned with whether or not each culture has a range of universal issues while the necessity of solution of these issues is obliged for every cultural group. Researchers had presented a typology of this fundamental issues which can be used as a method of analysis for specific characteristics within different cultures. The most important conclusion of the study was formulated by researches in the following way: the system of value orientations can be considered as one of the most fundamental parts of human nature. In addition, each individuum value orientations are arranged in a hierarchy while the process of their formation is influenced by cultural and historical background of the society a person is living in.

The Value Orientation Method was widely used by later studies. A number of later studies have examined Kluckhohn's typology as a useful theoretical instrument for empirical research. Several practical studies [Hills, 2002] was conducted with the help of the theoretical basis provide by The Value Orientation Method.

Together many studies outline the following idea: personnel behavior is driven with a set of moral norms and strategies, which are included into the value orientations system.

Therefore political orientations as a part of the value orientations system can influence political behavior of common citizen's in the country.

This mechanism can be described in the following way: political orientations drives political behavior of the citizens, which in turns, defines political agenda of the country. Thus, political orientations is a driver of political behavior which can affect the prospects of democratization in the country.

Political orientations (following Parson's logic) can be described as those standards, which are driving person's choice towards different models of political behavior.

Political orientation (following Clyde and Florence logic) is an internally organized and generalized concept of relations between citizens and political actors, between citizens and the state, which influence person's behavior.

After describing the nature of the whole system of value orientations, it is very important to define the place of perceptions toward democracy among others political orientations, political attitudes and beliefs. Perceptions in psychological sense are defined as: “the process by which organism interpret and organize sensation to produce a meaningful experience of the world” [Pickens, 2006: 52]. Perceptions of democracy among other political orientations are completing several functions that can be understood through the analysis of political culture.

Mass common sense and “authoritarian syndrome”

Having analyzed a theoretical concept of political perceptions it's also important to define the relations between “authoritarian syndrome” and political culture.

Scientist consider “authoritarian syndrome” as integral part of political culture for those countries who staying at the transitional phase of development. In simple terms, democratization can be defined as a transition from authoritarian regime to any form of liberal democracy which is considered as political system with political competition among public elites who are fighting for influence and political power [Urnov, 2012: P. 65].

There are many factors which can become obstacles or contrarily prerequisites for democratization. It can be economic, social, technological, historical and of course cultural aspects of the society. Although Scientists claim that all this aspects are relatively independent, they still influence each other during the process of a transition [Urnov, 2012: P. 65]. Therefore, it is almost impossible to define which factors are more important for the stability of democracy. Among all others; however, cultural factors have one advantage - they reflect the common sense of real citizens which is almost impossible to change in short-term. Thus if population of the country is not willing to share value of liberal democracy, it will be hard to create and save the stable democracy on the final phases of transition.

The interpretive approach defines political culture as “the distribution of values, attitudes, and beliefs towards politics among a population” [Nathan A.J. and Tianjian Shi. 1993]. Thus, the prospects of democratization among other factors may be influenced by the set of values and perceptions, which form political culture of society.

Lucian Pye also speaks about the important role of the political culture in the process of transition in his book “Asian Power and Politics. The Cultural Dimensions of Authority.” Political culture include the human imagination, which “is the starting point of all significant actions.” Thus, it is reasonable to speak about the role of political culture due to the different ways of modernization could appear in different cultures [Pye L.W., 1985, P. 20.].

Pye also speaks about common sense which appears in all cultures, but can be extremely different from culture to culture. Perceptions and expectation toward power - all can be influenced by cultural inclinations.

Similar to this concept, the approach can be defined as “neo-Gramscian account of hegemony” [Hopf T., 2013, P. 318.]. In this approach, mass common sense plays a leading theoretical role. Gramsci in his theory of hegemony defined mass common sense as taken-for-granted ideas of public about social life. Thus mass common sense is sharing a legitimate, taken-for-granted truth, which people agreed with without asking complementary questions [Hopf T., 2013, P. 321.]. Constructivist International Relations Theory ignored the role of mass common sense in the process of construction for national identity. That is why a “neo-Gramscian constructivist account of hegemony” provided by Ted Hopf. Consider mass common sense as “a structural variable in world politics, akin to distributions of material power or national identities” [Hopf T., 2013, P. 318.]. Hopf has used the approach for the case of Russian relations of mass common sense and elite ideology.

The capacity of any ideology or hegemony to survive depends on the extend toward which mass common sense can accept main principles of implemented ideology. Nazism was successful because “lost generation” of the 1930s was sharing the ideas of strong and powerful leader who can bring back Germany it's lost glory.

The desire for strong power or strong leader can be named among most explicit symptoms of “authoritarian syndrome”. “Authoritarian syndrome” is not a unique disease which can affect only several countries. M. Urnov claims that all countries on the path to democracy to a greater or to a lesser extent have experienced this kind of syndrome [Urnov M.Y: 2012. P. 61]. Basically this theoretical concept has appeared after the work of Erich Fromm “Escape from Freedom”, 1941 and “Authoritarian Personality”, 1950 by Theodor Adorno. Since that time, the concept has changed from psychological interpretation of authoritarian roots towards cultural characteristics. The cultural characteristics not only included psychological feature which are typical for authoritarian personality, but also included his ideological preferences, perceptions, beliefs and ways of political behavior [Urnov M.Y: 2012. P. 66]. Taking into account that contemporary variation of “authoritarian syndrome” theory is an authoritarian attitude for power, it is defined by Mark Urnov as “ a willingness to accept the holders of power as father figures or “elder brothers”, as those possessing unconditional authority and “more” equal than the rest” [Urnov M.Y, 2012. P. 67].

2. Methodological framework and data analysis

Orientations towards governmental institutions