Evaluation of state and political figures: survey results
From the author
I express my sincere gratitude to all visitors of the Military Review website who took part in the survey and thus made this project a reality.
Introduction
There are numbers for political parties and social movements in the post-Soviet open spaces - where formerly the Communist Party of the united Soviet Union monopoly led. Now there are more countries, the population, on the contrary, has decreased, while the number of parties and movements has grown almost exponentially. If we consider that each political and near-political organization nominates several functionaries from its ranks, and add parliamentary sideliets to them, as well as government officials, then their name will be legion.
A legion of figures seeking to break through or, conversely, stay on the powerful Olympus, which has the same classical foundation as before. Power without a people loses its meaning. There is no people, no one to lead, which means there is no power either. If the people (forgive me, I made a reservation - the electorate) does not support one or another politician, then the price on the market day (sorry again, again made a reservation - on election day) is worthless. Moreover, each of the politicians declares himself as the sole and true exponent (or rather, the interpreter) of the interests of the people and the country, knowing how and where to steer, so that everyone is good, and even better for his beloved.
Sober-minded people gradually, passing through the crucible of 90's, learned to separate the wheat from the chaff and generate their own opinion about the majority of “actors and performers” of the modern political theater. Individual opinions may differ from each other and sin by subjectivism, but together they deserve unconditional attention, as they bring us closer to an understanding of the real state of things.
Based on this sociological postulate, the Military Review website was conceived and implemented the project “Evaluation of State-Political Figures”, the purpose of which was to obtain generalized portraits that take into account the different opinions of the most famous “sovereign people” of our time and still not forgotten Soviet past . The project included the definition of evaluation criteria that would meet the nature and nature of public-state activities in modern conditions, the development and testing of an appropriate assessment tool, the organization and conduct of a survey among site visitors, analysis, synthesis and presentation of the results.
The first article in this project (http://topwar.ru/13065-proekt-ocenka-gosudarstvenno-politicheskih-deyateley.html) was mainly devoted to the development and testing of methods, as well as the organization of the survey among site visitors. This publication introduces the results of the survey already conducted and provides a platform for further discussion.
Survey participants
From 213 site visitors who expressed a preliminary desire to participate in the project, an 172 person (80,8%) sent an application for participation. All these people, via e-mail, were provided with evaluation forms with detailed instructions for completing. Returned forms returned to 127 people (return percentage - 73,8%), of which:
By country of residence
- 80 people from Russia (63,0%)
- From Belarus, Ukraine or Kazakhstan 14 (11,0%)
- From other CIS countries 0 (0,0%)
- From the rest of the world 4 (3,1%)
- Country of residence was not indicated 29 (22,8%)
According to the age
- Up to 30 years 25 people (19,7%)
- From 30 to 50 years 37 (29,5%)
- Over 50 years 33 (26,0%)
- Age not specified 32 (25,2%)
Estimates of respondents who did not indicate their country of residence or their age category were taken into account only in the results for the sample as a whole.
Assessment Objects
The subjects of the survey participants were a number of government and political figures. First of all, these are figures of modern Russia, belonging to different political and social trends, or occupying high positions in the state structure. Secondly, these are state leaders of three CIS countries - Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan - Russia's key partners in building a unified Eurasian Union. Thirdly, these are state-political leaders and leaders of the Soviet Union, various periods of its formation, development, decline and collapse.
A separate group of objects of evaluation were the so-called typical characters - generalized literary images with a fixed and equally understood by all reputation. These characters played the role of peculiar reference points, relative to which one could analyze the assessments of real state-political figures.
Finally, the list was supplemented with a special character called “The ideal, from your point of view, state-political figure” (in abbreviated form - "Ideal"). This character was evaluated on a par with other objects, which made it possible to see how real the politicians of the past and present are close to or far from Ideal, from the point of view of survey participants.
The full list that included the 38 evaluation objects looked like this:
FIG. 1. Assessment Objects
| the USSR |
Russia |
CIS countries |
Players |
|
Joseph Stalin |
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin |
Alexander Lukashenko |
The One |
At the beginning of the project, this list was opened for amendments and additions. In the first article, the visitors of the Military Review website were asked to make their own proposals regarding the persons involved in the assessment. Since there were no such proposals, the list of objects for evaluation remained unchanged.
Method
The assessment methodology is described in more detail in the first article of the project. Here we dwell only on its main points.
At the preliminary stage of the project, as a result of factor analysis of a large assessment array (100 assessment features, 38 assessment objects, 17 assessors, which ultimately gave 64 assessments), 600 key independent factors, or criteria, were identified for assessing state and political figures. A feature of the identified factors was that they had a two-pole structure, i.e. within one factor, the assessed quality with a positive value always had its antipode - the opposite quality with a negative value:
1 factor "Strength / Activity - Weakness / Passivity"
2 th factor "Morality - Immorality"
3 factor "Competence - Incompetence"
Each of the factors was described by seven pairs of evaluative features that also have a bipolar structure. In general, the evaluation form included a pair of signs 21 mixed by belonging to the factors and polarity so as not to create an installation for the respondents to uniform formal answers.
FIG. 2. Sample evaluation form ©
| number |
Left pole |
Power |
|
Power |
Right pole |
||||
|
|
Active |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Passive |
|
|
Dirty |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Net |
|
|
Competent |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Incompetent |
|
|
Slave |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Leading |
|
|
His |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Alien |
|
|
Myopic |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Far-sighted |
|
|
Vigorous |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Sluggish |
|
|
Dark |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Light Coloured |
|
|
Looking at the root |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Surface |
|
|
Indecisive |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Resolute |
|
|
Trustworthy |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Suspicious |
|
|
Empty |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
With the king in mind |
|
|
Sure |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Uncertain |
|
|
Far from the people |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Close to the people |
|
|
Extraordinary |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Mediocre |
|
|
Spineless |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Hard |
|
|
Strengthening country |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Destroying the country |
|
|
Unskillful |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Skillful |
|
|
Rod possessing |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Spineless |
|
|
Disappointing |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Hopeful |
|
|
Опытный |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Unsophisticated |
The survey participants were asked to rate each state political figure from the proposed list for all pairs of evaluative indicators. According to the instructions, for each pair it was necessary to first determine which sign, right or left, corresponds more to the object of assessment, and then indicate the degree of manifestation of the selected sign (1 - weak, 2 - medium, 3 - strongly). If, in the opinion of the respondent, neither one nor the other sign in the pair was suitable for the assessment of a specific person involved, then it was necessary to indicate a neutral version of the assessment “0”.
In the course of processing the survey results, individual evaluations of respondents were averaged both for individual evaluative characteristics and, in general, for three evaluative factors. Further, when presenting the survey results, only averaged estimates are given everywhere.
Overall results
The results of classical factorial methods are usually presented in the form of so-called semantic spaceswhere each object finds its own, strictly defined place. Since we used the three-factor appraisal method, the corresponding semantic space populated by state-political figures and typical characters should be three-dimensional. In practice, due to the complexity of the representation and perception of three-dimensional figures in the eye, two-dimensional projections (maps) are used, formed by an alternate combination of two factors out of three. In our case, it is such combinations as "Strength / Activity - Morality", "Morality - Competence" and "Strength / Activity - Competence".
A few words about the topographic features of semantic maps. Given that each of the factors has two poles, then two-dimensional maps are symmetrical - the factor axes intersect at the zero point, in both directions from which the values of the opposite poles increase. Each pole has three degrees of expression: 1 - weak, 2 - medium, 3 - strong (maximum value). State-political figures and model characters are located on maps, depending on the factor estimates they receive, which serve as coordinates. When “reading” cards it is recommended to take into account the following points. First, look at which square of the map the object is in and what are its absolute coordinates (factor estimates), secondly, take into account the relative position of objects relative to each other, in particular, the distance of real state-political figures from the Ideal also their location relative to the nearest reference points - typical characters.
The following symbols are applied on the semantic maps presented below:
- Green circle - typical characters, including "Ideal";
- The Yellow Circle - the state political figures of the USSR;
- Red Diamond - the current presidents of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
- Blue rhombus - modern state and public figures of Russia.
FIG. 3. Map of politicians in the coordinates "Strength / Activity - Morality"
Upper right square "Strength / Activity - Morality"
The position “Ideal state-political figure” (in abbreviated form - Ideal) is expectedly located in the upper right-hand corner and is characterized by high (but not maximum!) Evaluations on both factors. Directly next to the “Ideal” are the typical characters “Hero” and “Creator”. Obviously, from the point of view of survey participants, these concepts are adjacent. The characters “Patriot”, “Master” and “Master” are in the same region, but differ from “Ideal” by more moderate estimates. In particular, the type of "Patriot" with even higher scores on the factor "Morality" is noticeably inferior to the "Ideal" on the factor "Strength / Activity". The “Master” type, on the contrary, approaching the “Ideal” in terms of the “Strength / Activity” factor, is clearly undersupplied by moral qualities. The “Master” type, although it belongs to the same constellation of typical characters, is clearly inferior to them due to both factors.
Of the leaders of the USSR in this square are George Zhukov, Joseph Stalin, Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev. The position of G. Zhukov is closest to the “Ideal” among all real state-political figures. I.Stalin, having about the same estimates with G.Zhukov by the Strength / Activity criterion, is inferior to him in terms of morality. Yu.Andropov is positioned by the respondents in a dangerous proximity to the border separating the concepts of morality and immorality, while having moderate assessments by the force / activity factor. L. Brezhnev, although located in the same square, is separated from the rest, having low marks on both criteria.
Among contemporary Russian figures, Dmitry Rogozin, Leonid Ivashov and Sergey Lavrov occupy an honorable place in this box, having moderate marks both by the strength / activity criterion and by the moral factor. Their positions (especially D. Rogozin) are closest to the type “Master”.
Of the current presidents, the survey participants placed Alexander Lukashenko, Vladimir Putin, and Nursultan Nazarbayev in this square. Moreover, A. Lukashenko is the closest among them to the concept of “Ideal” and is adjacent to such historical personalities like G. Zhukov and I. Stalin. N. Nazarbayev and V. Putin are noticeably inferior to Old Man by both criteria. Putin's moral qualities are assessed at the level of Stalin, but he clearly does not reach the Father of All Peoples by the criterion of strength / activity.
Lower right square "Strength / Activity - Immorality"
Most vividly here are presented the types of "Destroyer" and "Scoundrel." Of the leaders of the USSR, the position of Boris Yeltsin is closest to them. Lavrenty Beria and, especially, Nikita Khrushchev are more likely on the periphery of this area, approaching the border between immorality and morality. The typical character "Dictator" is also located in this border area, distinguished by maximum marks on the strength / activity criterion. The closest to the “Dictator”, according to this criterion, are the positions of I.Stalin, A.Lukashenko and G.Zhukov, with the essential difference that the latter are located on the other side of the border between good and evil. Description "Democrat", with mild immorality, nestled near the border, separating the strong and active defendants from the weak and passive. In general, his position can be characterized by the concept of "neither fish nor meat."
Among contemporary Russian figures, Anatoly Chubais, Alexey Navalny and Mikhail Prokhorov were unconditionally registered in this square. They form the "Bermuda Triangle", within which are the types of "Rogue" and "Destroyer." The duo of Garry Kasparov - Boris Nemtsov is as immoral as the previous three, but noticeably inferior to them in strength and activity.
LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky got into the border strip of this territory due to immorality, assessed to a weak degree, in combination with moderate estimates by the criterion of strength / activity. His position is close to the positions of L. Beria and N. Khrushchev.
The leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov is placed by respondents of the survey in the immediate vicinity of the zero coordinates on both criteria and has approximately the same vague position as the type “Democrat”.
Lower left square "Weakness / Passivity - Immorality"
Of the typical characters here are "The Traitor", "The Provident" and "Amateur". The ideological inspirer of perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev, found his place not far from the type “Provident”. In the same place, next to the “Provisionalist”, is the head of the Russian Defense Ministry Anatoly Serdyukov. Dmitry Medvedev and Sergey Mironov are more likely to take the position of the “Amateur” type.
Viktor Yanukovych, President of Ukraine, is located in close proximity to the positions of “Dilettante” and “Democrat” and has almost zero marks on the strength / activity criterion combined with moderate ratings on the immorality criterion.
FIG. 4. Map of politicians in the coordinates of "morality - competence"
Upper right square "Morality - Competence"
As on the previous map, in the square formed by the positive ends of the axes, practically the same survey respondents are represented:
The characters are “Ideal”, “Creator”, “Master”, “Master”, “Hero” and “Patriot”.
Figures of the USSR - G.Zhukov, I.Stalin, Y.Andropov and L.Brezhnev.
Modern Russian figures - L.Ivashov, S.Lavrov and D.Rogozin.
The current presidents are A. Lukashenko, Belarus, N. Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan, and V. Putin, Russia.
G.Zhukov, L.Ivashov and S.Lavrov are closest to the “Ideal” position in the considered coordinates, and A. Lukashenko is again among the presidents. V.Putin’s position is characterized by moderate morality and competence.
Lower left square "Immorality - Incompetence"
Figures of this square are:
The characters are “Amateur”, “Time Provider”, “Traitor” and “Democrat”.
Figures of the USSR - M.Gorbachev (pronounced immorality and moderate incompetence), B.Yeltsin (moderate immorality and incompetence), N. Khrushchev (weak immorality and incompetence). M.Gorbachev and B.Eltsin in this coordinate system most of all to the type of "Time worker."
Modern Russian figures - B.Nemtsov, G.Kasparov, A.Navalny and A.Serdyukov are characterized by weak or moderate incompetence against the background of strong or moderate immorality. S. Mironov and D. Medvedev have poorly defined indicators on both criteria.
The President of Ukraine, V. Yanukovych, with moderate immorality and weakly expressed incompetence is adjacent to the character "Demokrat".
Upper left square "Immorality - Competence"
In this area there are no defendants who would have both qualities expressed to the same extent. For example, L. Beria and the type “Dictator” have a higher than average level of competence and a low degree of immorality. On the contrary, “Destroyer”, “Scoundrel”, A. Chubais and M. Prokhorov are distinguished by high or above average immorality and weak indicators on the criterion of competence.
V.Zhirinovsky and G.Zyuganov in this system of coordinates have low indicators by both criteria.
FIG. 5. Map of politicians in the coordinates "Strength / Activity - Competence"
On this map, in the absence of the criterion "Morality - Immorality", one can observe an obviously incredible confusion of objects of evaluation.
For example, in upper right squarewhere competence is combined with strength and activity, such characters as “Patriot”, “Hero”, “Dictator”, “Rogue” and “Destroyer” paradoxically coexist. A. Chubais and M. Prokhorov are located next to V. Zhirinovsky and relatively close to D. Rogozin and L. Ivashov. In addition, a number of interesting pairs were formed here: Stalin-Zhukov, Lukashenko-Dictator, Putin-Hero, Beria-Andropov, Lavrov-Ivashov, Chubais-Rogue, and finally Brezhnev-Zyuganov.
Diametrically opposite bottom left square, the refuge of the weak, passive and incompetent defendants, everything remains in its place. Gorbachev and Serdyukov fall into the field of types of "Time worker" and "Diletant", the president of Ukraine Yanukovych threw anchor near the types of "Traitor" and "Democrat". Two Russian leaders, Medvedev and Mironov, drift away from other defendants, differing from them in higher rates of weakness and passivity.
В bottom right moderately strong / active and, at the same time, weakly competent persons involved, such as Yeltsin, Kasparov, Nemtsov and Navalny, gathered.
In concluding the review of two-dimensional maps formed by a pairwise combination of the three main factors for evaluating government and political figures (Strength / Activity, Morality and Competence), the key role of the Morality factor should be noted. It plays the role of a razor blade, which clearly separates in the minds of people the "power of good" from the "forces of evil." In his absence, based only on the assessment of the strength, activity and competence of political figures (3 map), there is a risk of replacing and confusing concepts, distorting landmarks when understanding who is who in the multi-colored palette of internal political forces.
***
As already noted, a special character was introduced into the list of objects for evaluation - “The ideal state political figure” ("Ideal"). He played the role of a peculiar standard of politics, from the point of view of survey participants, and was evaluated along with real state-political figures. When processing the results of the survey, it provided an opportunity to see how real state-political figures are close or far from the “Ideal” image, taking into account the ratings they obtained on all three criteria - Strength / Activity, Morality and Competence.
The measure of the distance of a real politician from Ideal was the total difference of the corresponding factor estimates, calculated according to the rules of vector algebra. If we imagine the position of a certain politician and the “Ideal” in the three-dimensional factorial space as vectors, then the distance between the ends of the vectors will be the desired value of the politician’s proximity / distance from the “Ideal”. Let's call this value index of compliance "ideal". The closer a real politician is to the “Ideal”, the lower the value of his index, and vice versa, the farther the politician from the “Ideal”, the greater the value of the corresponding index.
All real state-political figures were ranked according to the indices they obtained, starting with the minimum and ending with the maximum index. Further, to the ranked list of politicians was used the procedure of splitting into quartiles (four groups), which allowed to classify all politicians into the closest to the “Ideal”, the most distant from the “Ideal” and belonging to two intermediate groups.
FIG. 6. Classification of politicians according to the “Ideal” compliance index.
Politicians closest to the "Ideal" |
Policy |
Policy |
Politicians, the most remote from the "Ideal" |
||||
|
1) G. Zhukov |
1,01 |
8) D. Rogozin |
2,84 |
14) M. Prokhorov |
7,52 |
20) V. Yanukovich |
9,57 |
|
2) I. Stalin |
1,67 |
9) Y. Andropov |
3,67 |
15) G. Zyuganov |
7,56 |
21) S. Mironov |
10,09 |
|
3) A. Lukashenko |
1,76 |
10) L. Beria |
4,74 |
16) And Chubais |
8,02 |
22) G. Kasparov |
10,79 |
|
4) N. Nazarbayev |
2,11 |
11) V. Zhirinovsky |
6,28 |
17) D. Medvedev |
9,33 |
23) A. Serdyukov |
11,28 |
|
5) V. Putin |
2,52 |
12) L. Brezhnev |
6,31 |
18) B. Yeltsin |
9,54 |
24) B. Nemtsov |
11,32 |
|
6) S. Lavrov |
2,57 |
13) N. Khrushchev |
6,86 |
19) A. Bulk |
9,55 |
25) M. Gorbachev |
12,19 |
|
7) L. Ivashov |
2,78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the group of politicians closest to the “Ideal”, Georgy Zhukov, a Soviet commander, Marshal of the Soviet Union, four times Hero of the Soviet Union, who made an invaluable contribution to the victory in the Great Patriotic War (1,01 index), holds the leading position. Obviously, from the point of view of the respondents, he is most responsible for the qualities attributed to the ideal state-political figure. The second line is occupied by the father of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin (1,67). It is symbolic that both leaders of the list personify statesmen of a pronounced socialist orientation. In this regard, Alexander Lukashenko, who occupies the third position in the list (1,76), who consistently preserves elements of the socialist world outlook in Belarus as opposed to democratic values, should also be commended.
Outsiders of the ranked list, in the version of survey participants, are represented by such figures as Anatoly Serdyukov (11,28 index), “effective manager” of military reforms, Boris Nemtsov (11,32), conductor of democracy and liberalism by Western standards, and finally, Mikhail Gorbachev (12,29) , the locomotive of perestroika, which put an end to the socialist state and society.
It is not difficult to notice that a curious pattern is traced in the ranked list - the closest to the “Ideal” are those who built, developed and defended the USSR and socialist values, while those who destroyed the USSR and replaced socialist values with market-democratic ones, are the furthest from image of the ideal state-political figure.
***
After a separate presentation of the results of the assessment of state and political figures in the form of two-dimensional maps, we turn to a comprehensive presentation of the survey results, taking into account the estimates for all three factors - “Strength / Activity”, “Morality” and “Competence”.
For this we resort to the so-called cluster analysis - a mathematical method based on the calculation of correlations between the totality of all evaluative features and evaluation objects. In contrast to factor analysis, which was used at the preliminary stage of the study to determine the criteria for assessing public and political figures, cluster analysis processes the entire assessment array of 101 assessments (346 assessment objects x 38 assessment features x 21 survey respondents). As a result, related objects with similar properties are combined into groups (cluster means "cluster", "grouping").
The results of cluster analysis are usually presented as dendrograms - a schematic tree, where objects with similar properties “hang” on neighboring branches, the branches merge (cluster) into larger branches, which, in turn, into even larger branches, until the entire “crown” of objects closes on the common “trunk ". The dendrogram is built step by step so that, at the first step, the most similar objects are combined into small groups (sometimes in pairs), at the next step these mini-clusters merge into larger groups, which also have common properties, etc. The construction of the tree is completed at the final step, when all the objects are combined into one common mega-cluster according to one formal feature - joint participation in the cluster analysis procedure.
Thus, the dendrogram successfully complements two-dimensional factor maps, allowing one glance to capture the overall picture of the connections and relations between all objects of evaluation, in our case, state-political figures and typical characters.
FIG. 7. Dendrogram of state-political figures and types.
In the first approximation, on the dendrogram 3 of large independent cluster “branches” are marked, marked with curly brackets.
1 cluster (objects of evaluation 1-15) was formed almost on the first steps of clustering, which indicates the unequivocal similarity of the objects of assessment that it contains. In general, this cluster includes such typical characters as Ideal, Creator, Master, Master, Hero, and Patriot. Of the figures of the USSR, Stalin, Zhukov and Andropov are noted here. This group also includes the current presidents of the troika of reuniting states Putin (Russia), Lukashenko (Belarus) and Nazarbayev (Kazakhstan). From modern Russian figures, Rogozin, Ivashov and Lavrov received a pass to this community.
If you look at the internal structure of this cluster, then you need to note the existence of several subgroups. First, the two types, Ideal and Creator, merged into a single whole in the first step of clustering. Obviously, from the point of view of survey participants, a constructive beginning should be the hallmark of an ideal state-political figure. Secondly, Stalin, Zhukov, Lukashenko and Nazarbayev also almost immediately associate respondents with the concepts of Master and Master. Thirdly, Putin, Rogozin, Ivashov and Lavrov also quickly come down to a common denominator, personifying a positive, progressive beginning in modern Russian reality.
In the next, second clustering step, the above-mentioned subgroups are combined together, adding Yuri Andropov to their composition. Finally, the final formation of the 1 cluster takes place at the fourth step, when a ready-made group acquires heroic and patriotic features in the eyes of survey participants.
2 cluster (objects of evaluation 16-28) has a rather complicated structure. At 1-2 steps, primary subgroups are formed: Yeltsin-Navalny, Nemtsov-Kasparov-Traitor, Mironov-Medvedev-Yanukovich-Demokrat, Gorbachev-Serdyukov-temporaryman.
Further their step-by-step merge in the general group begins. First of all, the label Traitor, originally assigned to Nemtsov and Kasparov, applies to Yeltsin and Navalny. Gorbachev and Serdyukov, in addition to the Provisional image, acquire the features of the Amateur. In the next step, the amateurish-temporal duet Gorbachev-Serdyukov unites with the democratic group Mironov-Medvedev-Yanukovich. The final design of the 2 cluster occurs at the 7 step, when all the above-mentioned real figures merge into one common conglomerate, iridescent with the facets of democracy, betrayal, amateurism and impermanence.
3 cluster (objects of evaluation 29-38) is very controversial and ambiguous, both in terms of a set of typical characters and real state-political figures. It would be more correct to speak about the presence of two independent subclusters formally united into one group, in the later steps of clustering, on the basis of secondary features.
3 Cluster / 1 Subcluster (29-32 objects) consists of two stable pairs of Brezhnev-Zyuganov and Khrushchev-Zhirinovsky. Well-aimed couples who discover continuity in the leadership style of politicians of two eras.
3 Cluster / 2 Subcluster (33-38 objects). This subcluster, in turn, also splits into a duet Beria-Dictator and a quartet Chubais-Rogue-Destroyer-Prokhorov.
Both subclusters, when combined, most likely symbolize unacceptable approaches to policing for state survey participants.
Summing up the cluster analysis results presented in the form of a dendrogram, we note that, ultimately, a picture of the separation of members of the 1 cluster and the combined team of 2-3 clusters emerges. The question on which side of the sympathies of the respondents does not require a special explanation, it is enough to look at which typical characters are part of the one and the other group.
Interestingly, this picture, being a product of a generalized opinion of survey participants, does not always coincide with the realities of political life. In particular, it concerns the relations and interaction of three political figures - Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Medvedev and Leonid Ivashov. From the point of view of survey participants, Putin and Ivashov should be “in the same trench” and resist Medvedev, a supporter of democracy and liberalism, together. In fact, everything is somewhat different - Putin and Medvedev form a stable governing tandem, while Ivashov clearly outlined his position as an ideological fighter with the current Russian government.
In search of an explanation for the paradox that has arisen, let us consider the assessments obtained by Vladimir Putin, a key figure on Russia's political Olympus.
Estimates of Vladimir Putin
Closer attention to the estimates received by the newly elected president of Russia is also explained by the fact that they turned out to be very heterogeneous. The data presented in the previous section “Overall results” are based on averages from the sample of respondents as a whole. Meanwhile, individual assessments of respondents given to V. Putin varied greatly. This is evidenced by such a statistical indicator as mean deviation estimates from average values, which is a measure of the spread of the data set. We present the values of the average estimates and the corresponding deviations for the “Vladimir Putin” object for the sample as a whole.
FIG. 8. The values of the average estimates and average deviations for the object "Vladimir Putin".
Factors |
Average ratings |
Average deviations |
|
2,27 |
± 0,69 |
|
1,05 |
± 1,26 |
|
1,93 |
± 0,84 |
The table shows that, for example, for the “Force / Activity” factor with an average estimate equal to 2,27 and an average deviation of ± 0,69, the range of scatter of estimates is from 1,58 to 2,96.
The greater the average deviation, the greater the range of scatter of estimates. So, for the “Morality” factor, we have an average score equal to 1,05 and a mean deviation of ± 1,26. In this case, the range of scatter of estimates is very wide, it intrudes into the region of negative values and ranges from -0,21 to 2,31. Recall that negative values are interpreted as belonging to the opposite pole of the factor, in this case to the “Immorality” pole.
The wide range of assessments given to Vladimir Putin pushes for further more detailed analysis. The survey results provide such an opportunity in relation to various categories of respondents, as well as in the context of individual evaluative signs forming one or another factor.
During the preparation and conduct of the survey, the respondents were segmented for two reasons - their country of residence and age. Since in practice the overwhelming majority of survey participants (63,0%) turned out to be from Russia, and 22,8% did not indicate the country of residence at all, it is not possible to analyze on the basis of place of residence. At the same time, on the basis of age, the survey participants were distributed fairly evenly, which gives the right to see how the respondents of various age categories rated Vladimir Putin.
FIG. 9. V.Putin's estimates by the “Strength / Activity” factor
Factor and its estimated signs |
Sample |
Before 30 years |
30-50 years |
Over |
|
Factor "Strength / Activity" in general |
2,27 |
2,41 |
2,19 |
2,17 |
|
2,69 |
2,86 |
2,70 |
2,56 |
|
2,14 |
2,43 |
1,70 |
2,33 |
|
2,60 |
2,71 |
2,40 |
2,67 |
|
2,17 |
1,71 |
2,50 |
2,22 |
|
2,40 |
2,71 |
2,30 |
2,22 |
|
1,66 |
1,71 |
1,80 |
1,33 |
|
2,23 |
2,71 |
1,90 |
1,89 |
In general, the active-power qualities of V. Putin are assessed at a sufficiently high level (2,27). The highest scores were obtained from the age category up to 30 years (2,41). Older survey participants rated V. Putin by this criterion somewhat more modest, at the level of 2,17-2,19.
Among the individual signs describing this factor, the highest marks were obtained by such qualities as Active (2,69) and Energetic (2,60). On the contrary, against the general background of high marks, the quality “Hard” (1,66) is relatively less developed, in the opinion of survey participants. All age categories are unanimous in this, but the age category over 50 years (1,33) stands out in particular.
In addition, the pre-30 age category is lower compared to other signs, rated “Decisiveness” (1,71), middle-aged people - leading qualities (1,70) and such a feature as “Having a rod” (1,90). Regarding the latter quality, people of the older age category (1,89) agree with them.
FIG. 10. V. Putin's estimates by the factor of "morality"
Factor and its estimated signs |
Sample |
Before 30 years |
30-50 years |
Over |
|
Factor "Morality" in general |
1,05 |
1,58 |
0,24 |
1,06 |
|
0,31 |
0,05 |
-0,40 |
0,67 |
|
1,43 |
2,57 |
0,40 |
1,44 |
|
0,54 |
0,86 |
-0,20 |
0,89 |
|
1,54 |
2,00 |
1,10 |
1,33 |
|
0,63 |
1,29 |
-0,30 |
0,78 |
|
1,63 |
2,29 |
0,90 |
1,33 |
|
1,26 |
2,00 |
0,20 |
1,00 |
In general, the moral qualities of V. Putin are assessed by survey participants at a level below the average (1,05). Representatives of the younger generation (up to 30 years) were again the most optimistic in their assessments (1,58), while the middle generation (30-50 years), on the contrary, demonstrated the greatest criticality (V.NNXX) regarding morality of V. Putin.
Of the individual characteristics related to this factor, the average scores received such definitions as "Strengthening Country" (1,63), "Calculating Trust" (1,54) and "Your Own" (1,43). Among the least developed moral qualities are the characteristics "Clean" (0,31), "Light" (0,54) and "Close to the people" (0,63).
People of the middle generation radically low rated a number of moral signs, some of which, having received negative evaluations, turned into their diametrical opposite - immorality: “Dirty” (-0,40), “Far from the people” (-0,30), “Dark” (- 0,20). Other signs, although they remained on the moral side, also have low marks: “Inspiring Hope” (0,20), “Your Own” (0,40), “Strengthening Country” (0,90).
FIG. 11. V.Putin's grades according to the “Competence” factor
Factor and its estimated signs |
Sample |
Before 30 years |
30-50 years |
Over |
|
The factor "Competence" in general |
1,93 |
2,37 |
1,46 |
1,83 |
|
2,09 |
2,71 |
1,80 |
1,78 |
|
1,80 |
2,43 |
0,80 |
2,00 |
|
1,69 |
2,29 |
0,90 |
1,67 |
|
1,74 |
2,14 |
1,30 |
1,78 |
|
1,97 |
2,00 |
1,80 |
1,67 |
|
2,03 |
2,43 |
1,50 |
2,11 |
|
2,20 |
2,57 |
2,10 |
1,78 |
In general, V. Putin’s competence is rated at a level above average (1,93). Among the individual age categories, the younger generation (up to 30 years) is traditionally ahead of the rest of the ages with 2,37 assessment, and the middle generation (30-50 years) is again the most skeptical in assessing V. Putin’s competence (1,46).
As the most powerful sides of V. Putin, survey participants identified experience (2,20), competence (2,09) and skill (2,03). From the point of view of representatives of the middle generation, such qualities as foresight (0,80) and the ability to ripen to the root (0,90) are poorly developed. In addition, middle-aged people have not assessed Putin with such a sign as “With the king in my head” (1,30).
Finishing the review of the results of the evaluation of Russian President Vladimir Putin, we focus on the main findings.
The most developed qualities of V. Putin, according to the respondents, are the characteristics related to the “Strength / Activity” factor. The qualities belonging to the “Competence” factor are also at the level above the average.
On the contrary, the moral qualities of V.Putin, from the point of view of survey participants, have a critically low level of development and for some positions occupy a border position at the junction of morality and immorality (“clean - dirty”, “light - dark”, “close to the people - far from the people ").
Among the age categories of survey participants, the younger generation most senior to V. Putin is under the age of 30. The middle generation at the age of 30-50 years, on the contrary, is most critical in the assessments of V. Putin, especially with regard to his moral qualities.
Food for thought
Nowadays it is difficult to find a person who disputes the thesis about the role of personality in history. At all times there were figures who influenced the fate of countries and peoples. It is enough to recall the still-recent history of our common homeland - the USSR. Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin ... Each of them contributed to the building of a socialist state — some in formation and development, some in stagnation and decline, and some in collapse.
Now in the post-Soviet space, there are many state, political and public figures who are also capable, by virtue of their position, to influence the development vector of their countries. By and large, their activity is still carried out under the influence of two tendencies that have declared themselves fully during the crisis and collapse of the Soviet Union:
- The external trend is the subversive activity of Western countries, primarily the United States and Britain, aimed at the further collapse of Russia and its closest historical partners, with the goal of gaining control over human and natural resources.
- The internal tendency is a catastrophic substitution of public, state ownership of private ownership, followed by the predatory privatization of the national wealth by a narrow circle of limited people.
In fact, at the basis of both trends lies the same self-serving motive - to lay a hand on someone else's good, to enrich themselves by plunder and theft. The only difference is that in the first case we are talking about international thieves, and in the second - about homegrown. Whatever it was, at the end of the twentieth century, the party-state elite in a cynical and rude form simply raped the rest of the people, showing them the dominant mores and value orientations for the near future. Over the past two decades, the new balance of forces in the appellate order, so to say "by default", has taken root and sprouted in society, sprouting, on the one hand, liberalism, democracy and globalization according to Western attitudes and, on the other hand, cronyism, corruption, bureaucracy lawlessness and theft according to the recipes of domestic bottling.
Here, as it is not difficult to notice, there is a certain conflict of interests, leading to confrontation and dislike for each other of domestic “thieves in law” and international predators. This is understandable, because one trough is difficult to get along with two hungry bands of robbers. This suggests a simple conclusion - homegrown "thieves in law", at a certain point in time, in order to protect themselves and the trough from the "raptors", are forced to make efforts to strengthen the country and its defense capability. In other words, in the face of an external threat, their interests, albeit formally, begin to coincide with the interests of the people. This does not mean that the process of internal public looting and personal enrichment stops. It continues, but controlled by, so that the necessary and sufficient minimum remains for the needs of the country and its people.
These are modern realities that any government-political or public figure has to face and in which he has to act, even if he sincerely protects the public interest. As for mercenary functionaries, it is clear that none of them will frankly and frankly admit that they are a conductor of the interests of the West, or use an authoritative and administrative resource for their own enrichment and promotion of members of their clan. On the contrary, they will by all means mimicry under patriotic forces, finding a decent, socially significant legend to their actions.
Under these conditions, as already noted here, of all three assessment criteria found and used in this project (strength / activity, morality and competence), the key role belongs to the criterion MORALrevealing the internal attitudes and value orientations of state-political and public figures. Almost like the Apostle Paul, who spoke in his First Epistle to the Corinthians: “And now these three abide: faith, hope, love; but love is more of them. "
Information