Report on the results of the survey-2013 "Evaluation of state political figures"

Introduction
In the period from 05 to 20 on June 2013, the annual survey “Evaluation of government and political figures” was conducted among visitors to the Military Review website. This is the second survey in the framework of the prolonged project - the first was conducted about a year ago in May 2012. A few preliminary notes before proceeding to the description of the survey results.
Two main reasons served as an incentive for organizing and conducting annual surveys:

  • The first relates to the problem of “transparency”, or more precisely the opacity, of the internal political activity of most of the leaders of countries in the post-Soviet space. The peoples of these countries do not have a clear idea of ​​the internal policy pursued by elected national leaders.
  • The second reason is derived from the first. People, in the conditions of the lack of official reliable information, interpret the actions of the authorities differently and, accordingly, form different, often directly opposite, opinions on this matter.

All this is reminiscent of the situation, as if several blind people, holding on to separate parts of the elephant's body — ear, trunk, tail, leg, genitals — tried to get an idea of ​​the animal as a whole and convince others that its idea was the only correct one. Meanwhile, if there was another such blind person who would have collected the separate opinions of his comrades in the big picture and then shared it with the others, then they could, together, make up an image of an elephant close to reality.
We are sighted people and see what is happening around us. But we see from our bell tower and from our point of view. After conducting a survey, we built one large common bell tower, which is higher than the individual. From its summit, individual trees are not visible, but the forest as a whole is visible, if you wish, the dense jungle of the internal politics of our countries. And now our task is to jointly understand these intricacies during a general constructive discussion of the survey results.
The survey was conducted among the regular visitors of the Military Review website. Accordingly, its results reflect the generalized opinion of this particular target audience. Had this survey been conducted among other audiences, for example, among the advocates of universal, liberal-democratic values, the result would probably have been different. Therefore, the results obtained cannot be generalized and distributed to other sectors of society or target audiences.
The survey does not have any customized or commercial background. This is a private initiative of one of the site visitors, supported and implemented by other site visitors in the interests of all visitors to the Military Review site.
The report has the following structure:
1 Part. Methodical support. Here it is said about the persons involved in the survey (the objects of evaluation), their choice, the methods of evaluation used and the content of the survey. This part is of special interest for people who want to delve into the "kitchen" of the survey. Those who prefer to immediately taste the resulting “dish” can safely skip this part and immediately proceed to the second.
2 Part. Poll results. Contains actual data obtained for individual survey items. Where possible, a comparison is made with data from last year's survey. At the end, an overview of the results is given separately for each person involved in the survey.
Topics and issues for discussion. Here are collected the proposals of survey participants, which they submit for general discussion after a preliminary review of the results.
The application. Contains free answers and comments of survey participants.
Many thanks to all survey participants who contributed to this project.

1 part. methodical support
1.1 Survey Defendants
The figures of the survey are those government officials who became the objects of evaluation of the survey participants. There were a lot of them in 2012, one might say too much - 38 objects of assessment. This list included both real politicians of the past and the present, as well as types - typical characters with a uniquely understood reputation, such as “Master”, “Patriot”, “Creator”, “Dictator”, “Timer”, “Traitor” , “The Destroyer” and others. The idea of ​​introducing types was to evaluate them simultaneously with real politicians, to see how specific a politician is close in his assessments to one or another character. However, this methodical technique caused a sluggish response from site visitors during a discussion of last year’s survey results. Therefore, this year, the types were excluded from the list of objects for evaluation.
In addition, the list of defendants in the survey was significantly reduced due to second-hand politicians or personalities who lost their relevance (G. Zyuganov, V. Zhirinovsky, S. Mironov, M. Prokhorov, A. Navalny, B. Nemtsov, G. Kasparov, etc. .).
As a result, this year only political leaders of the Soviet era and leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan of the post-Soviet period acted as defendants in the poll:

  • Comrade Stalin
  • Nikita Khrushchev
  • Leonid Brezhnev
  • Mikhail Gorbachev
  • Boris Yeltsin
  • Владимир Путин
  • Dmitry Medvedev
  • Viktor Yanukovych
  • Alexander Lukashenko
  • Nursultan Nazarbayev

According to the feedback from participants-veterans of the survey, an almost fourfold reduction in the list of objects for evaluation significantly reduced the complexity of the evaluation procedure.
1.2 subject and survey content
The basis of the survey is three-factor scaling method, allowing to evaluate each politician according to the following polar criteria:

  • Strength / Activity - Weakness / Passivity
  • Morality - Immorality
  • Competence - Incompetence

Each factor assessment criterion is described by its own set of polar evaluative features, which together constitute the evaluation form. The term “scaling” in the name of the methodology means that for evaluating the person involved in a particular pair of polar features, an 7 scale is proposed:

  • three severity of a positive trait (weak, medium, strong);
  • three degrees of severity of a negative trait (weak, medium, strong);
  • one neutral answer (neither one nor the other).

We will show this on the example of the estimated pair of signs “Close to the people - Far from the people”, referring to the factor “Morality - Immorality”.
1 table. Fragment of the evaluation form.


Negative
pole

Severity

Positive
pole

Strongly

Fair

weakly

Neither
nor others

weakly

Fair

Strongly

Far from the people

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

Close to the people

The resulting score for each factor is calculated as the average of the scores obtained from the corresponding sets of polar signs.
Interested readers can find a more detailed description, both of the methodology itself and of the procedure for its development, in the first publication in the framework of the project “Assessment of State Political Figures”: http://topwar.ru/13065-proekt-ocenka-gosudarstvenno-politicheskih-deyateley.html.
In addition to the main assessment methodology, this year the survey was expanded to include several topical issues that are relevant to the modern domestic political life of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
First is the question of the guides of whose interests, above all, are the political leaders of our countries? This question provided the following answer options:

  • States
  • People
  • Elite-clan groups (ECG)
  • Self-interest
  • Interests of external forces alien to the country (foreign interests)

Since in reality it is difficult to find a politician who would concentrate his efforts only in one direction (then it would not be a politician!), Survey participants were asked to distribute conditional 100% of efforts of one or another person involved in the survey among the proposed response options in a proportion that reflects their point of view. The subsequent calculation of average values ​​based on the answers of all survey participants allowed us to build an average “profile of interests” for each person involved in the survey.
The second is the question of What type of society is actually formed in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan under the leadership of the leaders of these countries? Survey participants had to choose one answer option from those offered:

  • State socialism
  • Early "wild" capitalism
  • Society of developed market relations
  • Society of domination of elite-clan groups (ECG)
  • Society of the cult of the individual
  • Something else (free answer)

And finally, thirdly, is the question of What are the main incentives of the integration processes within the Eurasian Union? Here, also, survey participants were asked to choose one answer from those offered:

  • Mutually beneficial cooperation of independent member countries
  • The revival of the centralized state-empire
  • Satisfaction of interests of elite-clan groups of one of the participating countries
  • Something else (free answer)

In general, the questions added this year were in good agreement with the main assessment methodology, and they broadened and enriched the main topic of the poll - “Assessment of state political figures”.

2 part. survey results
The survey results are presented in the following sequence:

  • Survey Participation Level
  • Factor evaluations of the respondents of the survey-2013 according to the criteria “Strength / Activity”, “Morality”, “Competence”, as well as comparative data using the same criteria for 2012-2013 years;
  • Evaluation of the distribution of interests of the respondents among the various political forces (whose leaders are the leaders of four countries in the post-Soviet space);
  • Assessment of intra-and interstate relations (what type of society are formed in four countries and what are the main motives of the integration processes within the Eurasian Union).
  • Overview of the survey results by individual defendants.

2.1 survey participation level
At different stages of the survey, a different number of visitors to the Military Review website related to it. Both in the past and this year there was a tendency to decrease in the number of people involved in the project as it develops, starting from the moment of publication of the survey announcement and ending with the return of the completed questionnaires.
2 table. Dynamics of participation in the survey.


Stages of the survey

2012 year

2013 year

people

in% of
1 point

people

in% of
1 point

  • Expressed a preliminary intention to participate in the survey (publication of the announcement)

208

100%

649

100%

  • They sent applications for participation in the survey and received questionnaires

172

82,7%

360

55,5%

  • Returned completed questionnaires

127

61,1%

268

41,3%

From the table it can be seen that the actual number of survey participants increased more than twice this year compared with the previous year. However, there is still a high percentage of visitors to the site who, in one way or another, responded to the invitation to take part in the survey, but failed to bring their spiritual impulse to its logical conclusion.
Of the total number of survey participants (127 in 2012 year and 268 in 2013 year), various categories of respondents were:
3 table. The ratio of categories of respondents.


By country of residence

2012 year

2013 year

  • From Russia

80 people

63,0%

194 people

72,4%

  • From other CIS countries, excluding Russia

14

11,0%

30

11,2%

  • From the rest of the world

4

3,1%

0

0,0%

  • Did not specify the country of residence

29

22,9%

44

16,4%

Total:

127

100%

268

100%

According to the age

2012 year

2013 year

  • Before 30 years

25 people

19,7%

66 people

24,6%

  • From 30 50 years up

37

29,1%

104

38,9%

  • Over 50 years

33

26,0%

54

20,1%

  • Not specified age category

32

25,2%

44

16,4%

Total:

127

100%

268

100%

Compared to the previous year, the percentage of respondents from Russia increased noticeably (72,4% versus 63,0%). The percentage of survey participants from other CIS countries remained virtually unchanged and remained at the level of 11%. This year there were no guests from other countries of the world among the survey participants.
In 2013, the composition of survey participants was noticeably younger - the number of respondents in the older age category decreased from 26% to 20,1%, while the number of mature survey participants increased from 29,1% to 38,9%. The younger age category also grew from 19,7% to 24,6%.
2.2 factor estimates of survey respondents
For each of the three factors, the averages of the political leaders range from “+ 3” (expressed strength / activity, morality and competence) to “-3” (expressed antipodal qualities - weakness / passivity, immorality and incompetence). In addition to the average estimates, it is useful to know how many respondents gave generally positive, negative, or close to neutral assessments. To estimate the percentage of such respondents, let's agree to break the entire theoretical range of estimates from + 3 to -3 into three areas:

  • The area of ​​neutral ratings close to zero (from -0,5 to 0,5);
  • The area of ​​positive ratings (from 0,51 to 3,0);
  • The area of ​​negative ratings (from -0,51 to -3,0).

Now you can calculate what percentage of respondents fall into one or another area with your own estimates. The diagrams in this subsection use both data sets, both the percentage of respondents who attributed the respondents to one of the three designated areas, and the average estimates of the respondents shown to the right of the percentage distribution diagrams. At the same time, for convenience of perception of diagrams, the list of respondents of the survey is ranked from the politician with the highest average rating to the politician with the lowest average rating.
1) Strength / Activity - Weakness / Passivity
This is the first significant polar factor out of three that have been specially allocated for assessing state and political figures. In the assessment methodology, such pairs are presented as “active – passive”, “master – slave”, “energetic – sluggish”, “decisive – indecisive”, “confident-unsure”, “hard-soft-bodied”, “having a pivot-spineless” .

1 chart. The percentage distribution of ratings by the factor "Strength / Activity" in the survey-xnumx.
Strength / Activity Area

Here, in the field of neutral assessments, for the first time, the statistical rule of the “first bell” appears, which is derived from the practice of sociological research:
If the level of positive marks falls below 50% or the bar of negative marks rises above 20%, then the object (or subject) of these marks is at risk according to the evaluated criterion.
Now we see this in the example of Leonid Brezhnev, who, having the “Strength / Activity” factor, has a formally neutral average rating (0,23), received two “calls” - the number of positive ratings is below the 50% level and the number of negative ratings is above the 20% level Further, when considering other factors, we will encounter cases when “calls” appear even with positive (rather than neutral) average ratings.
2) Factor "Morality - Immorality"
The second most important polar factor out of three, specially allocated for the assessment of state and political figures. The appraisal method presents such pairs of signs as “clean - dirty”, “your own - alien”, “light - dark”, “trusting - suspicious”, “close to the people - far from the people”, “strengthening the country - destroying the country "," Inspiring hope - bringing disappointment. "

2 chart. The percentage distribution of ratings on the factor "morality" in the survey-xnumx.
Area of ​​morality

In assessing moral qualities, in the case of Putin and Nazarbayev, we once again encounter the “first call” rule noted above. With sufficiently satisfactory average ratings and the prevalence of respondents who gave positive ratings on this factor, the number of respondents who considered them immoral politicians exceeded the 20% level.
The area of ​​neutral ratings on the “Morality” factor turned out to be empty. This year, respondents clearly polarized all respondents of the survey or as moral, or as immoral politicians, the average is not given.
3) Factor "competence - incompetence"
The third largest polar factor of the three, specifically allocated to assess the state and political figures. The appraisal method includes such pairs of signs as “competent - incompetent”, “far-sighted - short-sighted”, “looking at the root - superficial”, “with the king in the head - empty”, “uncommon - mediocre”, “skillful - unskillful”, “ experienced - inexperienced.

3 chart. The percentage distribution of ratings on the factor "Competence" in the survey-xnumx.
Area of ​​expertise

4) comparison of factor scores from two surveys
The survey “Evaluation of state political figures” was originally conceived as a prolonged study, and now we have the opportunity to compare the first two results - 2012 and 2013. Of course, on the basis of only two sections it is still too early to judge any tendencies, but food for thought can be obtained.
Comparison of factor estimates of the respondents will be conducted on the basis of differences in average ratings (deltas)formed by subtracting last year's estimates from this year's estimates.
4 table. Comparison of average ratings from 2012 and 2013 polls.


Politician

Strength / Activity

Moral

Competence

2012

2013

Delta

2012

2013

Delta

2012

2013

Delta

Stalin

2,73

2,77

0,04

1,09

1,75

0,66

2,49

2,58

0,09

Khrushchev

1,58

1,26

-0,33

-0,33

-0,76

-0,43

-0,35

-0,81

-0,46

Brezhnev

0,26

0,23

-0,03

0,71

0,89

0,18

0,49

0,50

0,01

Gorbachev

-0,63

-0,62

0,01

-2,12

-2,39

-0,27

-1,68

-1,63

0,05

Yeltsin

0,92

-0,01

-0,93

-1,63

-1,96

-0,33

-1,06

-1,43

-0,37

Putin

2,27

2,05

-0,22

1,05

0,83

-0,22

1,93

1,80

-0,13

Medvedev

-0,59

-1,00

-0,41

-0,44

-1,32

-0,88

-0,53

-1,14

-0,60

Yanukovych

-0,07

-0,01

0,06

-1,12

-1,40

-0,29

-0,61

-0,64

-0,03

Lukashenko

2,69

2,59

-0,09

1,59

2,00

0,41

1,85

2,11

0,25

Nazarbayev

2,13

1,54

-0,59

1,24

0,64

-0,60

2,29

1,54

-0,76

The table presents the entire set of average ratings - for all the persons involved and for all three factors. By focusing on the delta columns, we can see a wide variety of changes in average ratings, ranging from the most positive (for example, Comrade Stalin's Morality factor) to the most negative ones (for example, Boris Yeltsin by Force / Activity factor). "Or Dmitry Medvedev by the factor" Morality ").
To somehow streamline the picture of changes, we will conduct two simple procedures. First, let us rank the absolute values ​​(without taking into account the sign) of all the "delta" from the maximum to the minimum values, and then we divide the resulting series into four quartile ranges:

  • «Minor changes"Includes absolute delta values ​​from 0,01 to 0,08
  • «Moderate changes"- from 0,08 to 0,28
  • «Major changes"- from 0,28 to 0,49
  • «Strong changes"- from 0,49 to 0,93

Now, by constructing a graph of changes in average values ​​and applying the delta classification introduced, we describe the results obtained.
4 chart. Changes in average values ​​of factor scores from surveys in 2012 and 2013.


The overall picture of change. It can be seen from the diagram that most of the changes in the factor estimates of the respondents are negative. On the general minor background, there are literally several major bursts, such as the assessments of Stalin, Brezhnev and Lukashenko on the “Morality” factor and the assessment of the same Lukashenko on the “Competence” factor.
Changes in individual survey defendants.
Comrade Stalin, in the eyes of respondents, rose insignificantly by the “Strength / Activity” factor (there is nowhere above!), but it significantly increased in its moral qualities and moderately in terms of competence.
Grades Nikita Khrushchev, for all three factors, declined significantly in 2013 year over last year.
Grades Leonid Brezhnev on the factors of strength / activity and competence remained stable, one can say, we fell asleep with satisfaction at the achieved level, and the assessments of moral qualities, as already noted above, increased moderately.
Grades Mikhail Gorbachev insignificantly changed according to the factors of strength / activity and competence and moderately decreased according to the factor of morality.
Boris Yeltsin, according to the respondents' estimates, the strength / activity factor was very lowered and significantly lost due to the other two factors, morality and competence.
All the politicians just reviewed have already completed their state activities and have done everything they could and wanted to do. Therefore, the recorded changes in their assessments are largely due to our reassessment of their personalities and what they have done. This changes our perception in historical perspective.
The next five statesmen and politicians are still acting and are “on execution”. Therefore, changes in their estimates have a different causation. These changes, for the most part, occur in response to the policies, decisions and actions that they carry out here and now. This, if I may say so, is the change of ratings in the online mode.
Владимир ПутинIn the survey respondents' estimates, moderately dipped in all three factors - strength / activity, morality and competence.
Dmitry Medvedev Significantly surrendered the existing positions on the force / activity factor and very strongly on the factors of morality and competence.
Grades Viktor Yanukovych on factors of strength / activity and competence changed insignificantly, whereas on the factor of morality decreased in a noticeable way.
Alexander Lukashenko moderately lost in evaluations by the force / activity factor, however, it significantly increased in the evaluations by the moral factor and moderately by the competence factor.
Nursultan Nazarbayev very much lost in the estimates for all three factors.
Finishing the description of changes in factor assessments, we note two remarkable facts. The first is that the main changes in factor assessments are due to a reassessment of the moral qualities of the respondents - the total size of changes in the moral factor is twice as high as for strength / activity and competence factors. The second observation concerns politicians of the past and current politicians - the assessments of current politicians are subject to revisions more than those of politicians who have left the political scene.

2.3 assessment of the distribution of interests of politicians
The survey participants-2013 were asked to answer the question “Guides whose interests, in your opinion, are or were persons involved in the survey?". Since in reality it is difficult to find a politician who would concentrate his efforts only in one direction, they were asked to distribute conditional 100% of the interests of politicians between the following answers:

  • On the state
  • On the people
  • For elite clan groups (ECG)
  • To myself
  • On the interests of external, alien to the country forces (on foreign)

The results are presented in two diagrams. The first covers the politicians of the past, the second - the current politicians.
5 chart. The distribution of interests of politicians of past years.


Politicians of the Soviet era
    • Comrade Stalin: on the state - 66,9%; on the people - 27,5%; for elite clan groups - 1,8%; on itself - 3,5%; to external forces alien to the country - 0,2%. The dominant interest is the state, in second place is the people.
    • Nikita Khrushchev: on the state - 37,4%; on the people - 20,5%; for elite clan groups - 21,0%; on itself - 16,5%; to external forces alien to the country - 4,7%. The dominant interest is the state, on 2-4 places - the interests of the people, elite-clan groups (party-Soviet nomenclature) and their own interests.
    • Leonid Brezhnev: on the state - 37,4%; on the people - 20,5%; for elite clan groups - 21,0%; on itself - 16,5%; to external forces alien to the country - 1,3%. The dominant interest is the state, on 2-3 places the interests of the people and the party-Soviet nomenclature.

Politicians of the collapse of the USSR

    • Mikhail Gorbachev: on the state - 5,8%; on the people - 5,7%; for elite clan groups - 19,5%; on itself - 18,7%; to external forces alien to the country - 50,4%. The interests of external, alien to the country forces dominate, on 2-3 places the interests of the party-Soviet nomenclature and their own interests prevail.
    • Boris Yeltsin: on the state - 6,6%; on the people - 4,2%; for elite clan groups - 35,6%; on itself - 23,6%; to external forces alien to the country - 29,5%. The interests of elite-clan groups dominate, at 2-3 places the interests of external, alien to the country forces and their own interests.

In general, from Stalin to Yeltsin, there is a tendency to a decrease in the state interests and interests of the people. Beginning with Khrushchev, the interests of elite-clan groups and their own interests of politicians are actualized and developed. In the period of the collapse of the USSR, a surge of interests is being given to external forces alien to the country.
6 chart. Distribution of interests of current politicians.

  • Владимир Путин: on the state - 39,3%; on the people - 18,1%; for elite clan groups - 24,8%; on itself - 11,9%; to external forces alien to the country - 5,9%. The dominant interests are state, combined with the interests of elite-clan groups. The interests of the people are in the 3 place.
  • Dmitry Medvedev: on the state - 18,0%; on the people - 9,1%; for elite clan groups - 39,6%; on itself - 14,8%; to external forces alien to the country - 18,4%. The interests of elite-clan groups dominate, in 2-3 places the interests of the state and forces alien to the country are distributed in the same proportion.
  • Viktor Yanukovych: on the state - 12,9%; on the people - 7,0%; for elite clan groups - 38,0%; on itself - 22,2%; to external forces alien to the country - 20,0%. The interests of elite-clan groups are dominant, at 2-3 places their own interests and the interests of forces alien to the country.
  • Alexander Lukashenko: on the state - 49,4%; on the people - 31,1%; for elite clan groups - 7,6%; on itself - 10,7%; to external forces alien to the country - 1,2%. The dominant interests of the state are combined with the interests of the people.
  • Nursultan Nazarbayev: on the state - 31,5%; on the people - 18,9%; for elite clan groups - 25,3%; on itself - 17,9%; to external forces alien to the country - 6,3%. The dominant interests are state, combined with the interests of elite-clan groups. The interests of the people and their own interests - on 3-4 places.

Of the entire galaxy of current politicians stands out Alexander LukashenkoIn terms of its profile of distribution of interests, it most of all resembles state-political figures of the Soviet era.
Very similar, except for small details, profiles Vladimir Putin and Nursultan Nazarbayev - domination of state interests in conjunction with the interests of elite-clan groups. At the same time, attention is paid to the interests of the people and their own interests are not forgotten.
Another pair of politicians with similar profiles - Dmitry Medvedev and Viktor Yanukovich. For them, according to survey respondents, the interests of elite clan groups are clearly leading interests. The interests of external alien forces, personal interests and the interests of the state are lined up in the wake of them. The interests of the people - on the periphery.
2.4 evaluation of intra-and intergovernmental relations
This section addresses two questions asked by survey participants — 2013.
First question: "What type of society, in your opinion, is actually formed in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan under the leadership of the leaders of these countries?"To answer this question, six alternatives were suggested:

  • State socialism;
  • Early "wild" capitalism
  • Developed capitalism (market society)
  • Society of domination of elite-clan groups (ECG)
  • Society of the cult of the individual
  • Something else (free answer)

7 chart. The percentage distribution of answers about the types of societies formed.

Russia
  • 48,8% of respondents believe that a society of domination of elite-clan groups is formed in Russia;
  • 14,9% - a market economy society (developed capitalism);
  • 8,3% - early “wild” capitalism;
  • According to 7,4%, state socialism and a cult society of an individual are believed to form in Russia;
  • 13,2% offered their answers

Ukraine

  • 78,7% of respondents believe that a society of domination of elite clan groups is formed in / in Ukraine;
  • 13,1% - early “wild” capitalism;
  • 2,5% - a market economy society (developed capitalism);
  • 5,7% offered their answers.
  • The opinion that state socialism is being formed on / in Ukraine, or none of the respondents expressed a society of a cult of an individual.

Belarus

  • 67,8% of respondents believe that a society of state socialism is being formed in Belarus;
  • 16,5% - the society of the cult of the individual;
  • 5,8% - the society of domination of elite-clan groups;
  • 4,1% - a market economy society (developed capitalism);
  • 1,7% - early “wild” capitalism;
  • 4,1% offered their answers.

Kazakhstan

  • 52,5% of respondents believe that a society of domination of elite clan groups is formed in Kazakhstan;
  • 22,0% - the society of the cult of the individual;
  • 11,9% - a market economy society (developed capitalism);
  • According to 5,1,% of respondents believe that state socialism or early “wild” capitalism is forming in Kazakhstan;
  • 3,4% offered their answers.

The second question, in the framework of the division of intra-and interstate relations, concerned the Eurasian Union: “What are the main motives of the integration processes within the Eurasian Union?". To answer it, there were four possible answers:

  • Mutually beneficial cooperation of independent member countries;
  • The revival of the centralized state of the empire;
  • Satisfaction of interests of elite-clan groups of one of the participating countries;
  • Something else (free answer).

8 chart. The percentage distribution of answers about the motives for the creation of the Eurasian Union.

Report on the results of the survey-2013 "Evaluation of state political figures"

The predominant number of respondents (45%) considered that the leading motive of the integration processes within the framework of the Eurasian Union is the mutually beneficial cooperation of independent member countries.
Another 25% of respondents believe that such a motive is the revival of a centralized state-empire.
19% of survey participants see the integration processes as the basis for the satisfaction of the interests of elite-clan groups of one of the participating countries.
The remaining 11% offered their answers.
The results obtained for the Eurasian Union are somewhat inconsistent with the results regarding the type of societies formed in the participating countries. In fact, how can the three societies of domination of elite-clan groups (Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan) and the society of state socialism (Belarus) cooperate mutually beneficially among themselves? There is an association of three spiders in a single bank, where a bee flew by mistake. More realistic are the options for reviving the centralized state-empire and / or meeting the interests of elite-clan groups of one of the participating countries. However, if we combine these two answers into one, as complementary to each other, then we will get 44% of respondents at the output - practical parity with 45% of respondents who support the mutually beneficial cooperation of independent participating countries.

2.5 survey of survey results by individual defendants
In this section, all the results obtained in the 2012 and 2013 surveys are briefly accumulated - the prevailing opinions of survey participants, emerging trends and patterns.
Past politicians

  1. Comrade Stalin. Having quite high or medium positive factor estimates from the results of last year’s survey, this year Stalin grew insignificantly in terms of the strength / activity factor, very strongly in the morality factor and moderately in the competence factor. Stalin - one of the few defendants in the survey, whose moral qualities have been overestimated over the past year for the better.
  2. Nikita Khrushchev. According to the results of last year's survey, Khrushchev had a stable positive assessment on the strength / activity factor and neutral negative evaluations on the factors of morality and competence. This year, his assessments were significantly revised downwards for all three factors. Now Khrushchev looks like a politician with moderate strength / activity, quite immoral and equally incompetent.
  3. Leonid Brezhnev. For the year that passed between the two surveys, Brezhnev practically remained at his own assessments on the factors of strength / activity and competence, and he moderately increased on the moral factor. Now, according to the interviewed respondents, he had neutral power / activity, the same competence, and poorly expressed morality.
  4. Mikhail Gorbachev. According to the results of last year's survey, Gorbachev gained a reputation as a weak / passive politician with marked immorality and incompetence. According to these indicators, he was close to such typical characters as “The Traitor”, “The Provider” and “Amateur”. This year, he confirmed his status in terms of weakness / passivity and incompetence. According to the moral factor, the fall in the ratings continued ...
  5. Boris Yeltsin. Last year’s portrait of Yeltsin was defined by a weakly pronounced power / activity combined with obvious immorality and incompetence. The survey participants of this year have very strongly corrected his estimates by the force / activity factor - they fell to zero. Immorality and incompetence of Yeltsin, recorded last year, this became even more pronounced.

Current policies

  1. Владимир Путин. Last year’s Putin’s factor assessments attributed him to the category of exemplary politicians — strong power / activity, moderate morality, and sufficient competence. The image of a "strong hand", moderately clean, equipped with a clever head. Recall that this portrait was "drawn" after the presidential election, during the inauguration. Over the past year, the portrait has faded slightly - Putin has moderately “sunk” in all three indicators: strength / activity, morality and competence. The decline was not critical and allowed the Russian president to keep the “face” at an acceptable level. But the first “bell” on the moral factor rang out - the number of respondents who attributed it to immoral politicians exceeded the 20% level. In the profile of the distribution of interests of Putin, as a politician, in the first place are state interests, which is not new in itself. Any sane leader of a country that exists in an unfriendly environment, should attend to the construction of his house, because "my home is my castle." Another question, what happens behind the walls of this fortress? The profile of the distribution of Putin’s interests suggests an answer to this question - in tandem with the state interests there are interests of elite-clan groups; interests of the people for the president of Russia - in third place. In the light of the factor estimates adjusted for the year and the current profile of the distribution of interests, the type of society formed in Russia under the leadership of Putin - the society of domination of elite clan groups - seems logical.
  2. Dmitry Medvedev. The ex-president of Russia was accompanied by participants of last year’s poll for the post of prime minister of the Russian Federation with unflattering factor assessments: weak / passive, immoral and incompetent. This year, already in the status of prime minister, Medvedev aggravated his assessments in the eyes of survey participants, becoming, from their point of view, even weaker / passive, immoral and incompetent. Especially immoral - the largest drop in indicators among all the respondents of the survey. The profile of the distribution of interests of Medvedev is dominated by the interests of elite-clan groups. Apparently not everyone, but only those who, in turn, represent the interests of external forces alien to Russia. All this is camouflaged by the interests of the state. The interests of the people - at the end of the list. The rhetorical question is - who needs such a prime minister? The rhetorical answer - if the "stars" are lit, it means that someone needs it.
  3. Viktor Yanukovych. For the year that has passed between the two surveys, the assessment of the President of Ukraine on the factors of strength / activity and competence did not change significantly. For survey participants, he is still unclear with regard to power qualities and, on the contrary, is completely transparent in terms of his incompetence. As for moral qualities, there was a significant reappraisal from the simply immoral to the clearly immoral. The profile of the distribution of interests corresponds to such an assessment - first of all, these are the interests of elite-clan groups, their own interests and the interests of external forces alien to the country. The interests of the country and its people are somewhere far to the periphery. In Ukraine, according to survey participants, a society of domination of elite clan groups is formed without options.
  4. Alexander Lukashenko. The President of Belarus, in his factorial estimates, is closest, of all the defendants in the poll, to the estimates of the founder of the USSR, Comrade Stalin. Apparently because Belarus, under his leadership, is a protected area, where the spirit of the Soviet era is still felt. True, the Old Man for the year that has passed between the two polls, slightly passed in terms of strength / activity, but increased significantly in terms of morality (here he even surpassed Stalin) and competence. Lukashenko is the only acting politician whose interests are almost entirely subordinated to the interests of the country and its people. It is not surprising that the respondents are confident that a socialist-type society with a certain touch of personality cult is being formed in Belarus.
  5. Nursultan Nazarbayev. One could simply indicate: see point 6) “Vladimir Putin”. But there are nuances. First of all, in the interval between the two polls, the President of Kazakhstan, more noticeably Putin, passed on all three indicators - strength / activity, morality and competence. Now it is not superstrong and overactive, but simply strong and active, not moral enough, but weakly moral, not very competent, but simply a competent politician. Decrease in power / activity factor estimates can be explained by age. But age cannot influence either moral qualities (unless it aggravate them), nor policy competence (the old fox is a wise fox). Obviously, the reason for the decline of Nazarbayev’s assessments should be sought in the actions and decisions taken by him during this period. Nazarbayev’s profile of interest distribution is also similar to Putin’s profile. Prevails a bunch of interests of the state and elite-clan groups. Or rather, not groups, but one clan group - Nazarbayev's “family”. Other clan groups are not admitted to the power resource, but they are in a state of expectation and readiness for the redistribution of power and property - as soon as, immediately ... The interests of the people and Nazarbayev’s own interests, in the opinion of survey participants, occupy him roughly equally. From here emerges the type of society formed in Kazakhstan - the society of the domination of a certain clan group, formed on the basis of a tribal tribe, led by its nominee. East, however!

Topics and questions for discussion
Survey participants had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with its results before other visitors to the Military Review website. Accordingly, they had time to reflect on the results and bring to the general discussion a number of topics and questions that are relevant from their point of view:

  1. I did not like the large number of site visitors who wished to participate in the survey, who sent the application, but did not return the completed questionnaire. What is this - extreme employment, disbelief in the fact that something can be changed, or the fear of "relevant authorities"?
  2. In a historical retrospective, after Stalin’s death, we are witnessing a consistent evolution of the domination of elite clan groups. Under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, a de facto party-Soviet nomenclature arose. She possessed power, but could not take full advantage of her fruits, limited by socialist principles. Under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, socialist legality is scrapped, the nomenklatura de jure secures state ownership. In the 21st century, the next stage of elite-clan evolution in the post-Soviet space is underway: the intraspecific struggle of “spiders in the bank” for the monopolistic possession of powerful, financial and material resources. If so, then how acceptable is the evolutionary path of development of our society at this stage - the path of gradual consolidation of the “historical gains” of the elite stratum?
  3. Continuation of the previous thesis. While leading the intraspecific struggle, “spiders in the bank” should take care of strengthening the walls of this bank, since beyond its borders there are more dangerous spiders of world scale. That is why elite-clan groups are forced to strengthen the state, in particular its defense capability.
  4. In the survey, when assessing the distribution of interests of political leaders, the concepts of "state" and "people" are separated. It turns out that the pursuit of the interests of the state (for example, the strengthening of defense) does not automatically mean concern for the interests of the people. How justified is this breeding of concepts? Especially in modern conditions?
  5. To what problems, external or internal, does the first person of the state pay more attention? The same question concerns the political leaders of the past.
  6. What state system would you like to see in your country?
  7. How do you see the development of the Eurasian Union?
  8. Is the collegial management of the Eurasian Union possible?
  9. How will the Eurasian Union differ from the European Union?
  10. Will the Eurasian Union repeat the path of the European Union?
  11. Relation to the removal of the body V.I. Lenin from the mausoleum.
  12. Analysis of the status and conclusions on the combat readiness of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the middle of 2013.
  13. Democratic Federal Law "On Elections" and the fictitiousness of the powers of the deputies of the State Duma.
  14. Analysis of the true number of homeless children, orphans, abandoned children in the Russian Federation and ways to solve the problem.
  15. Compliance with the constitutional rights of citizens of the Russian Federation (post-item) by the state and by the citizens themselves and their analysis.

application
The annex contains free answers and comments of survey participants regarding the type of society formed in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, as well as integration processes within the Eurasian Union.
About Russia

  • It is impossible to determine at this stage. In my opinion, at this stage of the country's development, there is a confrontation between the liberal-market group and the group of power structures. The leader of the country, unfortunately, does not yet have strong power.
  • Constitutional capitalism. It is a pity that the state neglects the rich experience of socialism in state affairs and government.
  • Society is on the verge of moving from wild capitalism to the return of state socialism. If the GDP brings its undertakings to a logical conclusion, then in Russia a new system of government can be formed.
  • At present, there is a struggle in Russia between statesmen and business clans. Putin stands over the fray and resolves to prevent the country from being completely smashed (like a referee). To the people these options are both worse, as Stalin said. In the near future, I think, the people will begin to hibernate and provide their own - the third option. More precisely - the work will go on its implementation. The task is to build a society in which the exploitation of man by man in any form (in the continuity of generations) would be eliminated. That's right, probably call it communism. Difference from socialism, which was in the USSR in that there these goals were only declared, but not implemented (after Stalin's death).
  • In my opinion, we are moving towards creating a symbiosis of state socialism and developed market relations, but different variations are possible on the way.
  • Society of "wild" capitalism driven by elite-clan groups.
  • Society on the verge of change in a REVOLUTIONARY way. The betrayal of the interests of the state without taking into account the opinion of the Russian People, the corruption of the authorities and their desire to integrate into the GLOBAL business by selling Russian assets ...
  • State megacorporation.
  • Society of gangster-corrupt capitalism.
  • Society of market-state socialism. This implies open market relations with other states with a socialist bias within the country.
  • Autocracy of GDP, taking into account the interests of the elite-clan group (their own).
  • Since there are "untouchables", it means that the clans rule, and only their interests are served by domestic policy in the country.
  • To a large extent, the group of "its St. Petersburg", without the slightest sign of responsibility for any decisions taken and extremely small competence (rather incompetence).
  • Not about us capitalism. Give me back as I was when I was born !!!
  • Today, a half-sovereign colony of the international Jewish financial mafia is making weak attempts at independence.
  • And etc.

About Ukraine

  • The country has not decided where to go.
  • Already want to cry ...
  • Outside Ukraine, the primacy of national minorities was approved, which conducts its policy, outside the interests of the majority of the population.
  • The state is heterogeneous. Some regional political movements compete with others. There is a possibility of division of the country.
  • It is not clear what is going on there at all.
  • Just as in the Russian Federation. The poor are poorer, the wealthy, respectively, are getting richer. Also visible is the clan fight for financial flows.
  • Ukraine, in fact, is part of Russia, therefore, as an independent state (besides opposing Russia to itself), it is untenable and the emergence of a developed and just social system is impossible there.
  • All the same as in Russia, but with a delay.
  • Although he is also a Ukrainian by nationality, but the Ukrainians right now have been shocked tightly !!!
  • In Ukraine, one gang replaces another - the results for the people are getting worse and worse ...
  • In my opinion, the collapse of Ukraine is inevitable.
  • The entire composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the laws they pass, and the actions of President Yanukovych confirm that the clans are being serviced, not the people.
  • The "elite" of Ukraine is occupied with shameless robbery, without thinking about the future of the country.
  • The rule of capital, legal nihilism, cronyism, demagoguery in parliament, the lack of reform.
  • Tearing apart the square ... very sorry! Some to the west, others to the east are torn !!!
  • In Ukraine, the phase of "Russia 90-x" - the disorder and disorder of the state. devices. And the people endure all this ...
  • Strong looks like the relations of ancient Russia.
  • Society is anarchy
  • It seems to me that there they are trying to make a simple territory out of history, without its culture, and alien to its brotherly nations!
  • Society of the domination of Russophobic structures. Ukraine lives as a state on the basis of the rejection of Russia, if this vector had not acted, the unity of the people would have happened.
  • Society in "free flight". The government has no will either to choose the path of development or to direct public opinion in any direction.
  • Specially created for the collapse of Great Russia nedogosudarstvo non-existent nation, a colony of international Jewish financial mafia.
  • And etc.

About Belarus

  • Of course, not like in the USSR, but very close to it.
  • The most socially oriented state, despite certain problems, is quite competent and thinking about its citizens, the head of state.
  • Perhaps the management model, the society that has been created and is functioning, is the most capable of surviving in today's world.
  • And what is there to comment? The Soviet Union in a single republic (in the good sense of the word), the fact that Lukashenko has not yet thrown off the merit of Russia and the non-resistance of the Belarusians, because of the lack of demand for "wild" capitalism on the example of Russia. The state, in the good sense of the word, patronizes its people, taking payment as a political monotony.
  • Much remained, as in the USSR, some of the names did not even change, and given the economic blockade, practically from the West, Lukashenko copes very well.
  • A lot is being done to develop the social life of the people and it is the interests of the people and the whole country that are upheld.
  • In spite of everything, they managed to preserve both industry and agriculture, and cultural values ​​were not so ruined.
  • The only of the Soviet republics, where there is at least something from the common past ....
  • Market relations are underdeveloped. But: incomparably lesser corruption and the dominance of criminal bureaucracy.
  • A society of distorted capitalism with the remnants of socialism.
  • The society of state socialism with permitted private initiative, but under strict state control.
  • State capitalism. At the moment, the economy of the Republic of Belarus is built on the principles of capitalist economic management, but with the state ownership of the main means of production.
  • The fragment of Great Russia, with great difficulty preserving Russian originality. Under certain conditions, it can become an outpost of the struggle for the full sovereignty of Great Russia.
  • And etc.

About Kazakhstan

  • It is a pragmatic system (with its "cockroaches"). In relation to Russia, he is maneuvering in the style of "both yours and ours".
  • In the Republic of Kazakhstan, the situation is similar to Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Nazarbayev is a lifelong president, but the struggle of the clans is not going anywhere, and with his departure will move to another plane.
  • The most pronounced clan management, which is always in fact unstable and dangerous for the integrity of the country.
  • Typical for Central Asian states.
  • Returned to the historically familiar methods of government heads of clans.
  • They return to where they came to the USSR.
  • In fact, this is the state of prevalence of a single clan group, namely, the "family". The rest of course try, but it turns out weakly.
  • Also with national inclinations! More and more we have screamers against the Russians and Russia !!! Nazarbayev current seems good. I live here - I see everything, I often go to different regions, I try not to climb the south!
  • A certain emirate on the Soviet territory and a platform (spare) for world elites, after an hour "X".
  • Well, here is a time bomb situation. Nazarbayev, of course, is a man corresponding to his country, but he is already “running out” (health, age, etc.). Who will be after him is not clear ... After his departure (in all senses), "fun" will begin. Too big contradictions between the clans.
  • East, however. In another way there will not be very soon.
  • In a country dominated by tribal relations, another version of society is impossible.
  • society market cult of the individual. Enough masterfully hidden, behind the actively developing market relations, the cult of a strong personality, which, in general, is not bad for the south-eastern neighbors.
  • Nazarbayev khanate, colony of the international Jewish financial mafia.
  • And etc.

About the Eurasian Union

  • Union of currencies and industries only with the consent (referendum) of the majority of residents. No forced intake.
  • The whole world is united, no one can survive alone
  • Nee A.G. Lukashenko, nor N. Nazarbayev, disagree on the revival of the centralized state. At the same time, they rather tightly control their "elites". The “elite” of Russia really wants to cling to the resources of Belarus and Kazakhstan, which naturally causes rejection from its neighbors.
  • Creating a powerful economic and military-political bloc, to ensure its economic and territorial security.
  • Without the centralization of the country of the former USSR can only vegetate. Fragmentation is an indicator of the weakness of our countries. Worldwide presidential elections allow the United States to change objectionable rulers at any time. And only a new union headed by Russia can resist this. Because either we will be united, economically and politically (but not even necessarily within common borders), or our countries will ultimately be finally fragmented and turn into even colonies unable to feed themselves.
  • The construction of a single state is now hardly possible. Such things are carried out during the Great War. Rather, we need to talk about the attempt to form the Eurasian Confederation with all the consequences.
  • Can not be forced.
  • I would like to believe in the revival of the empire, but for now it's just an attempt to satisfy everyone
  • As you do not call a radish, it will not become sweeter. All, especially the huge, supranational, unions are ultimately the suppression of one national culture over another or the parasitism of one or several nations over the others. Let us recall the history of the USSR — the national suburbs (the Caucasus, the republics of Central Asia — they lived there in the direction themselves) were parasites and lived much better than the peoples of Russia. And now we practically have no state property, which was previously state people's property, property now belongs to private individuals, which means that the Eurasian Union will continue to meet the interests of these same owners in the future. But at the moment it may be some kind of raft.
  • This is the only opportunity for former allied countries, including our country, in opposing the aggression of the established regime of other countries.
  • The need to survive in a hostile environment. It should be noted that production ties were broken "live". At least partially they should be restored.
  • This is a defensive alliance in terms of economics and politics.
  • Games and "throwing" economies by constantly changing rules, although everyone understands - IT IS NECESSARY TO UNITE. Such maneuvering will allow Russia to hold out for a while, although if nothing changes (in the near future), then all the same everything will collapse ...
  • About ECG: understanding that one by one they will simply be devoured. Well, the fear of losing power and other benefits in the period until they eat.
  • There is a subtle and dangerous political game of all the major world centers of power for and against integration, in which everyone conceals true motives and goals from everyone. The reward to the winner will be dominance in the world of years, approximately, on 100. For Russia, the loss will be fraught with collapse. Loss is possible if Russia does not get rid of the "fifth column". Victory is possible if, with God's help, a Russian patriotic elite and a national leader with the will to fight for freedom and full sovereignty appear in Russia.
  • Historical ties of the peoples, established during the USSR.
  • Unsupported attempt to form the 2-th pole of power on our ball, after the collapse of the USSR.
  • And etc.
Survey developer and coordinator: Stanislav Vasilenko (just Vasilich)


Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in