Service is in high esteem
Despite the critical information about the army constantly disseminated by the media and individual political groups and the widespread opinion that society treats it negatively, in fact this is not true.
For example, according to VTsIOM, trust in the army remains one of the highest compared to other public institutions - 52%, with 34% among law enforcement agencies, 27% among the judiciary, 26% among trade unions and the Public Chamber and 25% among political parties. Moreover, if we subtract the points of mistrust from these figures, and they are quite low in the army against other institutions - 28%, then it receives not only the most positive, but also incomparably high confidence index in comparison with the rest: today it is minus from law enforcement agencies 12%, for political parties and the judicial system - for minus 14%, for trade unions - minus 11%, and for the Public Chamber - 1%.
The Russian society estimates service in the army as unexpectedly high. According to the Levada Center, never felt any particular sympathy for the army, 44% of the country's citizens believe that "every real man should serve in the army", and 30% assume that "military service is a duty that needs give to the state, even if it does not meet your interests. " Moreover, if the first indicator remains the same as it was ten years ago, in the 2000 year, then the second one increased significantly - ten years ago it was 24%. That is, one way or another, 74% of citizens express a positive attitude towards the service. An obvious minority, 19%, is negatively related to it, although ten years ago there were 23%.
Trust in the army remains one of the highest among other public institutions.
The attitude of society towards conscription service is far from unambiguous. Indeed, supporters of an army consisting solely of conscripts are just 13%. But keep in mind that it was almost never such - and both the auxiliary and quite professional contractual contingent were present in the Soviet army: overtime soldiers, warrant officers, petty officers, etc.
Not much more supporters in the purely contract army - 27%. The majority - 56% - advocates a "mixed army", consisting of both draftees and contract soldiers.
That is, 69% of citizens positively relate to the appeal anyway, which is close to 74% positively related to military service.
It is interesting that as soon as we are talking not about the attitude towards service and appeal in general, but at the time of their obligation, the picture would seem to change. In this case, in February 2010, 39% supported the preservation of universal military service, and the transition to forming an army of those who go to serve for pay is 54%.
There is a certain contradiction. It can be explained in two ways. On the one hand, we are talking about comparing surveys and answers separated by several months. But it seems unlikely that from February to June 2010 of the year 74% positively evaluating the appeal turned into 39% of supporters of the preservation of universal conscription.
The second explanation is the wording of the questions. The February survey suggested choosing one of two things: either to remain bound, or to move to a voluntary-hired army. The June poll offered a medium version - a mixed army. And it turned out that it is he who enjoys the greatest support. And this is an indicator of the constantly used ability of the leading sociological centers to change the results of polls to the opposite ones with unnoticeable nuances of formulations.
But there is another side, also related to the nature of the formulation.
In one case, it was asked about the attitude to the army with the options: a man must complete a service, service is a duty that must be paid, service is useless time lost. That is, it was about an internal, moral attitude.
In another case, it was about the external side of the issue: to remain bound or to move to voluntariness.
Here you should pay attention to the relative proximity of the indicators of the answers “service is the debt that must be paid” - 30%, and “preservation of the obligation of service” - 39%.
That is, it turns out that these are indicators of recognition of external obligation, the right of the state to establish it. And they almost do not take into account, in particular, those 44%, who believe that serving in the army is a kind of internal imperative, that a person must pass it not because the law requires it, but because it is useful, moral. This large group does not want to be forced into service, but is itself set up for service simply by virtue of its internal value orientations.
At the same time, judging by the ratio of answers, the question of payment for military service also plays an important role - people are ready to serve, but they consider payment for service desirable. Here it is worth noting a certain incorrectness in contrasting the two formulas: "to preserve the duty of service" and "to form an army of those who go to serve there for money." There is an opposition: "necessarily or for money", but in fact one does not exclude the other - such an answer is possible: "obligation of service with its decent pay."
But other answers just show that by itself the isolated and isolated moment of “paidness” is rather skeptically evaluated by citizens. Thus, the LDPR initiative for exemption from military service for one million rubles, the respondents rated negatively. It caused a positive reaction in 20%, a negative reaction in 67%.
Russian society rates service in the army unexpectedly high
It seems that, recognizing the feasibility of paying for service in the army, citizens do not mean the commercial nature of this payment, but the “salary” itself - the natural provision of needs and maintenance of a decent standard of living for the military. Meanwhile, the society instinctively rejects the idea of commercializing everything connected with military service, retaining a peculiar value-sacral attitude to the latter.
This is partly confirmed by the attitude to the recruitment to the army under a contract previously convicted, even if their previous conviction has been extinguished. Consent to their presence in the army gives 35%, disagreement - 55%.
Involuntarily, there is an assumption that people who are convicted agree to serve in the army, even with a canceled conviction, rather, those who do not trust the army, and those with whom they trust, want to protect it from the influence of the criminal world.
Similarly, but for other reasons, citizens for the most part are negatively disposed towards the service in the army of students — 30% vs 62% speak in her favor.
Of course, it is possible to raise the question that the general benevolent attitude to military service in society as a whole is not quite indicative, since this question can be answered differently by those who will send children to the army, and those for whom this question is distracted character
However, there are more people who want their relatives to join the army than those who would prefer to avoid it: 46% versus 42%.
And, interestingly, the dynamics attracts attention: in October 2007, the number of those who prefer the service was 45%, seeking to dodge it - 42%. But by the spring of 2009, the number of the first increases noticeably - to 50%, and the second drops to 35%. But a year later, by February 2010, the first indicator again drops to 46%, and the second increases to 42%.
Before us, there are two turns in relation to military service. The first - improving the attitude towards it by the beginning of 2009 of the year - clearly follows the military campaign of the Russian army in the South Caucasus. The second - a new relative deterioration - follows the specific reforms unfolding in 2009, carried out in the army by Defense Minister Serdyukov.
Information