Democratic Values in the Post-Communist Region: The Incidence of Traditionalists, Skeptics, Democrats, and Radicals

Chapter
Part of the Societies and Political Orders in Transition book series (SOCPOT)

Abstract

A generation after the democratic revolutions of 1989, most post-communist countries remain democratic. However, citizens differ by their identification with democratic values and by the prevalence of five main “(non)democratic mentalities” which we derived from the European Values Study (EVS). Our focus was on three post-communist regions: (a) the post-soviet core countries (Russia, Moldova, Ukraine), (b) ex-soviet Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), and (c) Central European “Visegrad” countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia). Results indicate that democrats (i.e., secular democrats and religious democrats) are represented in every country; their incidence is higher among elites and among the young; yet democrats in all post-communist countries constitute a minority. Intolerant traditionalists are most typical for the post-soviet core countries, while passive skeptics constitute majority in the post-communist Central Europe and plurality in the Baltics. Passive skepticism can be interpreted in terms of an enduring “post-communist syndrome.”

Keywords

Post-communism Democracy Skepticism Traditionalism Intolerance Democrats European Values Study EVS Post-communist syndrome 

References

  1. Abramson, P., & Inglehart, R. F. (1995). Value change in global perspective. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). Civic culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avrich, P. (1972). Russian rebels 1600–1800. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  5. Bale, T., & Szczerbiak, A. (2008). Why is there no Christian democracy in Poland—And why should we care? Party Politics, 14(4), 479–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbu, Z. (2002 [1956]). Democracy and dictatorship: Their psychology and patterns of life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Berdyayev, N. (1959). The origin of Russian communism. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Paperbacks, University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  8. Binford, M. B. (1983). The democratic political personality: Functions of attitudes and styles of reasoning. Political Psychology, 4(4), 663–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borowik, I. (2002). The Roman Catholic Church in the process of democratic transformation: The case of Poland. Social Compass, 49(2), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boym, S. (1995). From the Russian soul to post-communist nostalgia. Representations, 49(Winter), 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Černý, J. (2002). Vliv skupinových mentalit na postoje k manželství [The influence of group mentalities on attitudes to matrimony—in Czech]. In J. Havelka, M. Tuček, J. Černý, J. Česal, & M. Hudema (Eds.), Skupinové mentality [Group mentalities] (pp. 51–64). Praha: Institute of Sociology.Google Scholar
  12. Devlin, J. (1995). The rise of Russian democrats: The causes and consequences of the Elite revolution. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Durio, H. F. (1976). A taxonomy of democratic development. A theoretical interpretation of the internalizing of democratic principles. Human Development, 19, 197–218.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000271529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2016). Democracy Index 2015: Democracy in an age of anxiety. http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2015
  15. EVS. (2011). European values study 1981–2008 longitudinal data file. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, Germany, ZA4804 Data File Version 1.0.0 (2011-04-30).  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.4804.
  16. Fish, M. S. (1995). Democracy from scratch. Opposition and regime in the New Russian revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goodwin, R., & Allen, P. (2000). Democracy and fatalism in the former Soviet Union. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2558–2574.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02450.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenstein, F. I. (1965). Personality and political socialization: The theories of authoritarian and democratic character. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 361(Sep), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gross, M. L. (1992). Democratic character and democratic education: A cognitive and rational reappraisal. Educational Theory, 42(3), 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Havelka, M. (2002). Historické a systematické předpoklady tematizace problému mentalit v sociologii [Historical and systematic prerequisites of thematization of mentalities in sociology—in Czech]. In J. Havelka, M. Tuček, J. Černý, J. Česal, & M. Hudema (Eds.), Skupinové mentality [Group mentalities] (pp. 10–33). Praha: Institute of Sociology.Google Scholar
  21. Heinen, J., & Portet, S. (2010). Reproductive rights in Poland reproductive rights in Poland: When politicians fear the wrath of the Church. Third World Quarterly, 31(6), 1007–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huntington, S. P. (1990). Democracy’s third wave. Journal of Democracy, 2(Spring), 12–34.Google Scholar
  23. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2007). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., et al. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klicperova, M., Feierabend, I. K., & Hofstetter, C. R. (1997). In the search for a post-communist syndrome: A theoretical framework and empirical assessment. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klicperová-Baker, M., Feierabend, I. K., Kovacheva, S., Titarenko, L., Košťál, J., & Hofstetter, C. R. (2007). Demokratická kultura v České republice: Občanská kultura, éthos a patriotismus ze srovnávacího pohledu [Democratic culture in the Czech Republic: Civic culture, ethos and patriotism in a comparative perspective]. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
  27. Klicperova-Baker, M., & Kostal, J. (2015). European sociopolitical mentalities: Identifying pro/ and antidemocratic tendencies. Part I—Individual citizens’ perspective. European Societies, 17(3), 301–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klicperova-Baker, M., & Kostal, J. (2016). Toward empirical assessment of the European demos and public sphere: Comparing democratic value orientations of citizens and elites. In H. Sicakkan (Ed.), Integration, diversity and the making of a European public sphere (pp. 183–208). Northampton, Ma: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koralewicz, J., & Ziolkowski, M. (1990). Mentalnosc Polakow. Poznan: Nakom.Google Scholar
  30. Laswell, H. D. (1951). Democratic character. In The political writings of Harold D. Lasswell (pp. 465–525). Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Leonidas, D. (2015). The unbearable lightness of change. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic. ISBN-13: 978-3-330-08028-7.Google Scholar
  32. Lukin, A. (2000). The political culture of the Russian democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Marangos, J. (2005). Shock therapy and its consequences in transition economies. Dialogue, 205, 48(2), 70–78.Google Scholar
  34. Marlin, O. (1992). Psychoanalyticky rozbor totalitni mentality [Psychonalaytic analysis of totalitarian mentality]. Ceskoslovenska psychologie, 36, 5432–5448.Google Scholar
  35. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2004). The unbearable lightness of democracy: Poland and Romania after communism. Current History, 103(676), 383–388.Google Scholar
  36. Sack, B. C. (2017). Regime change and the convergence of democratic value orientations through socialization. Evidence from reunited Germany. Democratization, 24(3), 444–462.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2016.1220940Google Scholar
  37. Shapoval, S. (2000). Pollster Levada: Soviet mentality is still with us. Current Digest of Post-Soviet Press, 52(19), 12–13.Google Scholar
  38. Sztompka, P. (1993). Civilizational incompetence: The trap of post-communist societies. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 22(2), 85–95.Google Scholar
  39. Taras, R. (2005). Poland’s transition to a democratic republic. Taming of the sacred. In W. Safran (Ed.), The secular and the sacred (pp. 130–146). London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  40. Tischner, J. (1992). Etyka solidarnosci oraz Homo Sovieticus. Krakow: Znak.Google Scholar
  41. Tishkov, V. (1997). Ethnicity nationalism and conflict in and after the Soviet Union. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vasovic, M. (1999). Shifting identity in postcommunism. In Z. Golubovic & G. F. McLean (Eds.), Models of identities in postcommunist societies. Yugoslav philosophical studies I (pp. 41–54). Washington, DC: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  43. Vogt, H. (2005). Between Utopia and disillusionment. A narrative of the political transformation in eastern Europe. Contemporary European history (Book 1). New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  44. Voszka, E. (1990). A katarzis nelkoli nelkuli atmenetelviselhetetlen konnzusege [The unbearable lightness of non-cathartic transition—in Hungarian]. Kozgazdasagi Szemle, June, 687–701.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations