Scan barcode
jjkamin's review against another edition
4.0
I think the author did a great job of making a political science/sociological approach towards Putin's popularity understandable to a regular audience. While there were some areas that I think could have been made stronger with different polling, this book in a great secondary read towards understanding that while Putin is authoritarian, he is also popular.
jorgjuar's review against another edition
4.0
4.5 rounded down to 4
Written by Samuel A. Greene and Graeme B. Robertson, Putin v. The People is a great analysis of Putin's politics throughout his mandate, including when, in theory, he wasn't.
The research covers interviews with Russian citizens from different parts of the country in a wide variety of issues to measure the public opinion, which is a key element for Kremlin's decisions and politicis, thus, showing how Russian society from different spectrums feeds Putin's politics and viceversa. It's quite interesting how this symbiotic relationship has driven politics depending on the time of occurrence, but which in any case has allowed Putin's control over the media, "mysterious" deaths of opponents, and so on over a wide time span.
As an additional note, it's impressive how many of Kremlin's tactics have been used by some governments in Latin America; the paralells with the current government of Mexico are worrying, to say the least.
All the items covered in the book are supported by data, but it also specifies when the latter is not sufficient to reach a conclusion. In addition, the authors are always very clear on what the research does and does not demonstrate.
In short, Putin v. The People is a must read for anyone interested in Putin's politics and how he's been able to hold power for so long.
Written by Samuel A. Greene and Graeme B. Robertson, Putin v. The People is a great analysis of Putin's politics throughout his mandate, including when, in theory, he wasn't.
The research covers interviews with Russian citizens from different parts of the country in a wide variety of issues to measure the public opinion, which is a key element for Kremlin's decisions and politicis, thus, showing how Russian society from different spectrums feeds Putin's politics and viceversa. It's quite interesting how this symbiotic relationship has driven politics depending on the time of occurrence, but which in any case has allowed Putin's control over the media, "mysterious" deaths of opponents, and so on over a wide time span.
As an additional note, it's impressive how many of Kremlin's tactics have been used by some governments in Latin America; the paralells with the current government of Mexico are worrying, to say the least.
All the items covered in the book are supported by data, but it also specifies when the latter is not sufficient to reach a conclusion. In addition, the authors are always very clear on what the research does and does not demonstrate.
In short, Putin v. The People is a must read for anyone interested in Putin's politics and how he's been able to hold power for so long.
oleksandr's review
4.0
This is a political science / sociology non-fic that attempts to look on the current situation is Russia not from usual top-down approach (“Putin’s Russia” where a dictator guides and everyone follows or else) but bottom-up (where Putin tries to get support of the governed and fulfill their desires of e.g. ‘Russian greatness’ so they don’t mind a kleptocratic and abusive authorities). I read it as a buddy read for August 2021 at Non Fiction Book Club group.
The authors had a unique opportunity to measure how the occupation of Crimea affected popularity of Putin – in 2013 (before the grab, which happened in March 2014) they made a survey of Russians regarding their attitude toward the authorities and found what other similar surveys shown – a veining popularity of Putin, outrage about high level corruption, etc. However, when they surveyed again the same people after the occupation of Crimea, not only their increased but even high level corruption suddenly became less of an issue. The fact that after a ‘little victorious war’ there is a sort of “rallies around the flag” which is reasonably common. However, in the West it quickly stops because an opposition starts to show problems there or elsewhere, while in Russia it remains high, not at the least due to the media control.
The authors try to find why and first go after the idea of the pathbreaking French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who studied the religious rituals of Aboriginal groups in Australia, and found out that the key to making something sacred was togetherness: engaging with other people in the same unusual moment that transgressed the rules and tedium of everyday life. The euphoric feeling that this extraordinary togetherness causes—the same powerful emotional excitement that we get from being “in sync” with others, what Durkheim called “collective effervescence.”
Then they journey into studies was a system of five basic personality traits that was both stable and, more importantly, useful in predicting officer performance on the job. These traits were Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism (OCEAN). They find out that [a] split into Openness-strong democrats and Conscientiousness-strong Republicans, or their analogs in other Western democracies isn’t present. What does distinguish Putin’s supporters is high scores on Agreeableness, even if it works in reverse way compared to the West, where Agreeableness e.g. means greater support/compassion to minorities, while in Russia they are ok to support anti-gay laws, etc. The authors assume that this means that Putin’s support might vein again, if his / authorities actions became less socially accepted.
Despite there are some issues with their depictions of Ukrainian situation, overall the book is well-researched and I agree with their underlaying point (which wasn’t written explicitly) – the majority of Russians perceive the West as plotting against them, and aggressive actions on the part of Russian authorities as ‘getting from the knees’ and that expansion is driven not by a madman on the top, but by a large share of supporters of the myth of Russia as the Third Rome
The authors had a unique opportunity to measure how the occupation of Crimea affected popularity of Putin – in 2013 (before the grab, which happened in March 2014) they made a survey of Russians regarding their attitude toward the authorities and found what other similar surveys shown – a veining popularity of Putin, outrage about high level corruption, etc. However, when they surveyed again the same people after the occupation of Crimea, not only their increased but even high level corruption suddenly became less of an issue. The fact that after a ‘little victorious war’ there is a sort of “rallies around the flag” which is reasonably common. However, in the West it quickly stops because an opposition starts to show problems there or elsewhere, while in Russia it remains high, not at the least due to the media control.
The authors try to find why and first go after the idea of the pathbreaking French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who studied the religious rituals of Aboriginal groups in Australia, and found out that the key to making something sacred was togetherness: engaging with other people in the same unusual moment that transgressed the rules and tedium of everyday life. The euphoric feeling that this extraordinary togetherness causes—the same powerful emotional excitement that we get from being “in sync” with others, what Durkheim called “collective effervescence.”
Then they journey into studies was a system of five basic personality traits that was both stable and, more importantly, useful in predicting officer performance on the job. These traits were Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism (OCEAN). They find out that [a] split into Openness-strong democrats and Conscientiousness-strong Republicans, or their analogs in other Western democracies isn’t present. What does distinguish Putin’s supporters is high scores on Agreeableness, even if it works in reverse way compared to the West, where Agreeableness e.g. means greater support/compassion to minorities, while in Russia they are ok to support anti-gay laws, etc. The authors assume that this means that Putin’s support might vein again, if his / authorities actions became less socially accepted.
Despite there are some issues with their depictions of Ukrainian situation, overall the book is well-researched and I agree with their underlaying point (which wasn’t written explicitly) – the majority of Russians perceive the West as plotting against them, and aggressive actions on the part of Russian authorities as ‘getting from the knees’ and that expansion is driven not by a madman on the top, but by a large share of supporters of the myth of Russia as the Third Rome