Looking for Strong Leadership

The answer to this question is complex. According to literature on the subject, the post-Soviet person can be classified according to a number of characteristics, among them:

• An enemy complex – Natives of the FSU tend to see themselves as the defenders of a bastion surrounded by enemies. The world was always divided into "good guys" and "bad guys", "us" and "them", and many generations of Soviets have become accustomed to these simplistic classifications. It was always convenient to have a definite understanding of who the enemy was because this kind of interpretation of reality helped them to deal with the many hardships they experienced, to repress self-criticism, and to make up for the humiliation that is often felt by people living under a totalitarian regime. If times are hard, it is always easiest to blame everything on the enemy. A common enemy can also serve as a common social denominator, unifying "us" versus "them".
  
• Loyalty to a strong and stable government – the typical post-Soviet sees democracy differently than the average Westerner. Russians often fail to see a contradiction between a state that is defined as a democracy and a powerful and centralized government that always knows what is best for its citizens. The traditional Russian aspiration is for a "just czar", who protects the people from external and internal dangers, cares for everyone, and solves the state's problems firmly, quickly, and efficiently. 
  
• A yearning for order, and security.
  
• Traditional attitudes toward gender roles – the post-Soviet does not believe in equality between men and women, but rather aspires for a world in which a woman raises children and a man provides for, and protects, his family.
  
• A feeling of inability to influence national policy – in the Soviet Union, many citizens preferred to see themselves incapable of influencing government policy, and therefore not accountable for it either.[2]

In the time of perestroika, singer and poet Alexander Gradsky wrote: "Even if you were a rocker or a priest, and were soiled by the Soviet puddle – you will always remain damp, even if you leave." Was Gradsky correct in his evaluation? Are the immigrants of the 1990s still influenced by Soviet values? According to this research the answer is "yes", and although IDI does not conduct polls which are dedicated solely to evaluating the political views of immigrants, one can still identify substantial differences between the opinions stated by immigrants from the FSU and the rest of the Israeli Jewish public. Most of these differences coincide with ideas expressed by Soviet and post-Soviet cultural theorists.

Figure 1 shows differences between immigrants from the FSU and other Israelis regarding the question "Is Democracy the preferred type of government in Israel?" Immigrants' perception of democracy as a necessary element in Israeli society fluctuates over time. Although it seems that the differences between the views of immigrants from the FSU and other Jewish Israelis are not great, one must take into account that most immigrants from the FSU are secular, and have no tendencies toward a state ruled by Halakhah (as opposed to other Jewish Israelis).

Figure 1: "Democracy is the preferred form of government in Israel" – Immigrants from the FSU vs. Other Jewish Israelis ("agree to a great extant", by percentages)

The immigrants' belief that they have the ability to influence government policy is lower than that of other Israelis (see figure 2). It should be noted that in 2006 (election year) immigrants felt more influential.

Figure 2: "To what extant can you and your friends influence government policy?" – Immigrants from the FSU vs. other Jewish Israelis ("not at all", by percentages)

Figure 3: "Strong leaders can be more constructive for the state than any deliberation and legislation" – immigrants from the FSU vs. Other Jewish Israelis ("agree" and "agree to a great extant", by percentages).

A large number of immigrants do not believe in gender equality, and see the Arabs as a declared enemy, toward whom no concessions are to be made under any circumstances (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: The position of those who immigrated from the FSU in the 1990s, as opposed to those of other Jewish Israelis ("agree" and "agree to a great extant", "support" and "support to a great extant", by percentages).

The main finding of this research is that a substantial portion of the political views of immigrants from the FSU of the 1990s are considerably different from those of other Jewish Israelis. Even so, it would be wrong to make an all-inclusive statement and declare that these immigrants are less democratic than other Israeli Jews. One must also take into account that the immigrants are generally secular and highly educated - two elements that emphasize the distinctiveness of their traditional views, which can often be classified as "un-democratic".
In my opinion, Israeli politics and society are highly influenced by elements of post-Soviet political culture. It is important to understand that despite all of the hardships that face Israeli democracy, every Israeli citizen can take part in the electoral process, and their opinions can influence public discourse and the priorities of elected officials, as well as the make-up of the Knesset. I am convinced that post-Soviet political culture has already left its mark on Israeli society and culture and has influenced many courses of action, without attracting any public or academic attention.

*Michael Philippov is a research assistant at the Israel Democracy Institute and a PhD student at Hebrew University's school of political science.

[1] This article includes some of the findings of Mr. Philippov's MA thesis Homo-Sovieticus and the Political Culture of the Immigrants of the 1990s, Haifa University School of Political Science, instructed by Prof. Asher Arian, Senior researcher for the Israel Democracy Institute.

[2] For more on this topic, see Yuri A. Levada, 2000. 'Soviet Man Ten Years Later: 1989–1999', Russian Social Science Review 41(1): 4–28; Ellen Carnaghan, 2001. 'Thinking about Democracy: Interviews with Russian Citizens', Slavic Review 60(2): 336–366; Mikhail Heller, 1988. Cogs in the Wheel: The Formation of Soviet Man, New York: Alfred A. Knopf; Timothy J. Colton, and Michael McFaul, 2001. Are Russians Undemocratic?  Working Paper 20, Carnegie: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.