who makes up the most extensive political coalition in Russia”

The Expert Institute for Social Research (one of the main analytical centers of the Kremlin’s internal political bloc) held a round table on Thursday on the topic “Presidential super-majority: who makes up the most extensive political coalition in Russia.” Its participants tried to explain why so many Russians supported Vladimir Putin in the elections. Some cited polls showing that citizens support the special military operation (SVO), want to be proud of the country and believe that the president will be able to ensure its development. Others spoke of a battle of ideas, elite consensus and candidate Putin’s lack of real competition. Experts have not ruled out another motive for the March vote: since Vladimir Putin started the SVO, he must also finish it.

The term “presidential super-majority” was first used by the head of VTsIOM Valery Fedorov on March 18, the day after the presidential elections. This is exactly how he characterized the result of candidate Putin, who received 87.3% of the votes with a turnout of 77.5%. In fact, the participants in the round table on April 4 also tried to find an explanation for these figures.

The main speaker was the head of the department of political research at VTsIOM, Mikhail Mamonov. He immediately tried to highlight those characteristics of Vladimir Putin’s electorate that explain his choice and unite these people into one whole. “The key element is the Donbass consensus,” said the sociologist, explaining that the decision to hold the SVO is supported by 68% of Russians (with 19% not supporting). At the same time, 83% of respondents consider the results achieved at the SVO to be significant, that is, they also evaluate its progress positively.

Another key indicator is social optimism, Mr. Mamonov continued. 71% of respondents believe that things in the country are going in the right direction (23% disagree with this), 91% are confident that Russia will be able to overcome all difficulties, and 77% each believe that Vladimir Putin will be able to ensure the country’s development and stability. These figures, according to the sociologist, reflect citizens’ sense of confidence in the future.

Another important point is the “request for pride.” 92% of Russians admit that it is important for them to be proud of their country, and 94% consider themselves patriots, reported Mikhail Mamonov. And when answering the question about what feelings citizens experience when they think about Russia, pride also came out on top among positive emotions with a result of 52%. In second place was faith in Russia (43%), in third place was love for Russia (43%). Among negative emotions, anxiety dominated (22%). “But anxiety is an experience, not a rejection,” the sociologist found a positive aspect here too.

Finally, 50% of respondents believe that Russia is already a great power, from which Mr. Mamonov concluded that Vladimir Putin has satisfied the value needs of his fellow citizens. This apparently leads to respondents’ assessments of the qualities of the president himself: 89% consider him a strong-willed and decisive politician, the same number – active and energetic, 82% – wise, 76% – honest and decent, and 75% believe that he listens and respects other people’s opinions.

The “presidential super-majority” is united by one idea: “a sovereign and strong Russia that shapes its future itself,” Alexey Mukhin, general director of the Center for Political Information, summed up the sociological calculations. According to him, it was this formula that bribed voters.

However, other participants in the discussion drew attention to other aspects of the formation of a “super majority”. For example, the chairman of the board of the Center for Political Technologies, Boris Makarenko, recalled that two of candidate Putin’s competitors in the March elections – Nikolai Kharitonov (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) and Vladislav Davankov (New People) – were not even leaders of their parties, and Leonid Slutsky (LDPR) became one quite recently. In fact, there was no “competition of ideas”, since “the president controls almost all socially significant agendas” – socio-economic, patriotic and progressive, Mr. Makarenko noted. The latter, he explained, “is not liberal, but a little more Westernized than the others,” and candidate Davankov’s program most of all corresponded to it. The political scientist described the programs of candidates Slutsky and Kharitonov as weak.

Political consultant Evgeniy Minchenko, in turn, pointed out that public consensus around one figure would be impossible without elite consensus, which now exists, including thanks to the rotation of elites carried out over the past ten years. Among the risks for the “presidential super-majority,” the expert named, first of all, “the course of the global confrontation with the West and the Northern Military District as one of the elements of this confrontation.” Much will also depend on the “renegotiation of the elite pact,” the political consultant sees signs of which, for example, in the “revision of the results of privatization” that worries elite groups. Well, another risk is the announced tax reform, which could affect both the elite and society as a whole, Mr. Minchenko added.

At the end of the discussion, Kommersant asked its participants whether the reason for voting for Vladimir Putin could have been the idea that if he started the SVO, then he should finish it, and whether it follows from the published figures that they voted for him including opponents of the Northern Military District. “There is such a motive, it is one of the key ones… There are no contradictions between the fact that someone does not support the SVO, but votes for Putin… When we talk about elections, the key motive is the motive about the future. Even if some events in the past may be perceived ambiguously, the hope for an improvement in the situation can change the initial position,” answered Mikhail Mamonov.

Andrey Vinokurov