16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Soviet Elections Revisited: Voter Abstention in Noncompetitive Voting

      American Political Science Review
      JSTOR

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This analysis of voters and nonvoters in a large sample of recent emigrants from the Soviet Union shows that nonvoting is correlated with high interest in politics, a critical political outlook, and dissident modes of behavior. Thus, voter abstention in noncompetitive balloting can be hypothesized to constitute a significant political act rather than passivity. Single-party states use single-candidate elections for a variety of purposes, one of these being the psychological reinforcement of unity between regime and subjects. In this context, the only choice left to the dissenting citizen is not to vote at all. In the contemporary Soviet Union, nonvoting is regionally focused on Moscow and Leningrad, and is associated with post-Stalinist generational change. The covert nature of vote evasion and its informal tolerance provide a new perspective on the character of the Soviet system and its political culture.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The functions of elections in the USSR

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Soviet Elections as a Measure of Dissent: The Missing One Percent

            A few questions are still hotly debated among students of the Soviet political system, but certainly the nature of Soviet elections is not one of them. Everyone agrees that they are more interesting as a psychological curiosity than as a political reality. They are seen by various writers as ritualized affirmations of regime legitimacy, as methods of involving the masses in supportive activity, as a means of publicly honoring model citizens, and as a crushing display of unanimity designed to isolate the potential nonconformist. Both Western and Soviet writers see Soviet elections from the positive side, from the side of the dutiful 99 percent who invariably vote for the single candidate on the ballot. In fact, Soviet and Western writers are in very close agreement on the major functions of elections in the Soviet Union, although their value judgments tend to differ along the lines one would expect. Taking one typical example from the general Western literature on the Soviet political system, we find the purposes of a Soviet election defined as “a public demonstration of the legitimacy of the regime … an invaluable educational and propaganda exercise … and perhaps most important of all, … proof that the system of control is unimpaired.” In the more detailed Western works on Soviet elections we find the same approach. Thus, Howard Swearer, in a very insightful and valuable article on Soviet local elections, states that “in the Soviet Union, the formal act of voting is comparable in purpose to such civic rituals as singing the national anthem or saluting a country's flag. It is a public display of personal reaffirmation of the Soviet way of life and the party leadership.”
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Soviet Political Culture and “Covert Participation” in Policy Implementation

              Our study of political participation in the Soviet Union, based on interviews with recent emigres, leads us to conclude that Soviet political culture is neither a “subject” nor a “subject-participant” one. There are meaningful forms of participation in the system, but they take place either outside the nominally participatory institutions, or within those institutions but in nonprescribed ways. The citizen may participate covertly, utilizing unsanctioned or blatantly illegal methods in attempts to influence policy implementation, not policymaking. The findings support the concept that traditional, prerevolutionary modes of citizen-state interactions are reinforced by the pattern of Soviet socioeconomic development and by a highly centralized and hierarchical administrative structure, itself a continuation of tsarist patterns. This study describes how different types of Soviet citizens try to influence policy implementation, and how they differentiate among the bureaucracies. Analysis of this activity leads us to reformulate our conception of Soviet political culture.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                applab
                American Political Science Review
                Am Polit Sci Rev
                JSTOR
                0003-0554
                1537-5943
                June 1986
                August 1 2014
                : 80
                : 02
                : 449-469
                Article
                10.2307/1958268
                465fbacf-8d40-43f9-ae5d-760d45086459
                © 2014
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article