ABSTRACT
Following the demise of communism, for the first time the elite could openly express critical attitudes towards institutions and their leaders, the main feature of the democratic process. But the new freedoms almost tore the Russian state apart. The dilemma is that stable democracy also requires a certain level of support for political and societal institutions and their leaders. Acceptance of institutions by both the elite and the masses helps to prevent disruptive conflicts. Stable institutions are a prerequisite for democracy, and they acquire legitimacy only through general approval and in particular endorsement by the elite. In the Russian case the challenge during Yeltsin’s period was how to mobilise support when economic ‘shock therapy’, poverty and a weak state undermine the incentives for this support. Conflicts may nourish democracy only to a certain point. As the Robert Dahl quotation underscores, beliefs in the system as such or its leaders as possessing certain qualities are crucial to stability. With Putin’s recentralisation policies the dilemma may change to how far can support to central authorities go before democracy is endangered, as the quotation from Karl Popper assumes.
