The Influence of Political Interest and Participation on Satisfaction with Authorit arian Regimes: A Comparative Analysis of Russia and Kazakhstan
kookmin university
Abstract
This study explores the relationship between political interest, political participation, and regime satisfaction in two post-Soviet authoritarian countries: Russia and Kazakhstan. Drawing on data from the 2018 World Values Survey, the analysis categorizes political participation into institutional, non-institutional, and internet-based forms. Using OLS regression models, the study finds that institutional participation, particularly voting, is positively and significantly associated with regime satisfaction in both countries. Non-institutional forms of participation, such as protests, show a negative relationship with regime trust, especially in Kazakhstan. Although internet-based participation does not demonstrate a statistically significant impact, differences in direction between the two countries suggest varying digital political dynamics. The findings highlight that institutional engagement plays a key role in stabilizing authoritarian regimes, while non-institutional activism reflects underlying dissatisfaction. This research contributes to our understanding of authoritarian durability and the role of individual political behavior in hybrid regimes.
Keywords:
Russia, Kazakhstan, political trust, regime legitimacyCopyright Notice & License:
All articles published in Global Review of Humanities, Arts, and Society (GRHAS) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license allows anyone to share, copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work, including for commercial purposes, provided that proper attribution is given to the original author(s) and the source.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
PDF Downloads
Journal Info
How to Cite
References
Abramson, P. R., & Finifter, A. W. (1981). On the meaning of political trust: New evidence from items introduced in 1978. American Journal of Political Science, 25(2), 297–307.
Chaisty, P., & Whitefield, S. (2019). The political implications of popular support for presidential term limits in Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 35(4), 323–337.
Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2018). Political trust, social networks, and protest tendencies: An empirical comparison across 53 countries and regions. Society, 38(1), 186–214. [In Chinese]
Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 973–988.
De Rooij, E. A. (2012). Patterns of immigrant political participation: Explaining differences in types of political participation between immigrants and the majority population in Western Europe. European Sociological Review, 28(4), 455–481.
Ekman, J. (2009). Political participation and regime stability: A framework for analyzing hybrid regimes. International Political Science Review, 30(1), 7–31.
Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791–808.
Hibbing, J. R. (2001). Process preferences and American politics: What the people want government to be. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 145–153.
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2001). Process preferences and American politics: What the people want government to be. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 145–153.
Kaase, M. (1999). Interpersonal trust, political trust and non-institutionalized political participation in Western Europe. West European Politics, 22(3), 1–21.
Lin, G., & Gu, J. (2016). On political trust and its influencing factors. Journal of Shanghai Normal University (Philosophy & Social Sciences Edition), 45(3), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.13852/J.CNKI.JSHNU.2016.03.015* [In Chinese]
Miller, A. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 951–972.
Nisnevich, Y., & Ryabov, A. (2017). Post-Soviet authoritarianism. The Social Sciences, 48, 80–94.
Quaranta, M., et al. (2021). Trust, satisfaction and political engagement during economic crisis: Young citizens in Southern Europe. South European Society and Politics, 26(2), 153–179.
Quintelier, E., & Hooghe, M. (2012). Political attitudes and political participation: A panel study on socialization and self-selection effects among late adolescents. International Political Science Review, 33(1), 63–81.
Sabucedo, J. M., & Arce, C. (1991). Types of political participation: A multidimensional analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 20(1), 93–102.
Seligson, M. A. (1980). Trust, efficacy and modes of political participation: A study of Costa Rican peasants. British Journal of Political Science, 10(1), 75–98.
Seyd, B. (2016). How should we measure political trust? [Working paper].
Van Deth, J. W. (1986). A note on measuring political participation in comparative research. Quality and Quantity, 20(2), 261–272.
Williams, J. T. (1985). Systemic influences on political trust: The importance of perceived institutional performance. Political Methodology, 11(1), 125–142.
Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication, 59(1), 40–56.
Xiong, M. (2014). Political trust, political efficacy, and political participation: The case of Macau. Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Science Edition), 13(3), 10–15. [In Chinese]
