Social networks, civil society, and the prospects for consolidating Russia’s democratic transition

Conventional wisdom asserts that democracies require a strong civil society and high levels of interpersonal trust. Neither of these attributes seems to characterize contemporary Russia. This article challenges this conventional wisdom, finding Russian culture characterized by broad, porous, and politically relevant interpersonal networks. Perhaps in response to the totalitarianism of the past, Russians have developed extensive social networks with high levels of political capacity. These social networks are important means for the diffusion of democratic ideas in Russia. For instance, those embedded in extensive social networks are more likely to support key democratic institutions and processes. My analysis also reveals that interpersonal trust actually has little to do with attitudes toward democratic institutions and processes. I conclude by arguing that Russians are not atomized and socially isolated, and that aspect of Russian political culture has important consequences for the future of democracy in Russia. ew concepts have captured the imagination of those studying democratization more than "civil society-' Dating to ancient studies of political systems, theories of civil society claim that democracies require a particular set of autonomous institutions in order to check the power of the state (e.g., Putnam 1993). Furthermore, civil society is enhanced by efficacious attitudes and participatory behaviors on the part of the citizenry (e.g., Brehm and Rahn 1997). Civil society seems to be an essential condition for successful democratization. The importance of civil society has recently been reinforced by the momentous changes in the former Soviet Union and the states of Central and Eastern Europe. Many argue that nascent civil societies were instrumental to the democratic revolutions of the late 1980s, although to varying degrees across the countries experiencing democratic change (e.g., Bernhard 1996; Kubik 1994; Ost 1990; Stokes 1993; Tismaneanu 1995; Weigle and Butterfield 1992). The democratization of Poland in particular is attributed to the ascendancy of Solidarity, a quintessential civil society organization (Bernard 1996; Kumar 1993). Others, however, argue that the weakness of civil society in these countries today poses a threat to their ability to consolidate democratic change (e.g., Ekiert 1991; Arato and Cohen 1992; Nelson 1996; Mondak