The Soviet Past and Party Competition: Using Quantitative Methods

The article analyses the place of the Soviet past issues in the interparty discussion in contemporary Russia. The methodology of the study is based on the cleavage theory and the issue dimensions theory which consider confrontation as the engine of the political life. The lists of issues and most active participants are formed on the base of issue salience and issue ownership criteria. Factor analysis of party positions on these issues revealed two divisions: ‘Communists vs Anticommunists’ and ‘Liberals vs Statists’.
Factor loadings of these divisions are compared with parties' factor loadings in political dimensions on a wider range of issues: three main ones (systemic, authoritarian-democratic, socioeconomic) and seven additional – in three issues domains: domestic policy, social and economic policy, systemic domain (international relations + worldviews). It is detected that the ‘Communists vs Anticommunists’ division correlates well with the main socioeconomic dimension and its subtype ‘Communists vs Liberals’, but most strongly – with a sub-dimension ‘Soviet traditionalists vs Progressives’ from the systemic domain. The ‘Liberals vs Statists’ division appeared to correlate closely with the main authoritarian-democratic dimension, but much more – with the subtype ‘Liberals vs Loyalists’ from the domestic policy issue domain. It is concluded that the divisions on the issues of the Soviet past easily fit into the picture of political dimensions and even get lost in it.
Comparison of divisions over the Soviet past with electoral cleavages shows that these issues are not very important for the mass mind. High correlation coefficients are devalued by high p-levels, indicating that there is a typical “third factor” effect in the case. 

1. Казун А.Д. Кому принадлежит повестка дня? Обзор теории issue ownership // Мониторинг общественного мнения : Экономические и социальные перемены. – 2018. – № 4. – С. 109–123. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2018.4.07

2. Коргунюк Ю.Г. Концепция размежеваний и теория проблемных измерений: точки пересечения // Полис. – 2019. – № 6. – С. 95–112. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.06.08

3. Коргунюк Ю.Г. Выборы по пропорциональной системе как массовый опрос общественного мнения // Политическая наука. – 2017. – № 1. – С. 90–119.

4. Коргунюк Ю.Г. Концепция размежеваний и факторный анализ // Полития. – 2013. – № 3 (70). – С. 31–61. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2013-70-3-31-61

5. Budge I. The internal analysis of election programmes // Ideology, strategy and party change: spatial analyses of post-war election programmes in 19 democracies / Budge, D. Robertson, D. Hearl (eds). – Cambridge : Cambridge university press, 1987. – P. 15–38.

6. Budge I., Farlie D.J. Explaining and predicting elections: issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. – London ; Boston : Unwin Hyman, 1983. – 226 p. Budge I., Homola J. How far have European political parties followed the Americans to the right in the later post-war period?: a textual analysis // Cambio. Rivista sulle trasformazioni sociali. – 2012. – Vol. 2, N 4. – P. 71–86. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1400/205660

7. Goggin S.N., Theodoridis A.G. Disputed ownership: parties, issues, and traits in the minds of voters // Political behavior. – 2017. – Vol. 39, N 3. – P. 675–702. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9375-3

8. Häusermann S., Kriesi H. What do voters want? Dimensions and configurations in individual-level preferences and party choice // The Politics of advanced capitalism. – Cambridge : Cambridge University press, 2015. – P. 202–230.

9. Hooghe L., Marks G., Wilson C.J. Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? // Comparative political studies. – 2002. – Vol. 35, N 8. – P. 965–989. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001041402236310

10. Hooghe L., Marks G. Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage // Journal of European public policy. – 2018. – Vol. 25, N 1. – P. 109–135. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1310279

11. Inglehart R. Cultural shift in advanced industrial society. – Princeton, NJ : Princeton university press, 1990. – 484 p.

12. Korgunyuk Yu. Cleavage theory and elections in Post-Soviet Russia // Perspectives on European politics and society. – 2014. – Vol. 15, N 4. – P. 401–415. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2014.881051

13. Korgunyuk Yu. Issue dimensions and cleavages : how the Russian experience helps to look for cross-points // Russian politics. – 2020. – Vol. 5, N 2. – P. 206–235. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.30965/24518921-00502004

14. Lachat R. Issue ownership and the vote: the effects of associative and competence ownership on issue voting // Swiss political science review. – 2014. – Vol. 20, N 4. – P. 727–740. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12121

15. Petrocik J.R. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study // American journal of political science. – 1996. – Vol. 40, N 3. – P. 825–850. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2111797

16. Stubager R. What is issue ownership and how should we measure it? // Political behavior. – 2018. – Vol. 40, N 2. – P. 345–370. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109017-9403-y

17. Teney C., Lacewell O.P., de Wilde P. Winners and losers of globalization in Europe: attitudes and ideologies // European political science review. – 2014. – Vol. 6, N 4. – P. 575–595. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773913000246