So, here are the results of FBK’s largest public opinion survey to date. We wanted it to be philosophical, but also practical, so that the data could be used in future work. We were looking for something simple and tangible that strongly influences our fellow citizens’ political views.
What simple and obvious factor could we choose that clearly divides all Russian citizens? Gender, of course—although devious Europe is allegedly coming after that too.
What could be even clearer than gender? This:
A foreign travel passport. Either you have one, or you don’t. Even Conchita Wurst fits that rule.
We recalled a famous historical hypothesis: that the Decembrists (Russian noble revolutionaries of 1825) set out to overthrow the tsar because they had first captured Paris and, during that trip, saw that many things there were organized better.
We also recalled that China runs massive programs sending students to study in Europe and the United States—not only for education, but also so that Chinese students can absorb advanced values.
We also remembered that from 1997 to 2005, Russia had the so-called “Presidential Program for Training Managerial Personnel”, under which tens of thousands of managers received a basic European business education and then returned to apply that experience in Russia. Many participants in that program still agree today that the trip significantly influenced their outlook on life, even though they were already adults when they went abroad. In the mid-1990s, there was also a proposal to send all high school seniors to Europe for several weeks to broaden their horizons and expose them to European values—but oil was only $10–12 per barrel at the time, so such a large-scale project had to be abandoned.
It is interesting to ask: if that plan had been carried out, how much would it have affected the kind of country we live in now, and how our fellow citizens view what is happening around them? The results of FBK’s latest survey suggest that it would have had a major impact:
Before commenting on the first chart, as usual, I should say a few words about the survey itself.
In fact, this was a two-in-one survey, which is exactly why it turned out to be so large and difficult. Suffice it to say that by the number of outgoing calls—more than 220,000—it was the biggest survey ever conducted by FBK’s polling team. We surveyed Muscovites, and the very first thing we asked was whether they had a foreign travel passport. We interviewed 1,000 people who currently had one, and 1,000 who did not (even if they had once had one in the past). The sample of those without a foreign travel passport was quota-based by gender and age, in line with the gender and age structure of Moscow’s population—so these were “average Muscovites without a foreign travel passport.” But the group that did have a passport was not quota-sampled by our volunteer researchers, because that was exactly what we wanted to find out: who are these people? As it turned out, they are: young men, older women, and people with a high level of education:
In the overwhelming majority of cases, these are ordinary people who travel abroad for vacations once a year or even less often; business travelers who fly abroad more frequently make up only a small minority of our respondents:
Now let’s return to the very first chart: it has another bar labeled “travel to Europe.” Here is how it appeared: everyone who had a foreign travel passport was asked where they traveled most often. It turned out that trips were split almost exactly in half between various European countries and the main resort destinations (Turkey, Egypt, Thailand). We decided to study separately—and especially closely—those who most often travel to Europe (about 500 responses). And the first chart shows that these people stand out quite significantly even among those who have a foreign travel passport. Our survey data clearly show: if a person has been to Europe, they are much more likely to agree that Russia should adopt European experience.
Of course, we had to approach these encouraging results very carefully. Could this simply be a false correlation? The better-off go to Europe, the less well-off go to Turkey and Egypt, and support for European values may well correlate with income—so perhaps what we measured emerged automatically for that reason? Let’s check.
Take a look: those who travel abroad really do differ quite a lot from average Muscovites without foreign travel passports; that is entirely predictable. But those who travel to Europe are practically no different from those who travel to Turkey and Egypt:
So no, the difference is not in income levels; the difference lies precisely in people’s outlook on life. Just as in the 19th century the “Westernizers” (Russian intellectuals who advocated European-style development) traveled to Europe and returned even more convinced in their Westernism, so too today Europe shapes the worldview of people who have been there even once. Perhaps this is most clearly visible in the following chart:
And, very importantly, this is not at all about “spoiled rich kids having their oysters and jamón taken away.” As we have already established, there is no significant difference in income structure between those who travel to Europe and those who prefer other foreign destinations. Nor is there any such difference in consumption patterns:
As you can see, this has nothing to do with confiscated oysters.
I am by no means inclined to idealize Europe; it has plenty of problems of its own. But it is still very important to see that Europe itself has not lost its appeal, despite all our TV propaganda. A person goes to somewhere like Tallinn, where people still speak Russian in the streets, salaries are much lower than in Moscow, and everything looks modest but tidy, and yet social relations are built on respect for the individual, for human rights, and for the rule of public institutions—and that person begins to understand that Russia, too, could live this way, that there is no mysterious “mentality” forcing people to trash apartment hallways and calmly accept theft and lawlessness.
With a significant degree of probability, a person who has been to Europe—without differing in income or social status from other compatriots— will nevertheless relate very differently to TV propaganda, see Russia’s place in the international community very differently, and view the Russian authorities’ desire to build a new Iron Curtain and retreat into economic isolation very differently.
And a couple more charts before we move on to the conclusions:
People who have been abroad at least once, even if they do not travel anywhere now, take a more open view of Russia’s relationship with the outside world.
Overall, support for the annexation of Crimea has declined somewhat compared with the spring, but it still remains very high, and it does not depend all that strongly on income level or experience of traveling abroad.
And now for the traditional “fun facts” section: - we asked those who do not have a foreign travel passport whether they would like to travel abroad: most are not planning to go anywhere, but among those who do want to travel, more than 60% would prefer Europe; - as the main reason for not wanting to go anywhere, half of respondents predictably cite financial constraints; the other half speak in one form or another about their “love for their native birch trees” (a Russian expression meaning attachment to home); - but then, when asked “where would you go if someone paid for a two-week package tour for you,” only 25% still say they would not want to go anywhere; the majority would head to that same Europe.
Now to the conclusions.
So what does all this mean, in my view? The ideological conclusion. Russia is a European country—I am deeply convinced of that. The history and roots of Russian culture—literature, music, painting—of Russian science, of the Russian way of life, lie in European civilization. That cannot be erased.
The political conclusion. The party of the “European path” has every reason to count on much broader political support, far beyond the notorious “liberal stratum,” whether that is 5–7% or 10–12%. The European way of life is attractive to a significant share of our fellow citizens, and many of them understand—or are ready to understand—that a course of isolation is a road to nowhere. Around the idea of a European choice, one can build a political force capable of competing for the leading positions in fair elections.
Thanks to our brave volunteers (65 of them worked on this survey!): together we did it (and nearly died in the process): Olga, Misha, Vladimir, Lidiya, Andrei, Ruslan, Pavel, Dasha, Lev, Elena, Ksenia, Elizaveta, Varvara, Marina, Mikhail, Elena, Anastasia, Irina, Nastya, Alexei, Katya, Nadezhda, Alexei, Katya, Elena, Ekaterina, Polina, Anatoly, Ruslan, Masha, Artyom, Tatyana, Anya, Tatyana, Denis, Evgenia, Anna, Nikolai, Anna, Nadezhda, Kolya, Oleg, Anna, Oksana, Nikita, Oleg, Karina, Anya, Marina, Seva, Nikolai, Vitaly, Kostya, Ilya, Anna, Denis, Anton, Arkady, Denis, Alexander, Pavel, Liza, Inna, Sofya, Evgeny!
Special thanks to FBK’s polling team head Anya Biryukova and our call center fairy Galya Koposova.
Thanks to Leonid Volkov for the survey idea and the work with the data.
You can sign up for FBK’s polling team here.