Brawn instead of brain. Igor Mintusov named the main stereotype of Russians about power

President of the European Association of Political Consultants Igor Mintusov n dressed his observations of political preferences of Russians:

On February 15, during the discussion on the legitimacy of Belarusian President Lukashenko, the presenter voiced perhaps the most important stereotype of Russians about power: “Power must be strong” on the Russia 1 TV program “Evening with Solovyov”. Strength is the basis of the legitimacy of power, in other words. Why is Lukashenko the legitimate president of Belarus? Because he was able to retain power, despite the massive protests of the population. The basis of the legitimacy of the authorities, according to the deep conviction of the majority of the participants in the discussion, is not citizens' trust in the authorities, not an honest vote count based on the results of the voting, namely, a strong leader who can keep power by force. This sounded like the main argument for Lukashenko's legitimacy.

This message was echoed by statements about the beginning of the destruction of the US political system during the last elections. There were two arguments:

1. Trump, the incumbent president, won the US elections, and the US courts that "sold out" to the Democrats did not count Trump's victory.
2. Twitter was turned off for the incumbent president !!! How can this be in a democratic country !? Where is the world heading?

So, where is the fundamental mistake that is outside the field of vision of ordinary citizens when they hear the confident recitative of state propagandists from journalism and power-minded intellectuals: "strong president = strong government = strong state"?

In Russian political culture, and this did not happen today, the second part of the triad reads as "strong power = strong executive power".

In Western European and American political culture, the second part of the triad reads as "strong power = strong executive power + strong judiciary + strong legislature." In the language of political scientists, the classical principle of democracy operates: the separation of the three branches of government. In Russia, de jure (after the adoption of amendments to the Constitution - with reservations), this principle is also enshrined in the Constitution, but de facto it has long been subject to political corrosion.

It is a mistake to call a strong state one that has only a strong executive power and remains stable in times of rallies, demonstrations and other kinds of “riots”. A strong state is one that functions in a not strong (paradox) dependence on the will of the first person of the state. A strong state is when parliament, courts (see example "Trump and the courts after the elections"), business (see example "Trump and blocking Twitter") have the ability to disagree with the president's policies or decisions. Both the parliament and the president listen to public opinion. Democracies tend to be strong states, despite the colorless leaders that appear regularly in their history.

What is the use of a strong (and strength) executive power to the population when the question "Do the interests of power and society coincide in Russia now?" 72% of the respondents answered “most likely no” and “definitely not”, and only 25% answered “rather yes” and “definitely yes” (Levada Center, 2019).

I would like to quote a book by Jonathan Rausch that has just been published in Russian: "Under an authoritarian political regime, it is not those with the sharpest political mind that gain the advantage, but the people with the largest number of soldiers".

It is strange to call a state strong not on the basis of the well-being of citizens, economic power, cultural development, but only by the criterion of the power of the national army and law enforcement agencies.

A strong head of state and strong state institutions are different concepts, often mutually exclusive..."