«

»

ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL IN THE FACE OF REPRESSIONS. BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

According to John Galbraith, an American economist, there are three main ways of forcing people to do something: ideal and material rewards and punishment. There are no societies where one of these ways would be absent. But their ratio in different societies may vary in wide ranges. In particular, societies, which pay greater attention to punishment, are called repressive. In the modern world they are opposed to merit-based societies.
In Belarus a public debate on the anti-corruption draft bill is being carried out in compliance with the head of state’s commission. The readers of “Soviet Belorussia” actively joined the discussion. Let us limit ourselves to one suggestion expressed by Rodion from Brest: “They should make a treaty with Russia and transport corrupted official to the North. And they should serve Stalinist terms there”.
The true subject of repressions is the socio-cultural integrity, indissoluble unity of society and culture. Table 1 illustrates the correctness of this statement.
Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question: “Recently in Belarus a draft bill “On battling corruption” was discussed. According to this bill there would be a greater control over the incomes of officials and their relatives.  Some people are positive about it, some are negative and some are indifferent. What’s your attitude to it?”, %
Variant of answer
All respondents
Attitude to A. Lukashenko
Trust
Don’t trust
Positive
56.3
71.7
32.9
Indifferent
32.6
21.7
50.8
Negative
9.6
5.6
14.5
DA/NA
1.5
1.0
1.8
The share of respondents who evaluated positively the initiative on strengthening control exceeded the share of those who evaluated this juridical innovation negatively six-fold. Among A. Lukashenko’s supporters the “index of preponderance” (IP) of the former over the latter amounted to 13, among his opponents it amounted to 2.3.
Such a significant divergence of IP is not accidental. Authoritarian head of state is supported by authoritarian voters. These voters regard power capable of unlimited repressions as a single source of order. The more a person needs state support, the higher is his individual IP.
Among respondents with primary education IP amounted to 39 (!), among respondents with higher education IP=5; in the age group of 18-29 years old IP=2, in the age group of 60 years old and older IP=12. Women, ipso facto, depend on the state more than men, and this is reflected in the gender-based IPs: 6 and 5 accordingly.
Society without repressions never existed, doesn’t exist now and probably will never exist in future. But the essence of repressive society is not in the high level of repressions (it is a consequence), but in out-of-law character of imposing, execution and cancellation of punishments.
In modernized (Western) societies repressions are impersonal. In society of incomplete modernization (Belarus) repressions have a personal character. This is an important characteristic of their specific nature.
All people are equal in face of repressions, but some are more equal than others. And by this “some” we mean representatives of power in the first place. Belonging to this sacred substance results in favor and privileges. These privileges are numerous and expansive, it isn’t important to name them all. Let us note only one: immunity from jurisdiction. Most likely, a person from power will get himself and his intimates off any history, which would result in a catastrophe for mere mortals.
Let us cite Victor from Brest: “Someone takes 10 dollars and serves 10 years in prison; but those who steal millions, are not reachable for the law”.
A typical example of personal approach of imposing and cancellation of punishment is the release from the prison of I. Zhilin, former head of Belneftekhim Concern. This approach didn’t arouse much indignation in Belarusian society, as it follows from Table 2. Moreover, one third of respondents evaluated positively this selective approach of Belarusian Themis (43.6% among A. Luakshenko’s supporters).
Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question: “Recently former head of Belneftekhim Concern I. Zhilin was exonerated from criminal liability because he had made triple amends to the state. Some people regard this approach as positive, some as negative, others are indifferent. What is your attitude to this?” depending on attitude to A. Lukashenko, %
Variant of answer
All respondents
Attitude to A. Lukashenko
Trust
Don’t trust
Positive
34.5
43.6
22.0
Indifferent
34.6
29.2
40.1
Negative
27.1
23.6
34.5
DA/NA
3.8
3.6
3.4
One of the least expected results of September survey is represented in Table 3. If respondents’ answers had to be perceived literally, then we would suggest that over the last three years there were revolutionary changes in the judicial system of Belarus. Majority which felt unprotected from law now transformed to minority.
Table 3. Dynamics of answering the question: “Do you feel yourself protected by law?”, %
Variant of answer
09’11
09’14
Attitude to A. Lukashenko
Trust
Don’t trust
Yes
38.5
54.7
79.4
20.2
No
53.4
37.0
15.3
71.5
DA/NA
8.1
8.3
6.3
8.3
Who or what should be thanked for such an unexpected change to better? The first reason is evident. We encounter it in analysis of almost every trend. A. Lukashenko’s ratings and feeling of juridical protection grew because of the same reason. Let us call it “the Ukrainian syndrome”. But there is another reason. September 2011 survey coincided with the peak of economic crisis. And a large-scale crisis, no matter what are the reasons for it, increases the general feeling of insecurity.
So as a result there was a “low base effect”. And now we are comparing the results of current survey to the low base of 2011.
The share of respondents feeling protected by law is four times as big among the supporters of A. Lukashenko as among his opponents. There is nothing surprising about it. But the head of state’s opponents are mostly well-educated young people, whose input into economical development is incomparable with the input of seniors with primary and incomplete secondary education. Certainly, the structure of answers, shown in the third and fourth columns of Table 3 is incompatible with the aims of modernization. This incompatibility can be seen in Belstat’s monthly reports more and more clearly.