“Everything’s not so bad, it’s possible to live”. This viewpoint on the current situation in the country is shared by a little bit more than one third of Belarusians (Table 1). This is by 6.9 points more than in September 2013 and in 2.2 times more in comparison with December 2011.
Level of incomes of respondents almost doesn’t influence evaluations of their lives in categories of Table 1. Thus, in extreme groups depending on the level of income per family member (up to 1.4 million rubles and more than 4.2 million rubles) first category was chosen by accordingly 41.4% and 43.3% of respondents.
But if we separate out traditional groups of A. Lukashenko’s supporters and opponents, then we will see that the difference in answers is five-fold – 50.5% vs 10.2%.
Thus in Belarus homo economicus and homo politicus are two substantially different human types with their own “worldviews”. The first type’s worldview is depicted in soft pastel shades, while the second type’s worldview – in black and white colors. Hence the inclination of a homo politicus to go from one extreme to another while evaluating both political and economical situations.
Positive trends of the last survey are continued in the answers to the question “Which group of population can you assign yourself to?” (Table 2). Let us remind you that March 2011 survey was conducted in the first half of the month, i.e. before the crisis which was started with the refusal of the state to freely sell foreign currency to citizens (the 22nd of March). Therefore the answers of respondents in the first column are still influenced by mobilization effect of the presidential election campaign. Nevertheless, the share of answers in the first row (“We hardly make both ends meet and have not enough money even to buy food”) decreased more than two-fold, and 1.3-fold in the second row (“We have enough money for food, but buying clothes is a real problem”).
The question of Table 2 is much more materially-minded than the question of Table 1. That is why the answers of respondents, if we try to analyze them from the viewpoint of abovementioned ideal homo economicus and homo politicus types, make quite a strange mix.
In extreme groups by per capita income (up to 1.4 million rubles and more than 4.2 million rubles) 21.1% and 5.6% of respondents accordingly have not enough money to buy food. The difference is four-fold. Nevertheless, the share of 5.6% of “starving” people with an income higher than 4.2 million rubles per family member looks quite unexpectedly, to be honest.
Among the supporters of A. Lukashenko the share of “starving people” amounted to 2.6%, among his opponents it amounted to 9.4% (3.6-fold higher). It would seem that everything is perfectly logical, except that the dependency between the trust to the head of state and the level of incomes is insignificant: up to 1.4 million rubles – 60.9%, more than 4.2 million rubles – 54.5%.
Over the last year and a half the structure of people’s fears (Table 3) has significantly changed under the influence of stormy political events. First of all you should note the almost two-fold increase of fears of a civil war and foreign aggression. The share of Belarusians fearing job loss is record high.
The share of those who fear arbitrary rule dropped by 8 points amid the increase A. Lukashenko’s ratings. It’s not so easy to explain the significant increase (+12.8 points) of fears of poverty amid the growth of positive moods recorded in Tables 1 and 2. Everything is not so bad, it is possible to live, absolute majority has enough money for buying food and clothes (which wasn’t observed earlier), and still 43% of adult population of the country fear poverty. There is something to reflect upon.
In a society of uncompleted modernization the order of values is organized in mythical and religious forms. Critical reflection of public opinion is not presumed, and any non-dogmatic interpretations of current events are defined as heresy, destined to be excluded and destroyed. Under these conditions surveys register not so much the dynamics of moods and ideas of the society devoid of independent sources of information, but the efficiency of state propaganda.