The reason for the popularity of the Great Patriotic War cult can be explained by the answers to the question “Which regime is more acceptable for Belarus?” (Table 1), even if this may seem kind of strange. After the years of independence political elite of the country didn’t manage to create an image of future. There is no such image in public opinion as well. That is why the lack of future may be compensated with past, the heroic past.
Table 1. Dynamics of answering the question “Which regime is more acceptable for Belarus?”, %
|
Variant of answer
|
12’93
|
06’96
|
03’14
|
Attitude to A. Lukashenko
|
|
|
Trust
|
Don’t trust
|
||||
|
Capitalism
|
31.6
|
28.6
|
38.3
|
27.9
|
51.7
|
|
Socialism
|
40.9
|
54.7
|
39.9
|
51.2
|
29.2
|
|
Other
|
13.7
|
9.1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
|
DA/NA
|
13.8
|
7.6
|
21.8
|
20.9
|
19.0
|
In December 1993 the share of socialism adherents exceeded the share of capitalism adherents by 1.3-fold. Two and a half years later this ratio increased up to 1.9. A major part of this time Belarusians under the lead of “nation-wide-elected president” were striving to get back to a similarity of Soviet past. Partly they had managed to do it.
Over the next 18 years the shares of adherents of two mutually excluding economic systems became almost equal. Naturally, among the supporters of A. Lukashenko adherents of socialism prevail, while his opponents mostly adhere to capitalism. But in both groups domination is not overwhelming.
The absence of the variant “Other” in March survey resulted in an increase of the share of respondents, who had difficulties with the answer. It should be noted, that these shares turned out to be almost equal among supporters and opponents of A. Lukashenko. This equality is quite unexpected, if you remember that among the opponents of A. Lukashenko dominate people with higher education. Still the share of respondents who had difficulties with the answer among Belarusians with higher education is almost as high as the average – 21.5% (23.7% for respondents with primary education)!
However the ever high popularity of socialism in Belarusian society should not be regarded as a wish to go back to the Soviet past. It means that the idealized image of the Soviet past is used as a base for criticizing modern state of things.
Nevertheless “homo sovieticus” is still prevailing in Belarusian society. Choosing between good laws and good leaders, this species confidently prefers leaders (Table 2). Media echo of Euromaydan only strengthened his preferences: there was no “batka” in Ukraine, hence all the troubles.
Belarusians, preferring good laws, in a greater extent prefer capitalism as well – 45.2% vs. 31%. Accordingly, their opponents prefer socialism – 45% vs. 34.6%. But the difference is not so great, as you may notice. Which means, that, according to millions of Belarusians, capitalism may function well under the conditions of an authoritarian politic system, and socialism may blossom in a rule-of-law state.
Over two decades of life under the conditions of Belarusian model the share of citizens relying on themselves and not on the state gained only 5.5 points. The share of Belarusians openly admitting their inability to settle their private life without the help of the state dropped by a similar figure (Table 3).
Almost every third opponent of A. Lukashenko pin his hopes on the state – 32.4%, every second of his supporters does the same, 29.3% of men and 52.3% of women chose this variant. We should note a paradoxical dependency of the need in a paternalistic care on the level of income per a family member: up to 1.2 million rubles – 32.3%, 1.9-3.8 million rubles – 44.1% and over 3.8 million rubles – 44.1%. In other words, when the level of income increases, the level of economic dependency increases as well. The reason for this paradox is apparent: the main source of income’s growth within the framework of Belarusian model is the state!
Belarusians do not show any particular wish to become free of state surveillance, nevertheless they resolutely speak against state limitations of salary growth (Table 4). Over 21 years the share of opponents to such limitations increased from 58.7% to 71% (+14.3 points).
Table 4. Dynamics of answering the question “Should state set limits (a “cap”) for a maximal personal income of its citizens?”, %
|
Variant of answer
|
12’93
|
03’14
|
Attitude to A. Lukashenko
|
|
|
Trust
|
Don’t trust
|
|||
|
Yes
|
22.5
|
21.6
|
32.0
|
12.1
|
|
No
|
58.7
|
71.0
|
60.2
|
83.6
|
|
DA/NA
|
18.8
|
7.4
|
7.8
|
4.3
|
The share of Belarusians supporting the setting of a cap for personal incomes of citizens among the supporters of A. Lukashenko is almost three times as big as it is among his opponents. Taking into account the differences in the age structure of supporters and opponents of the head of state (pensioners prevail among the supporters) there is nothing surprising in this ratio.
A Soviet person cannot imagine anything beyond the state. For him non-state medicine, education, literature, economy and so on – are illegitimate, defective institutions. He himself is a part of the state. He is a state addict.
But at the same time he knows that real state will certainly cheat on him, will gaff something which he is supposed to get “according to the law”. That is why he considers that he can neglect what the power demands (he goofs off, he scams, he avoids his duties).
It’s a mistake to think that “homo sovieticus” is a “vanishing scenery”. After 23 years of independence the share of such people in Belarusian society changed insignificantly. The reason for the durability of “homo sovieticus” is in purposeful efforts of the state. Under the conditions of electoral authoritarianism it would be impossible to obtain “elegant” victories if there was no such social type.