MOST ORDERLY EUROPEAN POLITICIAN’S RATING DYNAMICS

Out of the whole set of questions A. Lukashenko’s electoral rating traditionally draws attention of the general public, politicians and experts to the fullest extent. As a rule, only the very few are satisfied with its value. In society split into supporters and opponents of the authoritarian “father” it is obviously understated for the former (“what can be expected from the sociologists serving their western masters”). For the latter it is, on the contrary, overstated (“what can be expected from the KGB agents, and what rating measurements can one talk about in an authoritarian country”).
It is useless trying to budge such critics; that is why let us refer to the classic of sociological analysis, satirist M. Zhvanetsky: “If I have just one window in my room, then what is its rating?” A. Lukashenko’s high rating is a direct consequence of the lack of options, amplified many times by all the might of state propaganda. Simultaneously it is an outcome of “the influence of the highest social position in a bureaucratic hierarchy. It can be regarded as manifestation of a “sacred” attitude to power, which still remains unchanged, even though it has undergone some erosion lately” (L. Gudkov, sociologist).
In March, 2013 A. Lukashenko’s electoral rating made up 33.4%, in June – 37.3%, having thus grown by 3.9 points for three months. As it follows from Table 1, there is nothing surprising in such addition. The incomings of Belarusians between January and April of the current year have grown by 21% (there are no data for six months). At a faster pace they were growing only in 2001, hence after the termination of the crisis acute phase of 2011 accompanied by an absolute drop in the population’s income head of state’s electoral rating began to grow.

Table 1. Dynamics of the population’s real income (as percentage of the previous year) and A. Lukashenko’s electoral rating (%)

* Yearly average value
A. Lukashenko’s trust rating is, as a rule, higher than his electoral rating. In June it grew by 5.5.points relative to March (Table 2). For the same period of time the share of Belarusians distrusting head of state (the distrust rating) decreased from 43.2% to 40.6%. A situation when the trust rating exceeded the distrust rating appreciably was observed in March, 2011 for the last time: 47.9% vs. 42%. It can be considered that in June the “only Belarusian politician” emerged from the distrust crisis.

As it usually happens, following head of state’s rating the trust rating of the government (+5.5 points) and state mass media (+5.4 points) rose as well. As for independent mass media and opposition parties, the growth in their rating did not exceed the statistical error. It should be admitted, there were no reasons for any growth anyway.
No obvious change was registered when respondents were answering the question of Table 3 either. For respondents foreign capital still remains the leader of hopes for the economic development of Belarusians. A. Lukashenko has not been able to compete with it for four years already. One cannot help remembering a saying here: “No man is a prophet in his own land”. His popularity level finds itself in the inverse relation with the acuteness of domestic problems.

Attention should be paid to the last two lines of Table 3. In his public speeches A. Lukashenko connects his hopes for imposing order in the country with the law courts and security agencies more and more often. Let us confine ourselves to just one quote: “Special attention should be paid to criminal cases concerning damage inflicted on state property by officials. Bribe-taking in the most important spheres of society’s life, such as economy, public administration, medicine, education and others should be treated in the same way. At that an objective assessment should be given by investigating authorities regardless of the person’s official capacity. There should be no pampering! There are no and cannot be any untouchables!” (the speech made on June 14 before the employees of the Investigating committee).
However, head of state’s emotional statements did not tell on public opinion. Belarusians traditionally trust the army, but as a symbolic institution only. The population does not expect any practical influence on economy from the army or security bodies, not that they expect anything form the National Assembly, either.
In April A. Lukashenko spoke with his yearly message. The level of society’s attention to it did not exceed the usual scope (Table 4): today 60% is the limit of public attention to the events not affecting the population directly.

The opinion of Belarusians with regard to the statements made by A. Lukashenko in the course of the message divided just as it should be in a split society (Table 5). The specific weight of those who agree and do not agree differs slightly according to the majority of statements, with the exception of the price growth. The share of pessimists not believing in the planned 12% exceeded the share of optimists 2.2 times: 56.1% vs. 25.2%. One should not expect anything else from the Belarusians living under the conditions of galloping inflation for over 20 years already, as even in Europe where an increase in consumer prices does not, as a rule, exceed 2% a year, inflation regularly finds itself among the leaders in the list of the main problems.
Almost every third respondent (31%) agreed that the leaders of Belarus are the most orderly and reliable people living in the center of Europe! How can anyone not to vote for the main leader, the most orderly and reliable one among the most orderly and reliable ones, after that?
Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question: “What is your attitude to the following statements which president A. Lukashenko made in the course of the message?”, %

The rating of a politician in the West and the rating of the “only politician” in an authoritarian country are, as they say it in Odessa, two big differences. In the first case the rating is the result of assessing the outcome of the practical activity’s results. In the second case it is an expression of mass hopes and illusions. Besides, one should not forget about the lack of alternative supported by state mass media.