«

»

THE “MAJORITY” IS FOR DEMOCRACY AND MARKET

In spite of the fact that under the influence of objective and subjective factors certain progress in supporting the authorities and the policy pursued by them has begun to show for the last three months, a demand for changes remains on a record high level in Belarusian society (Table 1). As is the established tradition in Belarus, presidential elections concur with the peak of social payments. That is why one should not be surprised by the minimum demand for “changes in the current state of things” in February, 2006 and December, 2010. A need for changes during the period between elections equals 50% providing there is no crisis. Today, however, thanks to the crisis the need for changes has reached a record level. Yet the number of changes supporters equaling 70.1% does not say anything about the direction of the desired changes. It should be reminded in this connection that A. Lukashenko won the first presidential elections in 1994 thanks in no small part to the support of those who wanted to replace the chaos of liberalization by the stability of the Soviet pattern.

Table 1. Dynamics of answering the question: “What is more important for you today – preservation of the current state of things in the country, or its change?”, %

Variant of answer

03’05

02’06

06’08

12’10

12’11

Preservation of the current state of things is more important

51.1

53.4

37.4

49.7

18.0

Change of the current state of things is more important

48.2

37.8

53.8

41.2

70.1

DA/NA

0.7

8.8

8.8

9.1

11.9

Answers to the question “Do you agree that heads of local bodies of executive authorities (governors, mayors of towns, etc.) should be elected by locals?” suggest that Belarusians do not have a special desire to shift in the direction of a further “verticalization” of power. The overwhelming majority (72.8%) support electiveness of heads at all levels, 17.1% are against it. A historical note suggests itself here. According to the official data, in November 1996 in the course of the second nation-wide referendum Belarusians renounced the right in the strongest possible terms. Thus they had established a precedent, and from then onward not a nation in the world had the courage to repeat it. Only 28.1% of the number of referendum participants declared for the appropriate constitutional amendment initiated by the deputies of the Supreme Soviet. At least such results were presented by the Central Election Committee under the direction of its new head L. Ermoshina.

Do the above mentioned poll results mean that a new referendum is expecting Belarusians? It might seem that the authorities obeying solely the people’s will must immediately get down to its organization. However, we are not so naive. As the answers to the question of Table 2 prove, the majority of Belarusians do not suffer from political naivety either. Even among supporters of the authorities there is a minority of those who believe the possibility for the population to influence decision making. Among opponents of the authorities the share of such optimists made up only 10.2%.

Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question: “Does public opinion influence political and socio-economic decision making in our country?” depending on the attitude to the authorities, %

Variant of answer

All respondents

Including:

Supporters of the authorities

Opponents of the authorities

Yes, it does

26.8

35.3

10.2

No, it does not

64.2

56.0

85.1

DA/NA

9.0

8.2

4.4

Inability of public opinion to influence decision making testifies to the absence in Belarus of public opinion in its modern interpretation (public opinion is absent as an institution). It is for one thing. Secondly, absence of public opinion means absence of feedback by the authorities with the society. “Feedback, – as the political scientist N. Petrov observes – is not when a ruler asks something the advisers invited by him; it is when he is personally held responsible for actions or inaction, and the costs are compared with the results”.

It should be mentioned that the political regime established in Belarus does not provide for the presence of the public opinion institution. Let us give the floor to its architect:

    • “How do you interpret the notions “democracy”, “publicity”, “freedom of speech”?

 

  • “The people carry out real democracy electing the head of state and legislative authority. After that head of state and deputies should act within the framework of the Constitution. That is all there is to democracy”.

 

In other words, the Belarusian version of democracy limits participation of people in politics exclusively to the voting procedure. One comes to a polling station, fills in a ballot paper, puts it into a ballot box and goes home. Most important, at that very moment one should not get the desire to control the process of vote count. It is none of the people’s business!

The need for changes also has a market constituent, and it is rather impressive (Table 3). Let us mention that the number of market reforms supporters has coincided with the number of market economy supporters during the last two years. The latter in their turn are divided into supporters of market economy with a slight and considerable government control. The share of the former constituted 42% in March, 2011, and of the latter – 25.7%. However, one should not understand the figures straightforwardly. As in the case with the readiness to participate in protest actions, answers of respondents are declarative to a large extent. There is no guarantee that after transferring from redistributive economy to market economy with its fierce competition (for jobs among other things) many supporters of market reforms would not want to return under the guardianship of a “strong state” once again.

Table 3. Dynamics of answering the question: “Do you think it is necessary to implement market reforms in Belarus?”, %

Variant of answer

05’11

12’11

Yes

66.6

67.0

No

15.6

16.5

DA/NA

17.8

16.5

Answers to the question of Table 4 confirm the validity of misgivings concerning market preferences of Belarusians. Though preponderance of the paternalistic state model is not large, it still enjoys greater popularity in the country than its western counterparts which regard a state as a guarantor of common for everyone “rules of the game” at that deprived of a possibility to directly influence economic activity of its citizens. Such a view of the state is peculiar not only to 57.1% of authorities’ supporters, but also to 41.4% of their political opponents. 48.6% of young people at the age up to 30 are not free of it, either. Among those who are older than 60 there are of course more of such people – 64%. Almost every second owner of a University diploma (46.4%) would like to see the state in the shape of a caring father of a patriarchal family, and among those with primary education – 77.1%.

Table 4. Dynamics of answering the question: “How should the state and its citizens get along with each other?”, %

Variant of answer

12’09

12’11

The state should take care of all its citizens and secure a decent level of life for them

53.4

51.2

The state should make “rules of the game” common for everyone and watch that they are not violated

27.0

24.8

The state should interfere in the life and economic activity of its citizens as little as possible

17.2

21.1

DA/NA

2.4

2.9

If in the list of answers to the question about the relation between the state and the citizen the second and the third answers are replaced by the options presupposing greater independence of respondents (“People should show initiative and take care of themselves” and “People should make some sacrifices for the benefit of the state”) what exactly was done in March, 2009, then the share of supporters of a paternalistic state will increase up to 67.3%! The share of those who announced their readiness “to make some sacrifices for the benefit of the state” came to nothing more than 10.2%! Everything is logical. The time when economic tasks could have been solved by means of mobilizing society’s energy has remained in the past for good. Even A. Lukashenko understands it today limiting his mobilization efforts solely to bureaucracy.

Whatever respondents mean today by the notion “cardinal changes in Belarus home and foreign policy”, 37.1% believe in the possibility of implementing them within the next five years, 11.3% do not believe it, and 43.4% suppose they are hardly probable. Hope is an important factor of changes. It exactly woke up the society during the years of Gorbachev’s Perestroika. Today there is every indication that in Russia the society begins to awake through its direct involvement. As for Belarus, in spite of the quantitative prevalence of changes supporters over stability adherents in its present shape, the reason for appearance of hope has not emerged yet. It is clear that a decrease in the living standards is in principle not able to put in a claim for such a role.

Nevertheless, even with the absence of hope a demand for cardinal changes is being formed in Belarus. In December 57.7% of respondents said it, 12.4% opposed it, 16.5% treated the possible changes with indifference, and 13.4% found it difficult to answer.

In the problem-free September of the year 2008, as well as at the peak of negative ramifications of the world financial crisis in March 2009, Belarusian society saw the authorities as the main subject of changes (Table 5). The crisis came from the West; however, it had no effect on the subjectness of the authorities. On the other hand, the hope that “foreign countries would help us” almost tripled (!). In December 2011 the West as an initiator of future changes drew back to the previous position under the influence of the anti-West propaganda and the fireworks of integration agreements with Russia; the latter, however, did not gain anything from it. To all appearances, an explanation for the paradox should be looked for in a decrease in popularity of A. Lukashenko – the main partner in negotiations with Russia. His falling rating exactly did not let the Union state partner raise his popularity as a source of future positive changes. As for the other subjects of changes (the people and opposition), neither the world nor the local Belarusian crisis told on their creative potential in any way.

Table 5. Dynamics of answering the question: “If you consider that such changes are possible, who, in your opinion, will initiate them?”, % (more than one answer is possible)

Variant of answer

09’08

03’09

12’11

Belarusian people

23.6

20.3

20.2

Belarusian authorities

32.7

32.1

18.1

The West

8.1

22.1

10.0

Belarusian opposition

9.8

10.5

10.0

Russia

6.3

9.8

9.7

DA

12.0

14.7

11.2

So far cardinal changes has not set in, let us return to the present day with the help of Table 6. In March 23.3% perceived the current situation as “Mounting of chaos, anarchy and the threat of a coup d’etat”. There were three times less people with such perception of the current events a year before. In December, in conformity with the general tendency of a growth in the positive moods, a correction concerning assessments of development of the political situation in the country also took place: 16.5% of respondents discerned development of democracy in what was going on (+5.1. percentage points); however, the share of those who felt mounting of chaos decreased by 3.8 points.

Table 6. Dynamics of answering the question: “What direction is political life of Belarus developing in at the moment?”, %

Variant of answer

03’09

09’10

09’11

12’11

Development of democracy

23.5

24.7

11.4

16.5

Restoration of the former Soviet order

19.9

19.9

17.6

16.5

Establishment of authoritarianism, dictatorship

33.4

29.4

33.7

31.7

Mounting of chaos, anarchy and the threat of a coup d’etat

7.3

7.3

23.3

19.5

DA/NA

15.9

18.7

14.0

15.8

The ratio of supporters of democracy and of a “strong hand” did not virtually change, either. In March, 2011 the advantage of the former over the latter was defined by the ratio 63.4% to 26.7%, in December – 61.4% to 24.8% (in March, 2010 – 53.9% to 32.1%). The mass demand for a “strong hand” is being formed under the conditions of an economic crisis engendered by liberal reforms. However, the present problems in economy have been generated by the excessive concentration of power in the hands of the authoritarian “father”; hence one should not expect a remake of the situation of 1994.

Drawing a conclusion to the topic of changes, we should mention that their amplitude was obviously not enough to transfer Belarusian society from the sleeping condition to the excited one. The data of Table 7 indirectly confirm the conclusion. People of the older generation remember the crowds which queued up at the newsstands at the beginning of the 90s in the previous century. Nothing of the kind is being observed today. The economic crisis did not provoke extra demand for political information. Today the need for it is not higher than it was during the presidential election campaign.

Table 7. Dynamics of answering the question: “Do you discuss social and political problems with your friends, relatives and colleagues?”, %

Variant of answer

03’08

03’10

12’10

12’11

I discuss them constantly

17.7

16.8

19.7

18.1

I discuss them from time to time

53.1

49.4

55.6

56.9

I practically do not discuss them

28.9

33.6

24.6

24.7

NA

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.3

Nevertheless, last year the main factors of Belarusian stability (the high electoral rating of the head of state and growth in the population’s real income) were struck a serious blow at. In the country where there is only one politician for 9.4 million people, an efficient mechanism of coordinating interests of various social groups does not exist and cannot exist. However, interests do not stop existing due to the fact. They are ready to break out from the underground and make themselves known any minute.