«

»

POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY OF BELARUS

The pending presidential election in Belarus again begins to draw attention (true, still only that of the politically-minded public and foreign experts) to the ratings of potential candidates. The June public opinion poll showed that the electoral rating (by the open question) of A. Lukashenko is stable as before. Moreover, in view of the new conflict with Moscow it has even grown from 42.7% to 45.6% (it seems from the point of view of the majority of citizens Batjka (Father) has won in this conflict rather than lost). The spirit of the pending presidential election manifests itself also in the fact that the ratings of his opponents have improved, too: that of A. Milinkevich, from 4.7% to 5.4%, that of A. Kozulin, from 2.7% to 4.4% (Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question, “If the presidential election in Belarus were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?” (open question)

Variant of answer

%

A. Lukashenko

45.6

A. Milinkevich

5.4

A. Kozulin

4.4

S. Gaidukevich

1.2

S. Sidorsky

1.0

Other politician (18 names, less than 1% each)

3.0

Other answer

5.7

DA/NA

33.7

As for the closed-ended question when respondents are offered a list of possible candidates for presidency, all ratings naturally increase (Table 2).

Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question, “A regular presidential election in Belarus is pending. Some politicians and public figures have already announced (or might announce) their bids for presidency. If their names are on the ballot list, who would you vote for?”

Variant of answer

%

Alexander Lukashenko, president of the Republic of Belarus

48.3

Alexander Milinkevich, leader of the movement “For Freedom”

9.9

Alexander Kozulin, ex-rector of the Belarusian State University

7.5

Sergey Gaidukevich, chairman of Liberal Democratic Party

3.5

Ales Mikhalevich, former vice chairman of the party Belarusian People’s Front

2.4

Sergey Kalyakin, chairman of the Belarusian Left-Wing Party “Fair World”

1.9

Alexander Yaroshuk, chairman of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions

1.6

Vladimir Neklyaev, leader of the civil campaign “Tell the Truth!”

1.6

Vitaly Rymashevsky, co-chairman of the unregistered party “Belarusian Christian Democracy”

1.0

Yaroslav Romanchuk, vice chairman of the United Civil Party

1.0

Nikolay Statkevich, chairman of the organizational committee for creation of the social democratic party “Narodnaya Gramada”

0.8

Levon Borshchevsky, ex-chairman of the party Belarusian People’s Front

0.7

Andrei Sannikov, coordinator of the civil initiative “Charter-97”

0.5

Other candidate

2.3

DA/NA

17.0

Obviously, all the listed candidates, more precisely, their potential electorates form three distinctive groups: the electorate of the incumbent president, the electorate of his rivals at the election 2006 (all of them have passed the 3%-threshold of sampling error), and the electorate of new alternative candidates (none of whom have passed the sampling error threshold). The specific features of the candidates themselves, as well as of the bodies supporting them, their teams, programs, etc., have been elaborately addressed to in dozens of articles, unlike their potential electorates (except for A. Lukashenko’s electorate), of which we still know little. The purpose of this text is to analyze these electorates, their distinctive features, and based thereupon to determine the opportunities of the specified candidates. The free press often uses colorful metaphors, for example, referring to A. Sannikov’s team, which is forming mainly from “BPF’s renegades”, they write about “Sannikov’s Front”. In continuation of this tradition, we will use the geographical glossary (in this case, political geography), and name the electorate of the first group “Lukashenko Archipelago”, the electorate of the second group – “The Isles of Milinkevich-Kozulin-Gaidukevich”, and the electorate of the third group – “Sannikov Land”.

Before making a comparative analysis of the electorates of these groups, let us recall the dynamics of the rating of the main candidate, President A. Lukashenko. The readers of IISEPS Analytics might remember that over a period of more than ten years we for the sake of “intensity of the picture” have been giving estimates and, consequently, outlooks with respect of the attitudes of Belarusians towards A. Lukashenko on the basis of three criteria reflecting major elements of the psychological structure of a personality, these are cognitive, emotional and motivational elements (Table 3).

Table 3. Dynamics of the structure of the aggregated indicator of attitude towards A. Lukashenko, %

Attitude indicators

Variant А

11’97

09’98

06’99

08’00

08’01

04’02

09’03

11’04

06’06

06’08

06’10

Would vote for A. Lukashenko at a new presidential election

44.3

52.2

45.0

33.8

44.4

30.9

31.7

47.7

54.7

38.9

45.6

Would vote for A. Lukashenko at the election of the Belarus-Russia president

35.2

44.7

38.4

19.5

27.8

14.0

21.1

29.8

39.3

27.7

28.6

Trusting the president

45.0

48.0

44.1

36.3

43.8

32.4

40.4

47.2

60.8

47.3

54.3

Consider A. Lukashenko an ideal of a politician

50.4

51.5

47.4

31.3

39.4

26.0

26.6

40.6

41.4

32.2

39.8

Attitude indicators

Variant B

11’97

09’98

06’99

08’00

08’01

04’02

09’03

11’04

06’06

06’08

06’10

Would not vote for A. Lukashenko at a new presidential election

55.7

47.8

55.7

66.2

55.6

69.1

68.3

52.3

45.3

61.1

54.4

Would not vote for A. Lukashenko at the election of the Belarus-Russia president

64.8

55.3

61.6

80.5

72.2

86.0

78.9

70.2

60.7

72.3

71.4

Not trusting the president

22.5

22.1

28.4

38.6

37.1

50.1

44.8

37.0

30.6

39.5

34.1

Don’t consider A. Lukashenko an ideal of a politician

49.6

48.5

52.6

68.7

60.6

74.0

73.4

59.4

58.6

67.8

60.2

The typology of the Belarusian electorate is also based on this aggregated criterion and its dynamics is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Dynamics of Belarusian electorate typology, %

Electorate Typology

11’97

09’98

06’99

08’00

08’01

04’02

09’03

11’04

06’06

06’08

06’10

Strong supporters of A. Lukashenko (gave A-answers to all the four questions)

26.0

29.3

26.2

13.5

21.8

10.4

14.9

21.9

21.9

18.5

21.2

Hesitating

53.2

53.3

48.1

50.0

46.1

42.7

42.5

47.0

47.0

47.0

49.6

Strong opponents of A. Lukashenko (gave B-answers to all the four questions)

20.8

17.4

25.7

36.5

32.1

46.9

42.6

31.1

31.1

34.5

29.2

One can’t but notice that, firstly, the dynamics of this typology in general is distinguished by an enviable stability, and secondly, “the electoral deviations” appearing from time to time are closely correlated with political and economic “deviations”. Thus, “a splash of people’s love” towards the president in September 1998 was explained by the default in Russia, against which the situation in Belarus seemed more stable, and in June 2006, by the inertia of the mobilization effect of the electoral campaign, when the ”bread and circuses” gathered in spring were still sufficient to satisfy many. And the maximum downfall of this love was observed in 2002, when the resources of the mobilization campaign of the second presidential election were almost exhausted, and the dividends from the Russian “offshore oil” had not been paid yet.

Now we can carry out a comparative analysis of the electorates of the present candidates for presidency, or using the glossary of political geography, get acquainted with the ”inhabitants of these territories” (Table 5).

Table 5. Comparative “sociological portrait” of the inhabitants of “Lukashenko Archipelago”, “The Isles of Milinkevich-Kozulin-Gaidukevich” and “Sannikov Land”, %

Sociological characteristics of electorates

Electorate

Lukashenko (48.3)

M-K-G (20.9)

Other (11.4)*

Socio-demographic characteristics:

Gender:
Male

36.2

57.5

55.6

Female

63.8

42.5

44.4

Age:
Under 30

11.9

35.0

26.8

30-50

31.7

41.7

51.9

Over 50

56.4

23.2

21.2

Education:
Primary / incomplete secondary

31.8

14.3

6.7

Secondary

34.7

41.9

43.8

Vocational / higher

33.5

43.9

49.5

Social status:
Private sector employees

14.0

35.1

38.8

Public sector employees

36.0

36.3

40.9

Students

4.6

8.7

8.1

Pensioners

42.2

13.7

7.5

Unemployed / housewives

3.3

6.0

4.6

Type of settlement:
Capital

16.8

22.2

13.7

Region centers

18.4

10.8

23.4

Cities

16.8

23.1

17.9

Towns

17.2

18.0

30.7

Village

30.8

25.8

14.3

Region:
Minsk

16.8

22.2

13.7

Minsk region

11.5

14.8

15.4

Brest region

14.5

12.9

34.4

Vitebsk region

11.9

15.0

9.7

Grodno region

10.0

18.7

7.1

Mogilev region

11.6

12.6

12.5

Gomel region

23.7

3.8

7.2

Language of everyday communication:
Belarusian

2.3

3.5

1.5

Russian

59.3

66.0

76.2

Both Russian and Belarusian

12.8

14.2

7.6

Mixed (“trasyanka”)

25.4

16.4

14.6

Socio-economic characteristics:

Average income per family member in May 2010
Under 270000 roubles (up to MLB=$ 90)

7.9

12.5

7.7

270000-450000 roubles (from MLB to MCB=$ 150)

49.0

38.5

39.4

450000-900000 roubles (from MLB to 2xMCB =$ 300)

38.0

44.6

46.1

Over 900000 roubles (over 2xMCB)

5.0

4.4

6.8

How has your material standing changed for the last three months?
Improved

19.9

7.7

10.1

No change

68.5

57.3

65.5

Worsened

10.1

34.1

24.4

In your opinion, how will the socio-economic situation in Belarus change in the coming years?
It will improve

39.5

10.3

12.8

It won’t change

46.7

51.8

65.5

It will get worse

4.9

28.6

16.1

Which point of view concerning Belarus is closer to you?
We might expect deepening of the crisis and accumulation of the problems connected with it

6.3

32.9

15.2

The crisis has already reached “the bottom” and it is not going to become worse

33.4

36.3

47.3

Belarus has already begun to come out of the crisis

51.4

19.6

28.2

Use the Internet regularly (every day or several times a week):

17.2

41.9

50.3

In your opinion, is the state of affairs in our country generally developing in the right or in the wrong direction?
In the right direction

77.5

18.6

26.7

In the wrong direction

8.8

66.0

52.8

What statement do you agree with?
Belarus needs changes

47.2

82.8

59.0

Belarus does not need changes

37.3

11.8

35.4

Socio-political characteristics:

Did you take part in voting at the Local Council Deputies’ election 2010?
Yes

74.1

53.9

65.5

No

25.8

46.1

34.5

In your opinion, may the declared results of Local Council Deputies’ election be considered trustworthy?
Yes

72.4

30.5

40.4

No

12.6

49.5

37.3

If the presidential election in Belarus were held tomorrow, who would you vote for? (open question)
For A. Lukashenko

89.6

4.8

6.7

For A. Milinkevich, A. Kozulin or S. Gaidukevich

0.1

48.6

1.9

For other alternative candidates

0.1

0.1

8.2

Some people think that after A. Lukashenko’s resignation from presidency life in Belarus will become better, others, on the contrary, that it will become worse. And what do you think?
Life will become better

4.3

45.4

32.6

Life will not change

35.0

35.5

38.0

Life will become worse

45.0

6.5

17.3

Do you feel protected from the possible arbitrariness on the part of the authorities, militia, the State Motor Vehicle Inspectorate, the tax inspectorate, courts and other state bodies?
Definitely, yes

17.4

4.4

3.7

More likely, yes

44.8

23.1

22.2

More likely, no

27.3

42.3

53.8

Definitely, no

4.5

26.1

13.9

Assessing the activity of the civil campaign positively:
“Tell the Truth!”

2.6

11.0

7.1

“Our Home”

3.0

12.8

5.4

What is your assessment of the events of the 6th-7th of April in Kyrgyzstan, which were accompanied by bloodshed and resulted in the change of power in this country?
It is an anticonstitutional coup

31.4

15.9

14.5

It is a popular uprising against the corrupted power

33.8

64.3

62.5

If you had to choose between integration with Russia and European Union membership, what would you choose?
Integration with Russia

53.0

20.6

18.3

EU-membership

20.8

62.2

62.3

Would you like fundamental changes in home and foreign policy of Belarus to happen within the next five years?
Yes

28.9

68.5

50.4

No

36.4

9.8

26.9

It makes no difference to me

20.0

16.0

15.3

* This group does not include 2.3% of those willing to vote for “a different candidate”, as among “the different” there were representatives of the authorities as well

The analysis reveals material differences among the potential electorates of these candidates for presidency. Thus, by socio-demographic characteristics there exist material differences between the first and the second groups depending on gender (among the electors of A. Lukashenko women vividly predominate, and among the electors of his rivals at the previous election, men); depending on age (first group – over 50, and second group – youth and middle-aged citizens); depending on education (first group – low level, second group – high level); depending on type of settlement (first group – rural dwellers, second group – capital dwellers); depending on region (first group – Gomel Region dwellers, second group – Brest Region); depending on the language of everyday use (first group – “trasyanka”-speaking, second group – Russian-speaking). By socio-economic characteristics the real incomes in all the three groups are approximately equal, but the interpretation of one’s own material standing and socio-economic situation on the whole differ much: Lukashenko’s electors have a more optimistic view of the situation than the electors of his opponents; their assessments of the country’s development are almost “mirror”. But the most marginal differences between them are revealed according to socio-political characteristics. Thus, the representatives of the first group have a quite loyal attitude towards the present authorities and therefore uphold the status-quo, whereas those of the second group have a critical attitude and want changes. In the sphere of foreign policy the first group is oriented rather to Russia, while the second group is directed towards the European Union. Though if “we paint the portrait not with a full brush, but use the pointillist technique”, i.e. if we descend to details, we could notice that one third of the representatives of the first group feel themselves rather or definitely unprotected from the arbitrary actions of authorities and consider the spring events in Kyrgyzstan a popular uprising against the corrupted power, whereas 35.4% of representatives of the third group think that “Belarus does not need changes”. This means that among the potential electors of these candidates there are people with different characteristics, therefore it would be more accurate to speak about “dominating” rather than “pure” electoral types.

One of the most differentiating characteristics of these types is willingness or unwillingness of fundamental changes in the domestic and foreign policy: as for the first type 36.4% took a stand against changes and another 20% found it difficult to answer, while in the second group 68.5% spoke for changes. In our opinion, the main reason for such a controversial attitude towards changes in the Belarusian community lies not in fear or total apathy (as is a common belief in “the democratic world”), but rather in ambiguity of the methods of implementation of these changes and results thereof – “life after Lukashenko”. Thus, 22.4% of the respondents believe that after A. Lukashenko’s resignation life in Belarus will become better, 25.2% think it will become worse, and 34.8% suppose life will be the same. If almost three of four Belarusians still do not see in the promised “new life” actual changes to the better, so “what for to strain” (“half a loaf is better than no bread”)? The absence of a comprehensive ”project of another Belarus” (and clear ways of its implementation), which could “shield” “the project of the independent state of Belarus” associated by the majority of the population with A. Lukashenko’s rule, make all attempts to trigger fundamental changes inefficient. Even the civil campaign “Tell the Truth!”, which short before polling seemed to have won itself a name and a halo of the persecuted for the truth, is known only to 12.5%, only 5.1% of respondents have a positive attitude towards it (from 7.1% to 11% even among the electorates of alternative candidates).

In general this picture coincides with the picture we described before the second and the third presidential elections (only the names of opponents change). We should admit that “the portrait” of the new alternative candidates’ electorate proved surprising. First, by many characteristics this group lands somewhere in-between A. Lukashenko’s electorate and that of his opponents 2006, though obviously closer to the second group. This might be explained by the fact that a greater part of the strong opponents of the president have already decided on their choice and continue to hold to it, whereas another part of them and the hesitating part “are trying for size” new alternatives. Second, only their “aggregate electorate” proved significant for analysis, as individually no one of them has fallen outside the sampling error limits.

The general conclusion of this comparative analysis lies in the fact that there is no “electoral continent” in the Belarusian political geography at all. Even the most populated and well-consolidated electorate of the incumbent president does not exceed one half of electors and ”is concentrated” in the definite social groups (that is why it is named “Lukashenko Archipelago”). The electorate of his opponents legitimized by election 2006 is rather small and despite their likemindedness does not form “a single territory” (that is why it is named “The Isles of Milinkevich-Kozulin-Gaidukevich”). As regards the electorates of the new alternative candidates (nowadays there are even more of them than listed in the questionnaire), they evidently form extremely small and still unstable (in terms of their positions) “territories”. “Sannikov Land”, if we mean not a generalized image of electorates of all the new alternative candidates, but an image of the electorate of a concrete persona, in reality proves to be not ”a mysterious northern Atlantis” from a children’s novel, but actually “a desolate territory”. Whether all these “isles and islets” are able to form “a single territory” comparable in size (up to one third of the whole electorate) to the ”territory” of their principal rival will depend, first of all, on the solidarity of the candidates themselves and their ‘project of life after Lukashenko’ which should appeal to Belarusians.