WHO TRIED TO BLOW UP BELARUSIAN STABILITY?

On the night from July, 3 to July, 4 during the celebrating of the Independence Day in Minsk an explosion took place in the very center of the festive gathering in the streets. Frankly speaking, it is not an ordinary event for the country which officially positions itself as “an island of stability”. That is why one should not be surprised that for some period of time it became topic number one not only in the state and non-governmental mass media, but also for discussing in the society. The data of Table 1 confirm what has been mentioned above. Such a high level of familiarity one can observe not so often.

Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question: “During the celebrating of the Independence Day in Minsk an explosion occurred. Have you heard about it?”

The official version of the explosion which was made public already the next day ascribed the authorship to a hooligan on his own. Later A. Lukashenko himself and the state mass media more than once dropped hints directed against the opposition; however those were only hints, and the version primarily made public remained in essence the only one. In contrast to the officials, experts (the independent ones in the first place) turned out to be much more inventive and for a very short period of time were able to offer a whole pack of hypotheses thereby having demonstrated their creativity. All variants of their collective creative work which could be most commonly encountered are presented in the answers to the question of Table 2.

Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question: “Who, in your opinion, has organized the explosion?”

The public opinion by virtue of its nature does not possess the level of creativity available for the experts, that is why distribution of answers to the question “Who, in your opinion, has organized the explosion?” given in Table 2 reflects more likely the media popularity of the variants and political bias of the respondents.

Following this logic only the official version of what had happened could find itself on the top of the list, winning by a head. This is what we are actually observing. It is clear, that opposition disposed respondents having familiarized themselves with the offered list of versions quite often opted for the variant of answer which provided for participation of the authorities in the explosion. Their political opponents acted the other way round.

Data of Table 3 confirm the above mentioned conclusion. Let us consider the first four versions, because the number of answers to the rest of them is smaller than the margin of error, which considerably lowers reliability.

As it was expected, the official version was in the first place supported by those who trust the head of the Belarusian state; the same people ascribed the authorship of the explosion to the opposition six times more often. Their political opponents found to it an asymmetrical and a no less decent answer.

Table 3. Distribution of answers to the question: “Who, in your opinion, has organized the explosion?” depending on age, level of education and trust to A. Lukashenko, %

As it can be seen, the official version enjoys the record popularity among elderly people and people with primary education. They are prone to the influence of the state propaganda most of all, and the answers to the question about the supposed organizers of the explosion showed it once again.