«

»

ENDURING ECHO OF CHERNOBYL

Quite recently Belarus commemorated twentieth anniversary of the catastrophe at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. They have been speaking much, on the top level including, about the measures taken for the most efficient post-disaster cleanup. It was said there are no grounds for concern, “emotions should be left in the past”, etc. In other words, the authorities do their best to diminish importance of the Chernobyl problem. This is manifested in canceling of benefits for people from contaminated areas, cutting down of health-improvement programs for children from contaminated areas, in restoring of agricultural production on a great part of these areas (by the way, foodstuffs produced here are mixed with other ones and distributed around all territory of Belarus), in encouraging of re-settlers to come back to their houses in contaminated areas. In fact, the problem of Chernobyl has been lately taken off the official agenda.

Have Belarusians forgotten the Chernobyl tragedy? Have they taken it out from their personal agendas? How do they assess actions of the authorities in this regards?

As the research has revealed, 41% of respondents feel anxiety and another 41% – uneasiness about the effects of the Chernobyl catastrophe and only 16.2% say they are “not much concerned about this.” These aren’t mere words speaking about momentary mood (which often happens during opinion polls) but their true attitude. Thus, after the catastrophe almost every third citizen decreased or stopped consuming products which can accumulate radioactive elements (mushrooms, wood berries, meat broths from cattle bones, etc.). More than 85% of respondents say that their health and health of their relatives aggravated after the Chernobyl catastrophe.

The majority is very critical about actions of the authorities on post-disaster cleanup. Only 28.3% of respondents agree that any crops planted at the territories which suffered from the Chernobyl catastrophe can be used for food provided there’s strict control and technology observation. A third of the polled says that only some crops can be used even under strict control and technology observation while 35.3% are convinced that no crops from these areas can be used for food. Furthermore, almost 69% of respondents don’t agree with cancellation of benefits for people from contaminated areas so as to save funds for the state budget (this figure is manifold higher than the number of the people receiving such benefits). Also, only 23.8% support president’s proposal “to take under strict state control health-improving trips of children from contaminated areas on the grounds that children come back after those trips with a changed outlook.” More than 53% of the polled spoke out in the opposite on this issue. In the opinion of a third of respondents, Belarusian NGO’s (like For Children of Chernobyl and other) made the greatest contribution into organization of health-improving trips for the children from contaminated areas. Another third of respondents think that this is mainly the work of foreign countries (first of all, Germany). Less than a quarter of respondents pointed out to contribution of the Belarusian authorities. It is no wonder as well that only 17.9% are totally satisfied with post-disaster cleanup carried by the Belarusian authorities while over 40% of the polled are satisfied partially and another third are totally dissatisfied with it.

As the analysis shows, the degree of satisfaction with actions of authorities on post-disaster cleanup is getting a strong ground for Belarusians to re-assess social and political situation in the country (See Table 1).

Table 1. “Sociological portraits” of Belarusians depending on their degree of content with how Belarusian authorities solve problems of post-disaster cleanup, %*

Sociological characteristics

Degree of content with actions of authorities

Totally satisfied

Partially satisfied

Not satisfied

Attitude to president’s proposal to take health-improving trips of children from contaminated areas to foreign countries under a strict state control:
I support this proposal

56.0

24.3

9.4

This doesn’t matter to me

19.7

16.8

15.7

I don’t support this proposal

20.2

52.8

73.4

For whom did you vote at the presidential election of 2001?
For A. Lukashenko

68.0

56.3

33.3

For V. Goncharik

2.6

8.8

19.3

For S. Gaidukevich

6.1

5.2

9.0

Didn’t come to voting

12.9

15.2

18.4

Against all

4.1

5.1

10.3

How did you vote at the referendum of 2004?
For Constitution amendment

71.5

59.2

30.6

Against Constitution amendment

11.4

19.9

40.8

Didn’t come to voting

14.6

15.2

21.1

Refused to say how he/she voted

1.5

2.8

4.2

Do you trust the president?
Yes

89.4

64.6

31.9

No

8.5

23.0

55.0

Have you suffered an offence from authorities for the past three years?
No

83.2

70.2

46.3

Yes, once

3.2

10.0

12.9

Yes, several times

8.2

11.6

23.8

Yes, many times

4.4

4.9

14.1

Do you place yourself in the opposition to the current power?
Yes

10.0

10.6

32.9

No

88.2

81.8

57.1

Was the recent presidential election free and fair?
Yes

90.8

70.8

37.0

No

6.4

16.8

54.4

For whom did you vote at the presidential election of 2006?
For A. Lukashenko

81.2

61.6

31.8

For S. Gaidukevich

3.9

4.6

5.0

For A. Milinkevich

2.8

11.7

28.8

For A. Kozulin

2.0

5.6

9.0

Do you think the election results announced by the Central Election Commission were true or falsified?
Definitely/rather true

91.6

77.2

43.0

Rather/definitely falsified

7.4

18.6

51.8

Attitude to mass actions of protest against falsification of election results:
Approve

8.1

16.1

42.4

Disapprove

77.1

63.3

34.1

I’m not concerned about this

12.2

14.9

17.3

In your opinion, is Alexander Lukashenko, who was given office for the third consecutive term, a legitimate president of Belarus?
Yes

86.3

72.4

42.3

No

10.7

18.0

45.0

Readiness to participation in rallies so as to express personal opinion:
Participated

1.1

4.4

9.8

Ready to participate

6.8

11.6

22.4

Not going to participate

91.7

80.1

63.8

Attitude to EU and US sanctions against the Belarusian authorities:
This is right

5.3

8.0

32.0

This is wrong

63.9

66.6

38.4

I’m not concerned about this

25.7

19.5

22.9

If you were to choose between integration with Russia and accession to the EU, you would choose:
Integration with Russia

71.7

59.7

39.8

Accession to the EU

23.2

29.0

44.1

* Table is read down

As one can see from these data, the echo of Chernobyl catastrophe will still for a long influence lives, thoughts and feelings of millions of Belarusians. How and when will it echo?..