«

»

THE INCOMES THEY RECEIVE IN BELARUS

As the state-run mass media induce, choice of the “right economic course” which will not change ensures that common Belarusians will have good incomes providing worthy living, especially comparing to the other countries of the former USSR.

Is this true? To remind, the average wages in 1990 was 250 Soviet rubles. For this money, one could buy 1785 loafs of brown bread (14 kopeks per loaf), or 56 kg of first-rate pork meat at the market (4.5 rubles per 1 kg), or 60 bottles of Extra vodka (4.12 rubles per bottle). These are the “meal and glass of vodka” for which the Belarusians “sold their conscience”.

What do we have nowadays? In June of 2005, according to the official data, the average wages in the country made up 476.400 BYR. For this money, one can buy 851 loafs of brown bread (560 BYR per loaf), 47 kg of the first-rate pork meat (in average, 10000 BYR per 1 kg since the prices vary from 8500 BYR for 1 kg of blade rib roast to 15000 BYR for 1 kg of boneless neck) or 92 bottles of vodka White Russia (produced by the Minsk vodka distillery Kristall, 5200 BYR per bottle). Thus, in relation to vodka, we go ahead of the entire planet and have exceeded the purchasing capacity of the modest 1990. However, we are to make a long way to achieve its level in the amount of pork meat.

What about the neighbors? Employees in the countries which didn’t try to come back to state allocation and socialist-like wage leveling receive several times more. Thus, average wages in Belarus presently makes slightly over $200 while in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia it is twofold-threefold higher. Even in Russia in which half-accomplished reforming turned into economy criminalization, average wages is higher. Perhaps, this is why Russia-Belarus Union’s supporters are as many in Belarus.

Several years ago A. Lukashenko publicly stated that the government finally built a good payroll system which would ensure welfare and prosperity to every citizen. As it turned out, the core of the “new system” was exclusion of top officials from the general schedule of rates. Since then their wages were established by A. Lukashenko personally. Since the wages of officials and employees aren’t anymore interlinked, they can increase at a different rate: for the first – depending on price growth and for power-retention (for example, to ensure right election results) and for the second – to avert social burst because of hard living. It’s all like under J. Stalin. They even brought back payments in envelopes for the necessary people, as academician A. Voitovich witnesses. However, previously they paid in Soviet currency and now – obviously in dollars since the Belarusian ruble has low nominal value and decent amount will fit in a bag rather than an envelope.

The incomes of top officials were recently published by the president himself. As it turned out, minister’s monthly wages make $800 (up to $1000 with different sort of bonuses). A. Lukashenko himself allegedly has $1000 to $1100 a month without bonus money. Even through we hardly believe this, such amounts already outrun substantially the incomes of the majority of citizens.

People well understand this. According to the results of the nation opinion poll conducted with assistance of IISEPS and Pontis Foundation in May of 2005, those who benefit from A. Lukashenko’s presidency are, in the opinion of respondents, State machinery representatives, i.e. presidential employees, Parliament deputies and enterprise and organization boards. (See Table 1). Also, these are military men and pensioners who don’t earn their living but who are maintained from the state budget and, which is the most important, actively support the current power.

 

Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question “For the years of A. Lukashenko’s presidency the state of some people in Belarus has improved and of others, on the contrary, aggravated while nothing has changed for yet another. How has the state of the following social groups in Belarus changed?”, %

Social groups

Improved

Hasn’t change

Aggravated

Presidential employees

72.1

12.2

1.8

Employees of the law-enforcement bodies

65.0

20.5

3.0

Deputies of the National Assembly

59.6

18.7

2.0

Directors of state enterprises, collective farms

54.1

22.3

9.2

Military men

51.5

25.8

5.4

Pensioners

48.7

24.7

20.3

Entrepreneurs

34.6

20.1

28.9

Youth

33.4

30.9

26.0

The people like you

28.8

41.4

25.9

Journalists

24.1

30.3

17.7

Opposition politicians

22.0

22.0

28.4

As regards other social groups presented in Table 1, respondents almost equally pointed out to improvement or aggravation of their state. Main population categories like workers, collective farmers, doctors, teachers, etc. fell mostly into the same group “The people like me.” Improvement of their state is insignificant, as respondents say.

Meanwhile, representatives of governmental bodies, according to respondents, live better than they deserve. This is proved in the nation opinion poll conducted by IISEPS in November of 2004. (See Table 2).

Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question “Does living standard of the following population groups correspond to their deserts?”, %

Variant of answer

Live better than deserve

Live like they deserve

Live worse than deserve

Presidential employees

69.2

29.4

1.2

Deputies of the National Assembly

64.0

34.3

1.3

Employees of the law-enforcement bodies

50.9

42.2

6.6

Opposition politicians

48.3

43.6

7.5

Directors of state enterprises, collective farms

42.0

48.1

9.9

Entrepreneurs

28.9

55.7

15.2

Journalists

14.6

66.1

19.0

Military men

13.6

56.0

30.1

Starting his first term, A. Lukashenko promised in public to bring down prices and inflation and at the same time take wages and pensions to the world level. Most citizens don’t know this world level till today. However, country’s inability to achieve the level of 1990 reveals huge distance from promises to accomplishment. Promising is not enough, they should know how to achieve the promised!

It is soon the time to choose. It is vital to choose the president who will not only give promises, or at least who will be able to quit timely if he fails to redeem a promise…