«

»

ATTITUDE TO VISA SANCTIONS VS. POLITICAL FRAMES OF MIND

Referendum of 2004 in Belarus, namely the “peculiar procedure” of how it was carried, caused resentment in the European Union as well as generated discussion of the European policy towards Belarus, that same stick and the carrot that would in the best way contribute to positive changes in the country. Although, in accordance with Belarusian state-run mass media, Europe is plotting a kind of “Drang nach Osten -2” (that is the title of an article published in Sovetskaya Belorussia) against Belarus, the notorious stick is so far confined to introduction of visa sanctions against several Belarusian officials: in summer of 2004 the EU announced entrance ban to General Prosecutor V. Sheiman (current Chief of Presidential Administration), Minister of Sport and Tourism Y. Sivakov, Interior Minister V. Naumov and Commander of Internal Security Troops Brigade of the Internal Ministry D. Pavlichenko. In all four cases, the sanctions were provoked by assumed engagement of these officials in disappearances of noted public figures of Belarus.

After the October’04 referendum, two more persons were included in the no-entry list as the persons “directly involved in rigging the election and in violent infringement of human rights when using force during peaceful demonstrations.” These are L. Ermoshina, Chairman of the Central Election Commission, and Y. Podobed, Minsk Riot Squad Chief.

Those decisions were, first of all, addressed to the Belarusian establishment as penalty to particular officials and officers for committed or assumed actions and as a notice to all the other of that unlawful acts will be penalized. Also, visa sanctions were to demonstrate to the Belarusian society that the united Europe will not remain indifferent to human rights violations and inequities committed in Belarus and will go beyond verbal condemnation. Have this message reached the addressee and how was it taken by the addressee? Tables 1 and 2 answer these questions.

Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question “Have you heard that the EU has introduced visa ban for several Belarusian top-level officials?”

Variant of answer

%

No

59.8

Yes

39.6

Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question “Do you know why the EU has introduced visa ban for these Belarusian officials?”

Variant of answer

%

No

68.5

Yes

22.4

Belarusian state-run media reported about EU visa sanctions, yet accompanied that information with indignant commentaries about “double standards”, “violation of international law”, “interference into home affairs”, etc. Independent Belarusian editions gave pretty different commentaries on the issue of EU decision of no-entry to a number of Belarusian officials. The number of respondents aware of those decisions was pretty large (nearly 40%), while those who know the underlying causes appeared almost twice less.

Such a gap is a peculiar feature of mass communication: while processing the information most people do not remember interpretations and explanations (neither official, nor alternative) and have only facts stored in the mind.

As it goes from Table 1, almost 60% of respondents learnt about the visa ban during the very polling and 68% of respondents could only guess what the reason was. In the situation of informational gap, people use to take decisions based on their dispositions and preferences. In particular, this is what expounds for their answers to the question of Table 3.

Table 3. Distribution of answers to the question “What is your attitude to this ban?”

Variant of answer

%

Negative

21.5

Indifferent

36.1

Positive

17.0

Thus, 38.5% of respondents gave clear-cut answers to the question of Table 3. Compared with the data of Table 2, at least 16.1% of respondents spoke out their opinions even unaware of the real reasons of EU decision. This is a bright example of the frame of mind use: in negative answers – “that same West always brings us troubles”, in positive answers – “whatever Europeans do to our authorities, this is right and will bring good.” Negative estimate can also be motivated by a less political frame of mind: “All people are equal. If some are banned an entry, some day I can also be banned an entry for any obscure reason.”

As we can see, in general the balance of estimates is negative, yet insignificantly. However, the number of respondents who stated their indifferent attitude is almost equal to the total number of supporters and opponents. Refusal to give an answer most likely demonstrates the lack of political competence (“they argue with one another and it’s hard to say what it’s all about”), while indifference is demonstration of a certain political stand (“they didn’t ban my going abroad, so let them scrape out to whom this relates.”)

In our latest opinion poll, we asked the question about attitude to the other large-scale EU drafts pertaining to Belarus that were considered in the European Parliament during the polling period. (See Table 4).

Table 4. Distribution of answers to the question “The European Parliament has been considering the draft Program of Actions on Democratization in Belarus. In particular, it provides for increasing the pressure on the official authorities of Belarus and rending assistance to the civic society. If the Program passes, how do you think it will influence the situation in Belarus?”

Variant of answer

%

In no way

45.8

Positively

31.4

Negatively

21.5

At first sight, the question of Table 4 pertains more to politics than the one in Table 3: in the first case, this is “pressure on the authorities” and “assistance to civic society” and in the second – future of officials. Upon French sociologist P. Bourdieu, these are political questions usually that respondents evade the most. In this case, the situation is the opposite. This pretended controversy can be explained by the fact that the question in Table 3 is political more in its nature and this is obvious for respondents even if they don’t know real reasons of why the officials were imposed entry ban to Europe. Also, noteworthy is the reverse ratio of positive and negative estimates in Tables 3 and 4: In table 4, those who expect positive consequences following the EU decisions are by 10 points more than those who expect negative consequences.

Why do similar questions bear reverse ratio of answers? Perhaps, the question of Table 3 contains human aspect so that some respondents might sympathize with the officials, some might see injustice that can as well concern them, etc. Naturally, it is much more difficult to feel sorry for some abstract “official authorities” even when they are “put pressure on”.

Frame of mind is crucial in the answers to the question of Table 4. Thus, people might have read about visa bans in the press and watched on TV, but very small amount of Belarusians is introduced to the information about the drafts of the European Parliament. Hence, most respondents gave answers based on what they feel about this. What’s more, this estimated feeling demonstrates pro-European disposition of almost one third of respondents.

During the polling, respondents were also asked about their attitude to the statement of US president during his visit in Slovakia. (See Table 5).

Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question “What is your attitude to the statement US President G. Bush made recently in Bratislava before his meeting with Russia’s President V. Putin on that “one day the citizens of Belarus will be proud to live in a democratic country”?

Variant of answer

%

Positive

35.1

Indifferent

40.8

Negative

23.1

The results of this table are similar to the Table 4 with a slight superiority of positive answers. This is why the comments on Table 4 can be equally applied to Table 5 with the only thing to be added. Possible EU decisions comprise “pressure on the official authorities” of Belarus while the statement of US president taken alone doesn’t contain any suggestion of an external action. In other words, the respondents with a clear-cut political frame of mind “understood” what G. Bush meant, and they interpreted his words accordingly. By the way, they all did this in the same way: according to the US president, the current Belarusian authorities and democracy are incompatible. Some condemned this interpretation of G. Bush and the other approved. There are still the third who don’t have a rigid frame of mind and therefore have taken the words of the American leader like they were said. Generally, who minds against democracy in Belarus? Perhaps, due to such respondents the estimate of G. Bush’s statement in Table 5 appeared slightly higher than the estimate of EU plans in Table 4.