«

»

HUSH IS DISCREDITING OF AUTHORITIES

Arrest, trial and heavy sentence to former Minister of External Economic Relations of Belarus Mikhail Marinich drew close attention of the foreign community. The European Union, Council of Europe and the USA spoke out in defense of the ex-minister. Within the past weeks, when M. Marinich’s health has sharply aggravated, influential foreign organizations and human rights centers every day address the authorities to release the prisoner from jail. Western political elites have come to agreement that the Case of M. Marinich has political grounds. Representatives of the Belarusian elite stick to the same viewpoint: A year ago over 80% of public and private sector employees stated that the ex-minister was detained for his being a political opponent to the official powers.

Regarding common voters, their awareness of the Case of M. Marinich looks pretty different: over half of respondents said they knew nothing of him and one third of respondents pointed out to the political cause of conviction. (See Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question “Ex-minister, ambassador and presidential candidate M. Marinich was arrested and convicted last year. Various opinions about the cause of his conviction were spoken out. Which one do you agree with?”

Variant of answer

%

I don’t know anything about this case

53.5

М. Marinich didn’t commit any crimes he was convicted of; his conviction is a reprisal of authorities against the political opponent

20.3

М. Marinich was convicted, as the sentence read, of stealing the PC’s given to him into temporary use by US embassy

13.1

If analyzing the answers of those 46.5% (100% – 53.5%) of respondents aware of the case, over 60% of them pointed out to the version of political reprisal. In other words, awareness directly influences respondent’s estimates (obviously, not in the favor of the authorities) as well as trust or distrust to the president and security agencies. (See Table 2).

Table 2. Attitude to M. Marinich’s conviction depending on trust to the president and agencies, %*

Variant of answer

Conviction of M. Marinich is a reprisal of the authorities against the political opponent (20.3)

M. Marinich was convicted of stealing PC’s (13.1)

Trust the president

7.6

18.9

Distrust the president

43.4

8.4

Trust the court

11.9

15.9

Distrust the court

32.3

11.3

Trust the militia

10.2

18.3

Distrust the militia

28.7

11.4

Trust KGB

9.9

19.9

Distrust KGB

34.2

10.9

* Table is read across

A year ago, we could find similar connection between respondents’ awareness and estimates in relation to the report of Council of Europe’s rapporteur on disappearances in Belarus Christos Pourgourides. Then, 27.1% of the polled said they heard about the report and 54.0% of them pointed out to political cause of those disappearances (27.5% – out of those 71.8% who didn’t hear about the report). In general, the opinion of respondents on the reasons hasn’t changed much for the past year: majority of respondents, over one third, said those disappearances had political grounds. (See Table 3).

Table 3. Distribution of answers to the question “In your opinion, what are the true reasons of disappearances of Y. Zakharenko, V. Gonchar, A. Krasovsky and D. Zavadsky?”, %

Variant of answer

03’04

03’05

Political: they stood out with criticism of authorities

34.6

36.8

Criminal: they had relations with criminals

14.6

14.5

Perhaps, they left the country themselves and not disappeared

18.6

13.7

Heard nothing about this

16.0

15.4

Other causes

0.8

Talking about investigation of the cases of disappeared, most experts note that it will follow right away after dismissal of current authorities. A similar case took place some time earlier in Chili. In Ukraine, within several years law-enforcement bodies couldn’t solve the murder case of journalist G. Gongadze. Now that a new president came to power, the investigation is moving and these are officers of Ukrainian special services who now give evidences on the case. The report of Ch. Pourgourides as well contains data that indicates engagement of top Belarusian officials into disappearances of noted Belarusian opposition politicians. The authorities deny this version, yet fail to explain what happened to the disappeared. Perhaps, this ambiguity is a main reason why nearly half of respondents answered in the positive to the question on officials’ involvement in the disappearances.

In this case, interdependence between trust/distrust to the president and security agencies and answers on officials’ involvement in disappearances is more explicit. (See Table 4).

Table 4. Attitude to possible involvement of top Belarusian officials in disappearances of opposition politicians depending on trust to the president and agencies, %*

Variant of answer

Believe in involvement of top Belarusian officials into disappearances of opposition politicians (47.1)

Don’t believe in involvement of top Belarusian officials into disappearances of opposition politicians (49.9)

Trust the president

24.4

72.6

Distrust the president

80.5

17.0

Trust the court

33.4

63.3

Distrust the court

64.8

33.3

Trust the militia

30.0

61.8

Distrust the militia

61.1

36.3

Trust KGB

32.1

65.4

Distrust KGB

65.4

32.9

* Table is read across

Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question “Are you satisfied with how Belarusian authorities investigated the cases of disappearances?”

Variant of answer

%

Rather dissatisfied

29.1

To a certain extent dissatisfied

10.1

To a certain extent satisfied

12.8

Rather satisfied

9.2

In other words, distrust to government agencies means that the Belarusians admit possibility of a grave violation of the law committed by representatives of those agencies. Quite naturally, those committing crime are mostly concerned to conceal the truth. As regards the feeling of justice, whatever critical is the attitude to its expression, it is deeply inherent in the mass thinking of the Belarusians. This is why twice as many respondents (40%) are dissatisfied with the investigation of disappearances as those satisfied. (See Table 5).