Many still remember the notorious report on struggle against corruptibility delivered by A. Lukashenko early 1994 at the session of the Supreme Council. The ‘most corrupted’ official and Speaker of the Parliament S. Shushkevch who, according to A. Lukashenko, ‘stole two kilos of nails’ was condemned and dismissed while the troubled time of perestroika threw to the very top a previously unknown director of a declining state-run farm who became the first president of Belarus. Many believed that thievish officials ‘exposed’ in the report would pay the penalty. However, the only victim appeared S. Shushkevich who so unwisely passed the power to that same nomenclature, dominance of which provoked the perestroika. Most public figures mentioned in the anti-corruptibility report promptly ran under the flag of the new power and preserved their position in the society.

Corruptibility has remained an integral part of social life to a great extent determining the image of this country. At least, this is the opinion of 81.4% of respondents who say that corruptibility prospers in Belarus (only 6.8% said there is none), 37.1% of them personally faced corruption (every three respondents out of four – many times).

Corruptibility would seem to hinder all people irregardless their political standpoints, yet not in Belarus! According to the analysis, people’s attitude to A. Lukashenko greatly influences their attitude to corruption. Table 1 reveals that those respondents who stated occurrence of corruption cases in the country take A. Lukashenko much more negatively than those who deny corruption and have never faced it. To put it differently, corruptibility appears very selective in this country: it is a nuisance for A. Lukashenko’s opponents while it doesn’t bother his supporters!

Table 1. Attitude to A. Lukashenko of those respondents who claim occurrence of corruption in Belarus and have faced it and those who deny corruption and have never faced it, %

Variant of answer

Claim occurrence of corruptibility and have faced it

Deny corruption and have never faced it

At the election of September 2001 voted for:
A. Lukashenko



At the referendum of October 17, 2004 voted:
For A. Lukashenko’s participation in the election and for Constitution amendment



Against A. Lukashenko’s participation in the election and against Constitution amendment



Attitude to A. Lukashenko’s life presidency:
Totally/rather positive



Rather/totally negative



If the presidential election takes place tomorrow, for whom would you vote? (open question)
For A. Lukashenko



If you knew a candidate able to compete with A. Lukashenko at the next presidential election, whom would you vote for?
For such a candidate



For A. Lukashenko



Most likely, A. Lukashenko’s convinced electorate have never faced corruption as it has no concern in this, because, as the socio-demographic analysis of this group shows, its representatives are mainly aged and poorly educated townspeople and villagers with incomes much below average. On the contrary, those who pointed to country’s corruptibility are much younger and better educated city-dwellers with higher incomes. Obviously, they know about corruption from personal experience.

It should be noted that the state system of Belarus is basically built on unlimited power of officialdom. This matter is a good soil for corruption! This is why, under the current conditions, corruptibility is an inherent element of the governmental activity and powers of bureaucrats. If this is A. Lukashenko who personally appoints (or gives consent to appoint) officials for all key positions in the state machinery, who is then responsible for corruptibility in the country?