«

»

PROSPECTS OF DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

The analysis given (See Table 1) is based on numerous researches and contacts undertaken by the IISEPS. Its goal is rendering assistance to all concerned agents of political influence in Belarus in determining and nominating a single candidate for democratic forces at the next presidential election.

Table 1. “Matrix of acceptance”

Potential presidential candidates

Political agents of influence

Electorate (I)*

Democratic forces (IV)

Nomenclature (III)

Russia (II)

West (V)

Rank of acceptance

А. Voitovich

+

++

+++

+++

+++

I

S. Kalyakin

+

++

+

++

V

А. Klimov

++

+

– – –

– –

+

IX

V. Kolos

+

+

0

– –

++

VIII

А. Lebedko

+

++

+++

VI

V. Leonov

+

+

++

++

+

III-IV

А. Milinkevich

+

+

0

0

++

VII

N. Statkevich

+

– – –

– – –

+

X

V. Frolov

+

+

++

++

++

II

А. Yaroshuk

+

+

++

++

+

III-IV

* Ranks of political agents of influence in Belarus are given in brackets

    • Signs +++, ++, +, 0, –, – –, – – – mean respectively: “to a great extent acceptable”, “rather acceptable”, “to a certain extent acceptable”, “fairly unacceptable” and “to a great extent unacceptable”.

 

    • It considers prospects of potential candidates for the democratic forces only. The nomenclature scenario (by the way, this is apparently the most probable scenario as it may incorporate the interests of nomenclature, Russia and A. Lukashenko’s immediate circle) as well as the scenarios of the potential candidates like S. Gaidukevich, A. Kozulin or P. Kravchenko unlikely to be supported by democratic forces aren’t considered here.

 

    • As one can see, the candidates offered are to a different extent acceptable for different political agents: electorate’s hero may appear nomenclature’s outsider and a minion of the West will not be necessarily supported by Russia. The position of the very political entities greatly influences the degree of candidate’s acceptability.

 

    • The “Matrix” is based on the analysis of relations between major political agents and doesn’t take into account psychological peculiarities of potential candidates (like charisma, determination, teamwork abilities, etc.) which may turn even more crucial than a logical scheme during a real election campaign.

 

The situation is very flexible as the process of determining and nominating a single candidate for democratic forces is still far from being accomplished and some candidates will be nominated irregardless collective decisions. What’s more, feasible resources (including the electoral ones) on which they will rely are not yet apparent. This is why the configuration of the “matrix of acceptance” still may change.