A marked difference in the opinions of the elite and average voters is axiomatic in any country. To which extent does this statement apply to Belarus? First, we should like to compare the estimates given by public opinion leaders and experts, on the one hand, and common citizens, on the other, on general issues.
As it goes from the results of the IISEPS’ nation opinion poll (September 2003), the events that have aroused most interest for the past three months are: integration with Russia (16.2%), entertainment and sport events (12.8%) and changes in state machinery (6.7%). However, most respondents (18.5%) said to have no events remaining in their memory. Some might interpret those figures as a proof to notorious ‘apathy towards living’ of an average Belarusian. Others would on the contrary say this proves the theory of atomization in the modern society when it is considered normal for a person to show concern in the events that directly influence his life. Yet, much more noteworthy is the fact that 41% of the elite remember no interesting events to have happened in the past quarter (they are a half in the public sector) (See Table 1).
Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question “Which social events of the past three months have generated your strongest interest?”, % (open question, more than one answer is possible)
| Variant of answer |
Leaders and experts
|
Among them:
|
|
|
Public sector employees
|
Private sector employees
|
||
| No events have remained in the memory |
41
|
50
|
34
|
| Putin – Lukashenko talks in Yalta and Sochi |
20
|
22
|
18
|
| Conflict between the Kremlin and Minsk |
13
|
–
|
27
|
| Pressure on independent mass media |
12
|
7
|
17
|
| Pressure on NGO |
12
|
3
|
20
|
| Struggle against small retail trade |
5
|
–
|
10
|
| Formation of the coalition of five parties |
5
|
–
|
10
|
| Defeat of the Belarusian football team |
3
|
–
|
7
|
| Vacation |
2
|
–
|
3
|
| Preparation to Dozhynki festival |
2
|
3
|
–
|
| Cancellation of benefits |
2
|
–
|
3
|
| Arrests of professors |
2
|
–
|
3
|
| Russia-Belarus Parliamentary Assembly in Mogilev |
2
|
3
|
–
|
| Decision of Gazprom to rise prices |
2
|
–
|
3
|
| Adoption of the law on mass actions |
2
|
–
|
3
|
This fact can be accounted for in two ways: either our living is rather eventless or state officials have got so accustomed to all kinds of shocks that the threshold of their perception has gone sharply up and it is only a kind of an extraordinary staggerer that can surprise them now. The events that stimulated at least certain interest with the elite were those pertaining to Russia-Belarus relations. About 20% of respondents from both public and private sectors mentioned the talks of presidents V. Putin and A. Lukashenko in Yalta and Sochi and 27% of the latter pointed out to the conflict in Minsk-Moscow relations. State officials have apparently been instructed to disregard the conflict due to their position. In fact, their imperturbability cannot but surprise. Besides the presidential talks, experts from the public sector could also remember pressure over independent mass media and NGOs (among experts from the private sector those events were mentioned by 17% and 20% of respondents respectively), cancellation of some benefits and the session of Russia-Belarus Parliamentary Assembly in Mogilev.
The Belarusian elite is often accused of being cut off from the problems of ‘a common man’ and focused excessively at its personal interests that are purely corporative. Are these reproaches grounded? The citizens claim that the problems to be urgently solved are social and economic problems: low standard of living (40.7%), economic crisis (29.9%), inflation, rising prices and rising tariffs for municipal service (22.2%) and unemployment (18.9%). Only 11.7% are concerned about the development of democracy and civil society. This shouldn’t be wondered. Despite inflation of the image of ‘prospering Belarus’, real state of millions of Belarusians sharply contrasts with this propaganda myth. But it’s quite another matter that our citizens, unfortunately, still don’t see a close link between the development of democracy and civil society and the standard of well-being. But the elite especially that from the private sector, does understand this point (See Table 2).
Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question “In your opinion, which acute home problems should be solved in the first place in Belarus?”, % (open question, more than one answer is possible)
| Variant of answer |
Leaders and experts
|
Among them:
|
|
|
Public sector employees
|
Private sector employees
|
||
| Reforming economics |
54
|
43
|
67
|
| Democratizing the country |
26
|
10
|
43
|
| Reforming the system of government |
26
|
27
|
27
|
| Putting end to abuse of discretion on the part of supervisory bodies |
20
|
23
|
10
|
| Reducing taxes |
18
|
40
|
3
|
| Increasing the standard of living |
8
|
13
|
3
|
| Holding free and fair election |
5
|
3
|
10
|
| Defending sovereignty |
2
|
–
|
3
|
Another point of considerable interest is the difference of priorities among representatives of the public sector and the private sector. Almost a quarter of public sector employees pointed out to the necessity to stop abuse of discretion on the part of supervisory bodies (their colleagues from the private sector don’t regard this problem as an acute one). Many of them have apparently been inspected. Furthermore, state officials are much more concerned about tax reduction while their colleagues in the private sector don’t show such a deep interest in the issue as it is an integral part of the economics reforming. Disappointing is a weak attention to free and fair elections that are in fact a generally recognized a road to democratization and economic renovation.
Now we should like to address how leaders and general public estimate political problems. The difference appears to be more noticeable. While speaking about fulfillment by president of his election pledges, the elite shows greater degree of demand (See Table 3).
Table 3. Distribution of answers to the question “It has been already two years since A. Lukashenko’s re-election as the president of state. How would you estimate his fulfillment of the election pledges by the 5-point scale?”, % (1 point – very poor, 5 points – excellent)
| Variant of answer |
Nation opinion poll
|
Leaders and experts
|
Among them:
|
|
|
Public sector employees
|
Private sector employees
|
|||
| 1 |
16.8
|
41
|
37
|
47
|
| 2 |
25.9
|
43
|
37
|
47
|
| 3 |
32.5
|
11
|
20
|
3
|
| 4 |
18.3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
| 5 |
5.7
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
| In average |
2.7
|
1.8
|
1.9
|
1.6
|
This exactingness is totally accountable. President A. Lukashenko carries inherently anti-elite policy strongly disliking the very fact of belonging to the establishment. Claims of private sector employees to A. Lukashenko are most often the matter of values while dissatisfaction of state officials is inflated by unfulfilled expectations of the promised economic liberalization that would give them new chances and opportunities.
Such low estimate of presidential activity’s outcome is a major cause why the elite is so strongly willing to see someone else at this post (See Table 4).
Table 4. Distribution of answers to the question “Do you think that in general A. Lukashenko well governed the country and he should be re-elected the president at the next election or another candidate should take this post and receive an opportunity to do this better than him?”, %
| Variant of answer |
Nation opinion poll
|
Leaders and experts
|
Among them:
|
|
|
Public sector employees
|
Private sector employees
|
|||
| Another candidate should take this post |
61
|
87
|
80
|
97
|
| Re-elect A. Lukashenko |
28.3
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
Nearly unanimous aversion on the part of the elite of A. Lukashenko’s re-election at the coming election is also caused by the fact that the current governing pattern deprives all those not members of the ruling clan an opportunity of professional advancement. As regards the population, economic grounds it gives first priority to turn fully sufficient.
So far, A. Lukashenko has little chances to amend the Constitution by referendum. Only 22.6% of respondents are ready to cast their votes for amending the fundamental law so that the president can be elected for the third term while 51.8% take the opposite stand. Taking into account the votes of those who haven’t yet made up their minds (21.7%) on the issue, amendment of the Constitution looks unreal.
Meanwhile, the elite, in particular from the public sector, is re-estimating the degree of citizens’ likeness of the current head of state (See Table 5).
Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question “If there is a referendum on amendment of the Belarusian Constitution so that A. Lukashenko could be re-elected president (under the current Constitution, he cannot be re-elected for the third consecutive term), how do you think would most citizens vote?”, %
| Variant of answer |
Leaders and experts
|
Among them:
|
|
|
Public sector employees
|
Private sector employees
|
||
| Would vote for amendment of Constitution |
34
|
40
|
30
|
| Would vote against amendment of Constitution |
30
|
20
|
37
|
| DA/NA |
36
|
40
|
33
|
Evidently, the reason of such non-confidence roots in the results of the previous election as well as in the fear that by using all the arsenal of earlier tried election technologies A. Lukashenko will again attract a greater part of presently hesitating voters to his side.
In our opinion, conducting of a referendum before the election to the National Assembly is unlikely. The election to the Parliament will become a large-scale examination of both opposition’s capability and authorities’ ability to achieve wanted results. So far, an average voter considers an enterprise director to be a most attractive candidate to deputy while an expert relies on a leader of public movement or chairman of an opposition party (See Table 6).
Table 6. Distribution of answers to the question “Imagine that one candidate from the list below should be voted for at the 2004 election to the National Assembly. In your opinion, who would most voters vote for?”, %
| Variant of answer |
Nation opinion poll
|
Leaders and experts
|
Among them:
|
|
|
Public sector employees
|
Private sector employees
|
|||
| A current member of the National Assembly |
13.6
|
8
|
7
|
10
|
| Chairman of an opposition party or a public movement |
13.5
|
21
|
13
|
30
|
| Chairman or speaker of a public organization (NGO) |
8.1
|
8
|
–
|
13
|
| Director of a state-run enterprise |
20.5
|
7
|
10
|
3
|
| Entrepreneur running his own business |
14.5
|
2
|
–
|
3
|
| None of them |
9.4
|
8
|
13
|
3
|
| DA/NA |
20.4
|
46
|
57
|
38
|
For an average Belarusian, deputyship of his boss, plant director or head of a collective farm is closely tied to an opportunity of receiving certain preferences for himself. Soviet-time stereotype of a director as an elected representative of the people able to ‘provide a flat’ appeared to be very strong. The elite sees restricted opportunities of the present-day deputies in general and dependence of deputies from directorial corps (this status hasn’t protected some from imprisonment) in particular. Therefore, leaders are convinced that representatives from parties and movements experienced in opposing the authorities will bring more use as deputies rather than economic managers who can be easily incriminated any economic crime.
It should be noted in conclusion that the difference in standpoints of the elite and average Belarusians on social issues is inessential. Clearly, the latter are more concerned over daily wants while the first think more about aftermaths of this or that event and about the perspective. Both are got to the current power, so both stand against giving further opportunity to A. Lukashenko to rule the country. And overcoming non-confidence of the elite to the voter is the matter of time and willingness to jointly attain to the aims that are, as we have seen, almost equal in this case.