“All we’re worth”, i.e. A. Lukashenko’s electoral rating, fell by 4.8 points for the second quarter of 2012. In the first half of June, giving an answer to the open question: “If the presidential elections should be held again in Belarus tomorrow, who would you vote for?” – 29.7% of respondents mentioned the name of the head of state (Table 1). Hence, the upsurge of the rating of “an only Belarusian politician”, being associated with the stabilization of the economic situation in the country, stopped and a reverse process budded. Stabilization does not mean improvement. Consumer prices have risen by 8.5% for the five months. In May, dairy products, bread and meat became more expensive “according to the Plan”; in June, public utility services, petrol and diesel oil got up. It is fair to say that on May 1 pensions and first-class wage rates were increased. However, the many-year surveys show that the negative reaction of the public to the price increase could hardly be covered by the positive effect of the growth of social benefits. Remember, the task set for the government this year is to keep inflation within 20%. It is too much. Even if the government coped with the set task, the head of state should not reckon on the electoral gratitude of the people.
Table 1. Dynamics of Lukashenko’s Electoral Rating, %
| Date |
10’01 |
03’03 |
04’06 |
12’10 |
03’11 |
06’11 |
09’11 |
12’11 |
03’12 |
06’12 |
| Rating |
46.0 |
26.2 |
60.3 |
53.0 |
42.9 |
29.3 |
20.5 |
24.9 |
34.5 |
29.7 |
It is clear that the general negative trend does not prevent certain bursts of electoral enthusiasm. The closest one is very likely to occur just before the Parliamentary Elections (September). According to the culture expert A. Pelipenko, the reaction of a typical majority member to external changes depends on the situation: “Conventional mentality is not capable of making conclusions and extrapolating the gained experience through time. More simply, the power in the eyes of philistines is always either confirms or not confirms its sacred status only then and there. Failures are easily overscored by success, and vice versa”.
In June the electoral rating of A. Lukashenko returned to its previous-year value, i.e. the level of readiness to vote for the head of state in the same situation of stability is the same as last year in the active phase of the crisis. This nuance should be emphasized. Failures, as mentioned above, are overscored by success. However, the problem roots in the fact that the public does not treat the current situation as success. We can conclude that the assessments of the people and those of the power do not coincide in this case.
After the historical minimum recorded in September, A. Lukashenko was forced to comment “this so-called social research”. In his opinion, the reduction of the electoral rating is a direct consequence of the unfair practice of IISEPS sociologists: “I won’t go into details. Do you want my rating be 90 per cent today? Tomorrow it will be (Laughter in the auditorium). Do you want 15 – it will be so tomorrow, too. Do you know it?”
As far as objective reasons are concerned, well, he has not eyed them from the top of the administrative “top-down command structure”: “…I repeat it for you, I used to tell my people about it, I was telling them honestly and sincerely: who is to blame for that panic – you. I have warned you, haven’t I? Yes, I have. I have told you not to do it, haven’t I? Yes, I have. So, why dislike me for this?
I mean, so why has the President’s rating suddenly fallen from 80 per cent half a year ago to 20? What has happened? Has anybody lost job? No. Have some enterprises been sold or liquidated? No, not a single enterprise has ruined. Well, if you earn little money, you should work more”.
In this connection it would be appropriate to quote a statement from the report at the IInd All-Belarusian Assembly: “That is not to deny the validity of the true fact that a small salary could destroy even the most powerful state”. This truth is illustrated by the data of Table 2. Throughout twelve years the value of A. Lukashenko’s electoral rating has been following the real household income like thread and needle. A deviation from the general rule was registered only in 2009, when people associated a modest addition to their income with the global financial crisis.
Table 2. Real Household Incomes (RHI) in Percentage as against the Preceding Year and A. Lukashenko’s Electoral Rating (LER) in Percentage
| Year |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012** |
| RHI |
114 |
128 |
104 |
104 |
110 |
118 |
118 |
113 |
113 |
103 |
115 |
99 |
100 |
| LER* |
36 |
41 |
30 |
29 |
39 |
47 |
55 |
46 |
41 |
41 |
45 |
29 |
32 |
* Yearly average value
** RHI – for December-April, LER – for the first half of the year
The level of the electoral rating on its own does not anyway describe the character of a politician’s support. Motivation of “for” voting may be both positive and negative. It is one thing when a voter votes for his/her favorite politician, and it is another thing when he/she does not see any worthy alternative. Let us illustrate the above-said by the respondents’ sayings taken from the May report of the Center for Strategic Studies (Russia): “Yes, I voted for Putin, in fact there were no other variants. Not willingly enough, but there’s no one else to choose nowadays. No reasonable alternative was offered to us (Dzerzhinsk, woman, 38 yrs, no higher education)”. “There was no choice. I voted for Putin. It is true that there was no real or proper alternative in fact. And whether it could be under the acting power, is an open question. I think there couldn’t be, unfortunately (Yekaterinburg, man, middle class, 52 yrs, higher education)”.
Such sayings definitely point out to erosion of the government support. The same evidence is given by the changes in the answers to the question of Table 3. In the public view, the main support of “the people’s president” is strongmen (the army, the militia, KGB). Their role increases more and more poll by poll. In June, more than a half of proponents of the authorities (51.6%) pointed out to the leading role of strongmen. Among the authorities opponents three of four respondents gave priority to strongmen.
Table 3. Dynamics of distribution of the answers to the question: “In your opinion, who does the president A. Lukashenko, primarily, rely on?”, % (more than one variant is possible)
| Variant of Answer |
08’06 |
09’09 |
09’10 |
06’11 |
06’12 |
| On the president’s “top-down command structure” |
37.0 |
39.7 |
39.3 |
37.9 |
45.4 |
| On military men, militia, KGB |
48.6 |
37.8 |
45.4 |
52.5 |
56.6 |
| On pensioners |
41.4 |
37.7 |
45.0 |
39.4 |
39.7 |
| On state officials |
20.5 |
27.2 |
27.7 |
23.8 |
33.2 |
| On ordinary people |
34.2 |
24.1 |
24.2 |
19.3 |
18.1 |
| On villagers |
30.2 |
23.8 |
30.2 |
23.5 |
24.0 |
| On directors of large enterprises |
13.5 |
12.8 |
13.4 |
12.0 |
14.1 |
| On specialists |
9.9 |
8.4 |
8.5 |
7.2 |
5.1 |
| On cultural and scientific elite |
8.3 |
4.0 |
4.6 |
4.1 |
3.5 |
| On businessmen |
4.5 |
2.2 |
3.5 |
2.5 |
5.5 |
Let’s refer to one of the last interview of A. Lukashenko: “They say: you work at ground zero. Yes, I do. But it is you who gave birth to me. I’ve risen to power from opposition. Who would have let me come here if not the people who went to the polls in 1994? It is a sacred thing for me. It is the thing I cannot step over”. Let us take these words as sincere and meanwhile point out that the role of ordinary people as A. Lukashenko’s support has declined almost twice for the last six years (from 34.2% to 18.1%).
As regards the social groups ensuring economic development of the country (enterprise directors, specialists, cultural and scientific elite, businessmen) they traditionally tail the support rating-list of the personificator of the Belarusian power. Such stability shall not leave a chance for realization of the slogan pronounced in Address-2012: “Renewed economy for the new generation”.
A. Lukashenko’s support erosion is as well revealed in the attitude of the people to the rejection of the head of state to pardon the convicts sentenced to death with regard to the case of the terrorist attack in the Minsk Metro. The public opinion split: “the verdict was correct, both should have been executed” – 37.8%, “both should have been pardoned” – 34.4%, “Konovalov should have been executed, and Kovalev should have been pardoned” – 7%, no answer – 20.8%. The above answer distribution casts doubts on A. Lukashenko’s allegation made during the interview obtained by the Russian journalist S. Dorenko: “Our public opinion is univocal, we can say that the great majority has found position”.
To conclude, let us present the dynamics of A. Lukashenko’s trust rating (Table 4). The trust rating value is, as a rule, higher than the electoral rating value, but the latter changes synchronously with the former.
Table 4. Dynamics of answering the question: “Do you trust the president of Belarus?”, %
| Variant of Answer |
12’10 |
03’11 |
06’11 |
09’11 |
12’11 |
03’12 |
06’12 |
| Yes, I do |
55.0 |
47.9 |
33.6 |
24.5 |
31.2 |
42.2 |
38.5 |
| No, I don’t |
34.1 |
42.0 |
53.8 |
62.0 |
54.5 |
48.5 |
51.9 |
We should emphasize another unpleasant fact for the head of state: the decline in his trust rating by 3.7 points for the second quarter of the year was not followed by an adequate decline in the government trust rating which reduced only by 1.7 points. The tenure as “an only politician”, obviously, has its benefits, but not in the conditions of the people’s support decrease. As history, our home history including, shows, sometimes only one step is enough to change from love to hatred.