NONCHANCE RESULT

Quite active (by the European standards) participation of Belarusians in parliamentary elections bears no relationship to the role the public opinion assigns to the legislative governmental body in the life of ordinary people. Even at the peak of the electoral mobilization during the presidential elections in December 2010 the trust/distrust balance towards the National Assembly was on the distrust side: 35.7% vs. 44.4%. Confer the same balance for the head of state: 55.0% vs. 34.1%.

This attitude did not originate yesterday. The present Belarusian Constitution is based on a solid foundation of traditional culture in which there is no place for the notion of “separation of powers”.

Let us refer to the first IISEPS poll conducted in April 1992. The list of answers to the question “Who do you pin hopes on for Belarus to come out of the economic crisis?” was headed by the following three leaders: the foreign capital (31.1%), the government (33%) and the Belarusian entrepreneurs (31.4%). As regards the Supreme Soviet, this body with its 14.1% for its capacity to generate anti-crisis hopes yielded even to the heads of enterprises and kolkhozes (15.7%). Nor do the people rely on the people’s deputies as defenders of their socio-economic rights. In March 2009 in the height of the global financial crisis, it was the president (36.7%) who ranked first in the defenders rating, the legal system ranked second (16.5%), the government was third (13.6%) and the Parliament ranked only fourth (5.3%).

However, the above cases have specific advantages. Not pinning their hopes for overcoming crises and defense of their rights with the Parliament, Belarusians do not shift the responsibility for their economic problems on the deputies. Thus, in September 2011, 61.2% of respondents put the blame for the man-made crisis on the president by, and 11.9%, on the Parliament.

Allotting no role to the Parliament in the solving of everyday problems, the majority of respondents, however, answer in positive to the general question of Table 1. The same question was asked in 2008. Four years ago the percent of respondents believing in the Parliament’s capacity to influence their lives and the lives of their relatives and friends was by 4.6 points higher. This fact casts doubts on the high assessment of the performance of the Deputy Corps pronounced in Address-2012. Let us cite it in full: “The acting assembly of the Parliament has played a fundamental role in the strengthening of the state. The wisdom of our deputies and members of the Council of the Republic favor the preservation of stability in our society. And your knowledge and professional skills help to create a progressive legislative framework, without which it would be impossible to move forward”.

Table 1. Dynamics of answering the question: “Does the activity of the Chamber of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus influence your life and the lives of your relatives and friends?”, %

However, the mere fact of recognition by the respondents of the Parliament’s influence on their lives suggests nothing about the character of this influence. It may be marked by both plus and minus. Hence, it is not surprising that in June the majority of respondents (46.2%) expressed doubts with regard to the ability of the future Parliament members to represent the interests of the society. The optimist percent proved more modest, 38.4%.

Let us proceed from the influence of the Parliament on the lives of ordinary people to the influence of authorities in general. According to Table 2, there isn’t any special difference thereat. Power is power, and it is not so easy for the public opinion to divide it into components. We would like to draw your attention to the last column. The power opponents feel its influence on them to a greater extent than the proponents. This fact confirms our assumption about the need to subdivide the influence into positive and negative.

Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question: “What do you think, to what extent the decisions taken by the authorities influence the life of people like you?” depending on the respondents’ attitude to the authorities, %

Acknowledging the great influence of authorities on their lives, the majority of respondents (63.3%) live relying only on themselves and avoiding contacts with authorities. 22.5% acknowledge their full dependence on the authorities, and only 7.6% declare their ability to draw the desirable out of contacts with the authorities. This is the way, in the opinion of the Belarusian people, the key national slogan “The state for the people” is implemented in practice.

The analysis of the answers to the question “How would you define your relationships with the authorities?” reveals the anticipated differences in the strategies of interaction with the authorities subject to socio-demographic characteristics. Men, young people, educated people more often than women, the elderly and the undereducated point out to their independence from the power (Table 3).

Table 3. Distribution of answers to the question: “How would you define your relationships with the authorities?” depending on gender, age, education level, attitude to authorities and income level of the respondents, %

A – “I live relying only on myself and avoid contacts with the authorities”
B – “My life fully depends on the authorities”
C – “Contacting with authorities I draw what I need out of them”

In the first half of June, 50.7% of respondents declared their determination to take part in voting during September parliamentary elections, while 29.9% had not taken the decision yet. Such level of the voting determination three months before the elections should be deemed high. But what is interesting, only 36.7% of respondents think that their personal participation in voting can influence the voting results (Table 4). As against the previous parliamentary electoral campaign, the percent of optimists has reduced by 13.9 points. Old habits die hard, and the voting habit in this context is not an exception.

Table 4. Dynamics of answering the question: “What do you think, whether the election results depend on your vote?”, %

That is one of the key results of the last election cycle. It is not a chance result. Where there is no policy, it is supplanted by political technologies. Policy requires a competitive environment, which is lethal for political technology. This leads to a need for imitation dummies. They cope with their “duties” fairly well in the conditions of steady growth of the people’s incomes; however they are powerless during lingering crises. No monopoly for Mass Media (remember the USSR just before the Perestroika) is able to sustain the trust of people in the power, if the difference between the “pictures” on TV and in reality reach the critical margin.