PARLIAMENT IS NO PLACE FOR LAW MAKING

The change of the public opinion with regard to the power, which occurred under the influence of the man-made crisis 2011, is illustrated by the data of Table 1. The percent of respondents declaring their willingness to vote for A. Lukashenko’s proponent three months before the elections reduced by 12 points (the first and third columns). The percent of those willing to support opponents of the head of state at the elections increased almost symmetrically. Expectable that closer to the elections the situation will change to a certain extent owing to the polarization of the community, and the quantity of the supporters of “another candidate” will reduce. An interesting aspect is that reduction of this electoral group leads not only to popularization of the power opponents and proponents, but also the group of those who find it difficult to answer.

Table 1. Dynamics of answering the question: “What candidate would you prefer to vote for?”, %

In 2008, a month after the elections, 32.8% of respondents confirmed their support of A. Lukashenko’s proponents, 15.5% confirmed support of a candidate “who has promised to struggle for the change of the current policy line”. Four years after, the percent of the former reduced by 12.8 points, i.e. to 25%, whereas the percent of the latter changed insignificantly, by 2.3 points, i.e. to 13.2%. Such an asymmetrical change, to all seeming, is not random. It is another indicator of the decline in the power popularity.

At first sight, a slight change in the question wording results in material changes in the respondents’ replies (Table 2). Today, just as four years ago, the public opinion overmarks the level of support of A. Lukashenko’s proponents, hence, that of A. Lukashenko himself. In the conditions of the state TV monopoly there is nothing to be surprised at. But even in this situation the general tendency of decline in the power support is revealed rather clearly.

Table 2. Dynamics of answering the question: “Who, in your opinion, will the majority of voters vote for?”, %

The changes in the lives of ordinary citizens that have occurred over the last four years are shown in Table 3. Let us look at the last column. By the level of dynamic change the price increase proved to be unrivalled. This phenomenon proved the one to have drawn off the acuteness of the problem of advance in living standards. Pray God we keep up the current level. The proverb says: “Beggars are not choosers”.

Table 3. Dynamics of answering the question: “What of the problems listed below is determinant when choosing a candidate you are going to vote for?”, %(more than one answer is possible)

Emphasis should be put on the decline in the acuteness of the pension pay problem and the growth of demand for democracy and independence in Belarus, which exceeds a statistical error. As for the most of other items, no significant changes have occurred.

The parliament for the Belarusian majority is not a legislative body, but rather a specific assembly of lobbyists serving to protect the interests of their electors (Table 4). However, the decline in A. Lukashenko’s popularity has inserted changes here as well. The percent of respondents treating the deputies as reporting officers of the head of state has reduced. Correspondingly, the percent of those who think that the key responsibility of the deputies is independent development and implementation of a state policy has increased. No wonder, that it is primarily the authorities proponents who treat the deputies as reporting officers.

Table 4. Dynamics of answering the question: “In your opinion, what is the key responsibility of a parliamentary deputy?” depending on the attitude to the power/authorities, %

Candidates from ordinary people (pensioners, the unemployed, etc.) have long been in no demand at the deputy market. Belarusians prefer to vote for trustworthy well-established professionals. The data of Table 5 let us see the re-evaluation the trustworthiness criterion that has occurred in the public opinion for the last four years. It is the entrepreneurs, who have clearly come out on top: “lousy fleas” (according to A. Lukashenko) have outrun the acting deputies of the National Assembly by 7.7 points. The former have added popularity over the specified period, while the latter have lost popularity. In spite of the multiple attempts to reach the electors with their alternative view at the development of Belarus, the opposition leaders, as the phrase goes, broke even. The percent of the DA/NA group reduced considerably, but concurrently, the percent of those willing to vote for ‘nobody of them’ increased.

Table 5. Dynamics of answering the question: “Imagine that at the parliamentary elections you are to choose one of the candidates listed below. Who of them would you vote for?”, %

The general escalation of criticism had an impact on the belief in the parliamentary candidates’ ability to develop programs for the improvement of the living standard in the country (Table 6). Within the framework of the imitation democracy model established in Belarus parliamentary deputies are required to have no strategic thinking, nor are they required to engage in professional legislative activity. The leaving assembly of the Chamber of Representatives considered more than 650 draft laws, and only three of them on their own initiative! However, the people, as A. Lukashenko likes to say again and again, can’t be fooled.

Table 6. Dynamics of answering the question: “What is your opinion, whether the parliamentary deputies have realistic programs for improvement of the life standard in the country?”, %

The parliamentary elections pending in September are not likely to fall out of the framework of the traditional scenario. Less than three months are left till the voting date and no reasons that could critically change the socio-economic situation during such a short period are visible today. However, the general prognosis for the power does not seem promising.