PARTIES AND ELECTORATE: IN SEARCH OF RECIPROCITY

Unfortunately, at present the opposition doesn’t enjoy high reputation nor has real influence over the Belarusian society. Ratings of the democratic parties are not high and the situation hasn’t changed much for the years after the opposition had been kicked out from all governing bodies. The opposition parties steadily rank lowest in the lists of the major state and public institutions (See Table 1).

What’s more, difference in the ratings of the best-known parties isn’t significant (See Table 2).

In general, the potential party electorate looks very impressive – nearly one third of voters that is over 2.5 million people. But it is a statistical rather than a political value as the electorate is scattered among almost ten democratic parties. Really general electorate – the voters ready to cast their votes for a candidate of any party – is several times smaller. Electorates of some parties overlap more (e.g., the United Civil Party and the Belarusian Popular Front), other electorates – less (e.g., the Labor Party and the Conservative Christian Party). At times this mutual “attraction” or “repulsion” takes absolutely non-ideological character. Thus, despite the community of many theses in the programs of the Belarusian Social Democratic Gromada and the Belarusian Social Democratic Party (Narodnaya Gromada) their single electorate makes less than a half and the antagonism between the parties doesn’t grow weaker with the years. This means the relations between the democratic parties are not always established on the ideological and political basis. Personal relations between the leaders sometimes grew more important. If they are friendly – program antagonisms aren’t a hindrance, if hostile – community of program principles doesn’t bring to co-operation. It is noteworthy that these complicated relations between the parties do not remain an “internal affair of a party” but are publicized one way or another and this, clearly, doesn’t boost their images.

Content analysis of state-run and non-state press reveals that the problems of “inter-party and inner-party life” are more often discussed in the non-state press. This is often abrasive for parties: the state-run media discredit us at the order of the authorities (Can these controlled media be made responsible?) but why our own side “bites us”? Some editions for different reasons decide to “put the interests of democracy” above the professional and, actually, turn into PR-editions while others still oppose. Those opposing grow lesser and lesser undoubtedly under the unrelenting pressure of the authorities openly urging the independent press to taking such positions. In its turn such “black-and-white” spectrum of the Belarusian mass media often drives to the loss of confidence in any of the sides so that the general public prefers to address to Russia’s TV channels, FM radio stations or such pronouncedly apolitical editions like Va-Bank, Pressball, Autobusiness, etc.

In politics, personal ratings of party leaders can happen to surpass the ratings of the very parties (in view of their activity, charisma, rowdiness, etc.). In Belarus, where the political power is utterly personalized, this is especially important. However, only 13.1% of respondents answered in positive to the question “Do you know a candidate able to effectively compete with A. Lukashenko in the presidential election?”, their answers being “scattered” between several democratic leaders whose ratings, as a rule, appear to be even lower than those of their parties (See Tables 3 and 4).

Skeptical or even hostile attitude of A. Lukashenko’s electorate to the democratic parties and their leaders are quite explicable. What really surprises is attitude of the democratically-minded electorate to these parties (i.e. the Belarusians standing against the current course) that isn’t much different (See Table 5).

As it is seen from the table, first, the top rating of the opposition party among the Belarusians inclined to vote for another candidate makes only 8.3% (and many democrats question the opposition character of the Liberal Democratic Party). Second, there isn’t statistically essential difference (exceeding the error of sample) among A. Lukashenko’s supporters and opponents in the proximity of their views to some parties (the Conservative Christian Party, the Belarusian Social Democratic Party (Narodnaya Gromada) and the Green Party of Belarus). Third, the situation turned paradoxical as concerns two democratic parties: not president’s opponents but his supporters said the Party of Communists Belarusian and the Labor Party are the closest to them in the political views.

To have deeper understanding of the reasons influencing the current distribution of the democratic parties in the political field of Belarus, it is necessary to consider the difference between the potential party electorate and non-party electorate (See Table 6).

Most of the differences stipulated are quite reasonable and expectable due to the fact that the party electorate in many respects agrees with the traditional (and steadily increasing) democratic electorate ready to support the changes. Prevalent among the potential party voters are the men of the most active age, most of them being greatly dissatisfied with the process of democratization, human rights observance and the political climate in the country and convinced that in general the country is going in the wrong direction but this is the president who is only to blame, therefore they are ready to give their votes against the amendments to the Constitution. In other words, this is that very electorate the reciprocity of which the opposition has been pressing for since long ago.

At the same time, stands of the party electorate greatly differ from those of the parties on certain essential political issues. Their attitude to Belarus-Russia integration well demonstrates the fact. The party electorate in its majority supports the idea of the union of independent states connected with close political and economic relations and sees the future of Belarus as a sovereign country, yet in a stronger dependence from Russia. Such future is in no way estimated in dark shades as Russia, in their opinion, has reached greater progress in building a democratic state and a civil society than Belarus.

Another example is attitude towards the EU and other European institutions. The idea of integrating with Europe is, naturally, prevalent among the party electorate (quite normally coexisting with the idea of developing close relations with Russia, as one can see). But while most of democratic parties strengthen their relations with the European structures and at the same time air their discontent with the recognition of the Belarusian Parliament by PA OSCE, their potential electorate in its majority estimates the decision in positive.

Also, the parties and the electorate differ in their views on the possible allies in the struggle for independence. While party leaders are still very suspicious of the activity carried by the deputy group Republic, most of the potential voters estimate their activity as quite positive. Surprisingly, there are more of those among the party electorate who do not confide in the parties as a social institution rather than those confiding. This is a queer controversy but it once again proves the fact that the “united” party electorate in Belarus is so far a statistical and not a political phenomenon.

Challenging this fact many party leaders presently refer to the results of the recent election campaign into the Local Councils: “Our candidates effectively competed with other candidates in most constituencies they were nominated at but they were blocked up by the authorities.” Still, personal experience is worthier than a survey. But, how many party candidates were registered and participated in the local election? According to the Central Election Committee, 693 candidates out of 1033 party nominees (including four pro-government parties) were registered. Among 25,805 registered candidates, representatives of the democratic parties made only 2.5%! Our opinion poll showed that 2.8% of respondents voted for candidates of the democratic parties (6.9% – for non-party candidates). This data well correlates and proves that the counter argument of the party leaders doesn’t stand any criticism.

As it has been many times said, the major reasons of the existing distribution of the democratic parties around the political field of Belarus are: unrelenting pressure on the part of the authorities, aggressive campaign on their discrediting in the state media, blockage of their contacts with the society, etc.

And not only this. None the less important are the serious errors committed by the parties as concerns their strategies and tactics. Until recently, many of the party leaders and activists preferred that the society adjusts itself to their programs instead of adjusting their programs to the interests of the society (e.g., they made attempts to fight the ideas of Russia-Belarus integration with the ideas of restoring the values of the Belarusian People’s Republic or even the Great Duchy of Lithuania, arbitrary rule of the authorities – with the charges against its non-legitimacy, etc.) Critical re-evaluation of the past errors often takes place in a narrow circle of the party board or is fully rejected. Boycott of the 1999-2000 election has been indirectly admitted an error by participating in the local election of 2003 and starting preparatory campaigns to the parliamentary election of 2004. But attitude to staking on mass street protest marches still doesn’t change (organizers of the people’s march For Better Life!claimed a day before the action that they found 30,000 participants of the march – overstating tenfold the real number). According to certain party leaders, a major lesson of the past presidential campaign should become the decision to withstand from forming up a wide coalition and nominate a single candidate. This only real achievement of the wild summer’2001 is said to be a major error. The parties intend to go up in “party columns” in the coming election fights pragmatically assuming that their positioning is politically more crucial than a possible victory of another candidate. At times, personal ambitions still prevail over common interests: instead of political, civil and social consolidation of the opposition into a single movement for changes, some politicians try to form new parties of their own looking for their personal lacunas to take. Mutual reproaches and accusations don’t go down. Independent researchers and journalists are still expected to approve and promote party stands and their unbiased analysis or even criticism produce sheer discontent.

We suppose the results provided will help the democratically-minded parties adequately evaluate the reality and take it into account while developing their strategies and tactics. Inadequate evaluation of the reality will not only strengthen mutual aversion between the parties and the electorate but some other forces may win the reciprocity of the electorate like this happened in 1994. No financial or informational resources are able to substitute electoral resources in politics.