No other domestic issue in Belarus causes such sharp disputes (of international remedial organizations and the West in general, on the one hand, and the Belarusian authorities, on the other hand) like observation of democratic principles and human rights in Belarus. The general stand of the West is very simple: Belarus is a non-democratic country with human rights being steadily and severely violated. As a rule, the authorities take painfully this kind of accusations, generally responding according to the principle “You’re a fool yourself” – telling the Belarusians about misery of Polish farmers, violation of the election legislation in Lithuania, etc. The recent resolution of the UN Commission for Human Rights has been the latest and the most offensive event for the official Minsk. Offensive – because this wasn’t a report to US State Department or a statement of the International Amnesty but a decision of a body the leading role of which the Belarusian authorities regularly underscore and oppose to NATO and certain states.
It is interesting to know in this respect what a true opinion of the Belarusian citizens is on this crucial issue, since both the authorities (at least by word of mouth) and those who ardently criticize their course pretend to take care about the well-being of the Belarusian citizens. As one can see, at present the viewpoint of the Belarusians is much closer to that of current regime opponents – slightly over one fourth of the respondents said they are to a different extent satisfied with the process of democratization in Belarus (See Table 1).
Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question “To which extent are you satisfied with democratization in Belarus?”
There are more of A. Lukashenko’s supporters among those who are to a variable degree satisfied with democratization in Belarus – 61.6% of them said they are ready to vote for A. Lukashenko at the presidential election. It is obvious that presidential supporters are quite satisfied with their current living and their estimation of democracy is identical to the president’s, therefore they want to see him the head of state. In fact, among those satisfied with the process of democratization, there are more senior citizens – 44%, villagers – 44.2% and pensioners – 47.4%. And among those dissatisfied there are mostly young and middle-aged people (53.5%), citizens of region centers and large cities as well as private sector employees.
Similar situation is observed in the answers to the question on human right observation in the country. The same two thirds claim the rights are merely or not observed and one third is convinced in the opposite (See Table 2).
Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question “In your opinion, are human rights observed in Belarus?”
Finally, among those who believe the human rights are observed, there are three times more pensioners than among those who disagree with such a stand. And on the contrary, among those who say human rights are not observed in this country there are mainly young people who received higher education and live in the large cities.
Rather more respondents estimate the situation with human rights as more positive than the situation with democratization. We assume this is caused by a so-called socio-economic aspect of human rights. Social maintenance of the Belarusians ensured by state is the favorite issue of the authorities. This propaganda together with the stereotypes of Soviet times still work. It is no secret that for many Belarusians the social rights the authorities ensure or, more often, promise to ensure are more weighty than political and general democratic rights (for receiving reliable information, carrying mass actions, etc.)
However, the myths about state paternalism won’t live long to all appearances. Evidently, the government can no longer afford meeting the engagements it proclaimed from high stands. After the already announced reduction of social benefits has been introduced and the growth of tariffs for communal services continues, the number of those disregarding political freedoms behind the ephemeral social maintenance will promptly decrease.
Yet, not all Belarusians are nowadays ready to exercise their political rights and freedoms, e.g. the right for free expression of political views (See Table 3).
Table 3. Dynamics of answer distribution to the question “What is your opinion about people’s readiness to express their political views in Belarus?”, %
Like in the previous question, one third of the respondents is convinced that no one or few are afraid to express their political views in this country. And two thirds of the respondents say the political climate in the country cannot be considered normal. The dynamics of answers to this question is quite interesting. For the past two years the number of those giving optimistic answers has dropped down and the number of those giving pessimistic answers has grown up. In other words, voters themselves witness that the atmosphere of fear in the Belarusian society has increased.
What’s the reason? The law suits over independent journalists who dared to criticize the president and were finally imprisoned, over participants of street actions of protest, over directors of the largest state enterprises certainly didn’t pass unnoticed. Nor remained unnoticed the recent president’s statement on ideology when he openly said that there is no place in the state bodies for those who doesn’t share the official viewpoint (and, first of all, in higher educational institutions). And since by far not every Belarusian can afford being independent from state, especially financially, all others have to hold their tongues to avoid troubles.
Not long ago president’s statement aroused a wide response when he – concerned over citizens’ discontent with the growth of tariffs for communal services – blamed the government of “picking the pocket of citizens without putting anything into it.” We asked the voters about who was to blame in that situation – the government or the president himself as far as the government only follows presidential directions. The results refuted A. Lukashenko’s assertions: 53% respondents claim the president is responsible and only 32% blame the government. Those who are picked the pocket seem to know better who does that.
After November of 1996 the president received the possibility to govern the country under the Constitution stipulating all powers he wished to have. Despite boundlessness of these powers, A. Lukashenko has many times exceeded the limits of his authority established by himself. In this regards there are jokes in the neighboring countries that the Belarusian president not only governs the country and heads the Olympic committee, appoints administration in provinces and collective farms but even sorts out potatoes over the phone. The myth that A. Lukashenko takes all decisions himself and does everything himself is quite wide spread. But except for the myths, there are legal acts. Therefore, the answer to the question about citizens’ awareness on who and how should handle particular personnel issues is an indicator of people’s political culture.
Under the current Constitution, the president appoints the government in Belarus. Over 70% of respondents have the same opinion (See Table 4).
Table 4. Distribution of answers to the question “Who do you think appoints government in Belarus?”
And 14% more of the respondents said the Council of Ministers is appointed by the National Assembly, perhaps, remembering the times when the president was to introduce candidatures of ministers for approval of the Parliament under the Constitution of 1994. Since the values of other structures stay within the margin of sample error and only 12% of the respondents found it difficult to answer or didn’t give any answer, we should admit that, by the highest standards, the political culture of the Belarusians is up to the mark. This proves Table 5 asking about the procedure of handling personnel issues at the regional level.
Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question “Who do you think appoints governor in Belarus?”
The figures are very close to those in the previous table except for the National Assembly whose place was given to the regional Council of Deputies. According to the legislation that existed until November of 1996, the president presented there a candidature of governor for approval.
Thus, it must be admitted that the citizens quite adequately take the modern life in the country. In general, they give low estimation to the level of democratization and human rights observance. And the two years since the presidential election, there are more of those who are convinced that the policy of repressions and dissidence oppression has increased the atmosphere of fear in the society.
Furthermore, it turned out most voters well know who can “pick” their pockets and who under the current legislation should take key personnel decisions, although some voters still continue to live in the times when such decisions were taken by a more democratic procedure. And, the main point is the image of the Belarusian citizen we received greatly differs from the stereotype promoted by the president – from the Belarusian who “rolls up a cigarette, shakes his head and then says: “Something’s wrong here…”
violation of the election legislation in Lithuania, etc. The recent resolution of the UN Commission for Human Rights has been the latest and the most offensive event for the official Minsk. Offensive – because this wasn’t a report to US State Department or a statement of the International Amnesty but a decision of a body the leading role of which the Belarusian authorities regularly underscore and oppose to NATO and certain states.
It is interesting to know in this respect what a true opinion of the Belarusian citizens is on this crucial issue, since both the authorities (at least by word of mouth) and those who ardently criticize their course pretend to take care about the well-being of the Belarusian citizens. As one can see, at present the viewpoint of the Belarusians is much closer to that of current regime opponents – slightly over one fourth of the respondents said they are to a different extent satisfied with the process of democratization in Belarus (See Table 1).
Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question “To which extent are you satisfied with democratization in Belarus?”
There are more of A. Lukashenko’s supporters among those who are to a variable degree satisfied with democratization in Belarus – 61.6% of them said they are ready to vote for A. Lukashenko at the presidential election. It is obvious that presidential supporters are quite satisfied with their current living and their estimation of democracy is identical to the president’s, therefore they want to see him the head of state. In fact, among those satisfied with the process of democratization, there are more senior citizens – 44%, villagers – 44.2% and pensioners – 47.4%. And among those dissatisfied there are mostly young and middle-aged people (53.5%), citizens of region centers and large cities as well as private sector employees.
Similar situation is observed in the answers to the question on human right observation in the country. The same two thirds claim the rights are merely or not observed and one third is convinced in the opposite (See Table 2).
Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question “In your opinion, are human rights observed in Belarus?”
Finally, among those who believe the human rights are observed, there are three times more pensioners than among those who disagree with such a stand. And on the contrary, among those who say human rights are not observed in this country there are mainly young people who received higher education and live in the large cities.
Rather more respondents estimate the situation with human rights as more positive than the situation with democratization. We assume this is caused by a so-called socio-economic aspect of human rights. Social maintenance of the Belarusians ensured by state is the favorite issue of the authorities. This propaganda together with the stereotypes of Soviet times still work. It is no secret that for many Belarusians the social rights the authorities ensure or, more often, promise to ensure are more weighty than political and general democratic rights (for receiving reliable information, carrying mass actions, etc.)
However, the myths about state paternalism won’t live long to all appearances. Evidently, the government can no longer afford meeting the engagements it proclaimed from high stands. After the already announced reduction of social benefits has been introduced and the growth of tariffs for communal services continues, the number of those disregarding political freedoms behind the ephemeral social maintenance will promptly decrease.
Yet, not all Belarusians are nowadays ready to exercise their political rights and freedoms, e.g. the right for free expression of political views (See Table 3).
Table 3. Dynamics of answer distribution to the question “What is your opinion about people’s readiness to express their political views in Belarus?”, %
Like in the previous question, one third of the respondents is convinced that no one or few are afraid to express their political views in this country. And two thirds of the respondents say the political climate in the country cannot be considered normal. The dynamics of answers to this question is quite interesting. For the past two years the number of those giving optimistic answers has dropped down and the number of those giving pessimistic answers has grown up. In other words, voters themselves witness that the atmosphere of fear in the Belarusian society has increased.
What’s the reason? The law suits over independent journalists who dared to criticize the president and were finally imprisoned, over participants of street actions of protest, over directors of the largest state enterprises certainly didn’t pass unnoticed. Nor remained unnoticed the recent president’s statement on ideology when he openly said that there is no place in the state bodies for those who doesn’t share the official viewpoint (and, first of all, in higher educational institutions). And since by far not every Belarusian can afford being independent from state, especially financially, all others have to hold their tongues to avoid troubles.
Not long ago president’s statement aroused a wide response when he – concerned over citizens’ discontent with the growth of tariffs for communal services – blamed the government of “picking the pocket of citizens without putting anything into it.” We asked the voters about who was to blame in that situation – the government or the president himself as far as the government only follows presidential directions. The results refuted A. Lukashenko’s assertions: 53% respondents claim the president is responsible and only 32% blame the government. Those who are picked the pocket seem to know better who does that.
After November of 1996 the president received the possibility to govern the country under the Constitution stipulating all powers he wished to have. Despite boundlessness of these powers, A. Lukashenko has many times exceeded the limits of his authority established by himself. In this regards there are jokes in the neighboring countries that the Belarusian president not only governs the country and heads the Olympic committee, appoints administration in provinces and collective farms but even sorts out potatoes over the phone. The myth that A. Lukashenko takes all decisions himself and does everything himself is quite wide spread. But except for the myths, there are legal acts. Therefore, the answer to the question about citizens’ awareness on who and how should handle particular personnel issues is an indicator of people’s political culture.
Under the current Constitution, the president appoints the government in Belarus. Over 70% of respondents have the same opinion (See Table 4).
Table 4. Distribution of answers to the question “Who do you think appoints government in Belarus?”
And 14% more of the respondents said the Council of Ministers is appointed by the National Assembly, perhaps, remembering the times when the president was to introduce candidatures of ministers for approval of the Parliament under the Constitution of 1994. Since the values of other structures stay within the margin of sample error and only 12% of the respondents found it difficult to answer or didn’t give any answer, we should admit that, by the highest standards, the political culture of the Belarusians is up to the mark. This proves Table 5 asking about the procedure of handling personnel issues at the regional level.
Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question “Who do you think appoints governor in Belarus?”
The figures are very close to those in the previous table except for the National Assembly whose place was given to the regional Council of Deputies. According to the legislation that existed until November of 1996, the president presented there a candidature of governor for approval.
Thus, it must be admitted that the citizens quite adequately take the modern life in the country. In general, they give low estimation to the level of democratization and human rights observance. And the two years since the presidential election, there are more of those who are convinced that the policy of repressions and dissidence oppression has increased the atmosphere of fear in the society.
Furthermore, it turned out most voters well know who can “pick” their pockets and who under the current legislation should take key personnel decisions, although some voters still continue to live in the times when such decisions were taken by a more democratic procedure. And, the main point is the image of the Belarusian citizen we received greatly differs from the stereotype promoted by the president – from the Belarusian who “rolls up a cigarette, shakes his head and then says: “Something’s wrong here…”