It has become an established public opinion that the convinced supporters of A. Lukashenko are, as a rule, representatives of the poor social strata. It goes without saying that among his followers there are indeed a lot of people, who make use of the opportunities provided by the authorities in exchange for being loyal to them (corruption, monopoly, business backing and so on) and have no material problems. However, empirical observations prove that the core of A. Lukashenko’s electorate are fairly poor.
As one can see from the poll findings, this point of view is grounded enough. In particular, A. Lukashenko’s convinced supporters earned on average $44.7 per capita in March this year, which is slightly above the official poverty line (March’s minimum living wage totaled $43.7 at the market exchange rate).
In Table 1 one can see respondents with different per capita incomes answer questions, which characterize their attitude to A. Lukashenko. As one can see, 50.3% of the poor voted A. Lukashenko at the previous presidential elections, while just 26.2% of the rich (per capita monthly income exceeds $100) made the same choice. It was V. Goncharik who enjoyed the most popular support among the rich (34.4%). Confidence in the president, too, depends much of the level of incomes of the electorate. And, although A. Lukashenko does not enjoy large-scale support even among the poor, every sixth one of the rich (16.4%) said he had faith in him, while three quarters of the well-to-do respondents (73.8%) demonstrated distrust.
Table 1. Attitude towards A. Lukashenko depending on the level of incomes per capita, %
| Variant of answer |
Incomes per capita
|
All population
|
|
|
Above $ 100
|
Below the living wage budget
|
||
| For whom did you vote at the 2001 presidential election? | |||
| For A. Lukashenko |
26.2
|
50.3
|
43.8
|
| For V. Goncharik |
34.4
|
15.6
|
19.4
|
| For S. Gaidukevich |
9.8
|
4.0
|
5.9
|
| Do you trust the president? | |||
| Trust |
16.4
|
36.2
|
32.4
|
| Do no trust |
73.8
|
45.8
|
50.1
|
| If tomorrow there were a new presidential election, for whom would you vote? (open question) | |||
| For A. Lukashenko |
14.8
|
36.2
|
30.9
|
| For V. Goncharik |
16.4
|
7.5
|
8.3
|
| Who of the modern politicians of the highest rank you like most of all, consider an ideal politician? | |||
| A. Lukashenko |
14.8
|
30.6
|
26.0
|
| V. Putin |
52.5
|
69.2
|
68.1
|
| If the post of Russia-Belarus President is introduced, for whom would you vote? | |||
| For A. Lukashenko |
9.8
|
15.9
|
14.0
|
| For V. Putin |
49.2
|
47.9
|
50.5
|
Today slightly more that one third of the needy (36.3%) are ready to vote A. Lukashenko at the next presidential elections, while only every seventh “rich man” (14.8%) said he would do the same.
It is quite interesting to observe that the overwhelming majority of the poor (69.2%) choose Putin as their ideal politician, while A. Lukashenko lags far behind with 30.6%. Therefore, it would not come as a surprise that if they now held union presidential elections, Putin could beat his Belarusian counterpart even among the poor. As far as the rich are concerned, their preferences are basically the same, however their attitude to both of them is more cool and reserved.
On the whole, the conclusion is that the overall majority of the poor support A. Lukashenko and vote for him. One of the underlying reasons for their attitude is that many of them failed to adapt themselves to new economic conditions and continue to hope for the help of the state. We must admit that A. Lukashenko understands the circumstances and tries to exploit them in full. He shamelessly equates himself with the state, demonstrates “paternalistic” attitude towards the poor and identifies all welfare policy of the state with his name. However, this can deprive him of the aura of the defender if he makes a mistake or gives promises that are impossible to fulfil, the way it happened last spring.
And what about the “rich”? Table 1 shows that their overall attitude towards A. Lukashenko is more negative than that of the poor. However, the attitude can change. Table 2 demonstrates that as times goes, part of the rich provide more support to A. Lukashenko.
Table 2. Dynamics of attitude of the “rich” towards A. Lukashenko, %
* The answer to the question about the factual voting at the 2001 election
As it has been said above, some people became “rich” by adjusting to the realities of the regime. They do not want to change the circumstances they are used to, study the qualities and wishes of new authorities and search for the ways to “please” them. There are not many of them, less than 1%, but they exist and their number is slowly growing, in spite of severe public repression of some former associates and supporters. It seems they hope that the president’s anger will pass them by. The fate of most of the people who assisted him on the way to power demonstrates the opposite.