«

»

SEARCHING FOR THE LOST ALTERNATIVE

It is hardly a secret that the situation in Belarus is tottering, President’s rating falling down to as low as 30%, the social-economic crisis deepening, the resentment against the present policies surging. Who can be a source of changes, who can Belarusians lay hopes on? That question is asked in the East and in the West and in Belarus itself more and more often. Theoretically, A. Lukashenko himself might trigger changes. In that case, he would have to stop blaming the “remiss officials”, the opposition or the “outer enemies” and change his own outlook radically instead. However, there is little hope of such possibility; A. Lukashenko himself is stating regularly that he does not intend to change the present course.

The majority of those alarmed at the “Belarusian issue” are looking for an alternative leader but the area of search is very narrow restricted to the opposition leaders and the surroundings of A. Lukashenko. We think this useless and fruitless. It is clear that an alternative political leader cannot possibly spring up from nowhere. It is only on some social or professional background that a real alternative leader with a real alternative team and program has to stand. In 1994, during Belarus’ first presidential election, each of the contenders (V. Kebich, S. Shushkevich, Z. Pozniak, A. Lukashenko, V. Novikov and N. Dubko) was a truly alternative runner for presidency exactly because each of them had particular structures and the interests of a particular social layer behind their backs. However, those alternatives are no longer available. Are there any others or any chances of finding others? In the social survey the question sounds as follows: which social groups enjoy the most authority today? Let us see Table 1 for the results of IISEPS’s latest national survey.

Table 1. Attitude of the population towards leading social-professional groups of Belarusian society, %

Social-professional groups
Presidential vertical
Deputies of the National Assembly
Law enforcers
Chiefs of state-run enterprises, collective farms
Businessmen
Opposition politicians
Journalists
Military
How do you assess material status of the following population groups of Belarus?
Bad
1.1
0.8
2.3
8.4
4.5
11.1
13.6
26.6
Average
10.8
17.8
33.9
31.6
39.1
35.2
58.1
49.7
Good
87.0
80.0
62.9
59.2
55.5
51.9
27.3
22.7
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Does life of the following groups correspond to their merits before the society?
Live worse, than deserve
2.1
2.1
6.8
12.0
12.2
10.5
22.5
45.8
Live the life that they deserve
25.3
31.1
44.0
40.0
58.4
45.4
63.3
43.0
Live better, than deserve
71.0
65.5
48.6
47.3
28.9
42.5
13.3
10.0
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
5
7
8
Do the following groups enjoy respect in society?
They are not respects
15.7
35.9
42.9
20.4
20.2
44.7
17.6
15.7
Enjoy some respect
62.2
53.6
45.8
64.7
70.0
48.4
67.3
62.2
They are highly respected
21.1
9.3
10.3
14.2
9.2
5.6
14.1
21.1
Rank
5
6
7
4
3
8
2
1
How do the following groups influence Belarusians’ life?
No influence
19.5
30.3
18.5
22.0
26.9
43.9
19.2
37.2
Average influence
30.7
43.2
45.6
46.8
50.2
41.5
54.8
44.1
Considerable influence
48.5
25.3
35.0
30.3
22.2
12.6
24.9
17.7
Rank
1
6
2
3
5
8
4
7
The position of the leading social and professional layers of Belarusian society was analyzed in accordance with four basic criteria, such as: financial well-being, the correspondence of well-being to the social merits, to the moral authority and to the real power. The results are completely amazing.
The groups that represent the three branches of power – the executive power in the face of the presidential vertical, the legislative power in the persons of MPs and the juridical power, i.e. lawyers and law enforcers – are believed to be prospering but for no merit and having much real power (except for MPs) but little moral authority.
The groups that do not represent the power – journalists, entrepreneurs and the opposition politicians – are considered to be low-income groups, which corresponds to or is worse than their merits, and are attached much moral (except for the opposition) but little real authority. The majority of respondents place military men lowest among social layers and believe directors the neutral layer in between the top and the bottom. Comparing those results to the 1996 survey, one can see that the power groups have got better off over the six years (the presidential vertical by 9% and law enforcers by 10%), yet respondents see even less merit behind that prosperity (by 5% with the presidential vertical and by 8% with the law enforcers). The moral authority has slid (5% more people say, law enforcers enjoy no respect), budget the real power in their hands has grown (by 10% with the presidential vertical and by 13% with law enforcers).
Meanwhile the positions of non-power groups (journalists, businessmen) have got worse; businessmen’s affluence is believed to have decreased by 29% and their real power by 6% (that of journalists by 5%).
No doubt, there are many well-educated, hard-working and upright officials among hundreds of them working for the Belarusian state machinery. However unfair the above-stated evaluations might seem to them, that is the logic of the politics which would not have been possible without their active involvement. We refer you to the article Executive Vertical: President’s Support or Hostage? published in 1996 to the following fragment: “The executive vertical proves to be a hostage rather than the support of president’s policies. Now that the crisis is deepening, president is likely to start acting as an aeronaut whose balloon is dipping – he will be getting rid of the heaviest ballast, which the executive branch or at least part of it will most probably turn out to be. Really, isn’t it an effective move: president admits “certain mistakes and serious lapses” and “gives in” his vertical as the most irritating and the “least trustworthy” structure of the state machinery. Thus he satisfies the expectations of the people and demonstrates to the whole world that he is not only irreconcilable with the enemies, but is hard on the “next of kin”, too. Nevertheless, that move is only seemingly effective; in reality, it is of little help as far as the perfection of the state governance and the satisfaction of people’s true interests and expectations is concerned. Those sacrificed will be replaced with new leaders just as dependent on the one who appointed them and not on the ones who elect them as their predecessors were”. Time has proved that prophecy right; let us remind you of the recent “purge” done by president at the April 29 sitting of the Cabinet of Ministers. State officials will continue becoming even more estranged from society and even more dependent on president is the continue pursuing the present policies. Therefore those who hope that representatives of the authorities (“Their Majesty Nomenclature” as an opposition politician said once) will whip up changes hope in vain, to our mind. Changes are hardly possible without an alliance with nomenclature, yet nomenclature may back up the initiatives of other social and professional groups in case if those initiatives are backed up by society first.
Who then? If Belarus were a Latin-American country, military men might be thought of as a source of changes, for military men enjoy high and stable respect in Latin-American societies. But Belarus is a Slavic country, its traditions are totally different and the social position of military men is different. A “Belarusian military junta” is even more improbable than a “rebellion of the nomenclature”: the army will not initiate political changes independently. However, bearing in mind their low social position, one may count on their latent support, such as non-participation in repression.
The opposition naturally seems to be the one to prompt changes. Unfortunately, today’s opposition enjoys no authority or influence in Belarusian society. The ratings of the opposition political parties are extremely low (in April, four parties exceeded the error margin only), and that has been so for the past six years since the opposition was ousted from the state machinery (See Table 2).

Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question: “If you are going to vote for candidate of a certain party, which party in particular?”, %

* No data
** Answers to the question: “For candidate of which party did you vote at the recent parliamentary election?”
*** Answers to the question: “Which political party do you support?”

Relentless pressure upon the opposition on the part of the authorities and aggressive propaganda in state mass media aimed at discrediting the opposition parties and blocking up their contacts with society are definitely one of the crucial reasons for that. There are also other reasons, on the other hand: the tactics and the strategies of the opposition itself have not always been correct; until recently, it has been trying to have society conform to its programs rather than bring its programs in conformity with the needs of society. For instance, having boycotted the 1999–2000 local and parliamentary elections, the opposition harmed its image a lot, in our opinion. Be that as it may, today’s image of the opposition in public opinion leaves no room for society to regard it as a real source of changes.
Public opinion polls show, journalists and businessmen are the most promising groups; they might form an alliance and directors might support it (see data above). Journalists, however much we respect them, will hardly head the movement for changes, for their job and their functions are different. But they certainly might play an important role in the formation of the public opinion and drumming up support for such an alliance.
We believe, it is a many-component alternative that might gain the support of society and cause changes. A coalition of regional civil structures that are of real influence, such as Businessmen’s Union, the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, the Belarusian Association of Journalists, the Chernobyl Children Foundation, the Belarusian Language Society, part of the Writers’ Union and of the Belarusian Labor Union Federation (the latter one is likely to split in a democratic and a pro-governmental organisations soon) should be a most important component. The political opposition represented by the Coordination Council of Democratic Forces and the Consultative Council of the Opposition Parties should be another important component. Also, the part of the political establishment that may enlist the support of the unhappy nomenclature (such as the Republic MP group formed at the Lower Chamber not long ago, for example) should join and be a crucial component, too. Members of that group have repeatedly displayed their willingness to restore the parliamentary mode of power and quite specific social and professional groups stand behind each member. Directors might support that alliance, too, as was noted above. An efficient interaction between each components of the alliance is the key to the success of the alternative.
Apart from the downslide of president’s rating, there is another factor that creates favourable conditions for the formation of the political alternative. The matter concerns the changes in Russia’s policies, such as deeper reforms, rapprochement with the West, which has fundamentally told on the Belarusian public opinion: many opponents of Belarusian president look at Russia with hope and sympathy. The conditions are such that their Russian party cooperation partners will evidently be with them (B. Nemtsov’s recent visit to Minsk upon the invitation of the United Civic Party is a good example), and there are also chances that they will have the support of V. Putin’s administration. In order not to lose those chances, one should elaborate a strategy that would consider the interests of Russia, which A. Lukashenko has guaranteed all the way. The Foundation For A New Belarus set up in Moscow some time ago might become the necessary link between the new Belarusian alternative and Russia.
“What are the guarantees that the above-mentioned groups will manage to find consensus and cooperate efficiently?”, a skeptic might ask. Frankly speaking, they are none. But the formation of the civil coalition on the eve of the recent presidential election campaign is a good experience to use in preparing for the local election and a possible referendum. It is clear that no alternative will appear without persistent and purposeful searches and efforts. The results of the surveys are a good base for the new alternative not to get lost for another eight years.