Another IISEPS’s national public opinion poll was conducted four weeks after the voting, results of which, announced by the Central Election Commission, caused a very conflicting reaction by different population groups. With complete approval of their supporters Belarus’ authorities announced an “elegant victory”, the opposition leaders claimed there was an unprecedented falsification of results, influential foreign organizations and leadership of most of western countries said the election did not correspond to international standards. But who is right? Let’s consider the October opinion poll’s results from this standpoint. In some cases we would use results of previous sociological procedures conducted by IISEPS.
As Table 1 shows, almost 85% of voters confirmed their participation in the election. The figure is congruent to the information released by the Central Election Commission and also confirms the results of our surveys conducted before the election (86.8% and 88.4% of respondents were going to take part in the election in June and August, respectively).
Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question: “Did you take part in the voting on September 4-9?”
As we could see from Table 2, more than two thirds of respondents (68.5%) cast their votes on September 9. Some 17.3% did it before time, between September 4 and 8. A considerable part of those who voted before time (one fifth) says special efforts were made in this respect. In Russia, where the procedure of preliminary voting is similar to that in Belarus, two times less respondents take part in it. Thus, considering obvious flaws of our election legislation regarding availability of preliminary voting boxes for deliberate distortion of voting returns, such a high number of those who voted before time only strengthen distrust to the election results as a whole.
Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question: “When did you vote?”
As for those who did not take part in the voting (see Tables 1 and 2), under conditions of an alternative election their number is usually much higher. Nevertheless, the result received is proved by answers to other questions (ыee Tables 4, 5, 9 and 21) and it might be considered rather reliable (naturally, keeping in mind margin of error).
Table 3 somehow characterizes reasons for non-participation in the election. As one could notice, the first three variants of answers might be attributed to indifference towards politics, and today no one denies it is present in Belarus’ society.
Table 3. Distribution of answers to the question: “If you did not participate in the voting, for what reason?” (more than one answer is possible)
Table 4 proves that two thirds of voters made decision to participate in the election long before September 9. Only every fifth voter decided to take part in the voting on September 9 or a day before. Therefore, a deliberate nature of the majority’s decision to participate is quite obvious.
Table 4. Distribution of answers to the question: “When did you decide to take part in the voting?”
As for a final choice of a favorite, only 54% of voters made their mind long before the election date. Almost one third abandoned all doubts on September 9 or a week before (see Table 5).
Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question: “When did you make your final decision for whom of the candidates to vote?”
Table 6 shows that more than 56% of voters noticed observers at polling stations. It proves there was a rather wide monitoring network at polling stations.
Table 6. Distribution of answers to the question: “Were there observers at your polling station when you cast your vote?”
Table 7 reveals that almost 80% of voters said they did not feel any pressure to vote in favor of a certain candidate. The same number of voters stated they had no fear while marking the candidate they really supported (see Table 8). The above data proves that the voting procedure turned rather democratic, and both foreign and domestic observers confirmed it.
Table 7. Distribution of answers to the question: “Did you feel any pressure to make you vote in favor of a certain candidate?”
Table 8. Distribution of answers to the question: “Did you fear to mark the candidate you really supported?”
Table 9 presents respondents’ answers to the question how they voted at the previous election. As we see, the survey results do not correspond to the voting returns announced by the Central Election Commission. Naturally, variant “Decline to answer this question” was included. However, an additional analysis showed that the numbers of those who chose this answer are distributed between the candidates in the following proportion: A. Lukashenko – 24, V. Gon-charik – 67, S. Gaidukevich – 9. The results of proper calculations are given in the last line of Table 9. As we could see, they have nothing in common with the official election results. At the same time, Table 10 demonstrates that the figures received are very close to the closed rating of the election campaign participants, revealed by IISEPS during previous surveys. It must be kept in mind that the August opinion poll was conducted before S. Domash was excluded from the list of candidates for presidency. Considering the fact that at that period his electorate crossed with V. Goncharik’s electorate almost 70%, (See IISEPS News Bulletin #3, 2001, p. 19), an overall rating of V. Goncharik in August could be viewed equal to 20%.
Table 9. Distribution of answers to the question: “For whom did you vote at the past presidential election?”, %
Table 10. Dynamics of closed rating of the presidential campaign participants, %
* The survey was conducted jointly with the Center for Social and Environmental Studies
Such conclusion is proved by Tables 11–13. As we could see, only half of respondents (48%) said they would like A. Lukashenko to be the president again. Almost the same number of respondents (50.4%) confirmed they voted in favor of A. Lukashenko. About 46% said if there were a new election, they would have voted for him again.
Table 11. Distribution of answers to the question: “A. Lukashenko became the president of Belarus. Did you want him to become the president?”
Table 12. Distribution of answers to the question: “Did the candidate for whom you voted become the president?”
Table 13. Distribution of answers to the question: “If the presidential election had taken place tomorrow, for whom would you have voted?” (open question)
Indirectly it is proved by Table 14. More than one third of respondents are dissatisfied with the official election results, because, most probably, they did not vote for A. Lukashenko. Maybe for this very reason more than 30% of voters claim they do not trust the election returns announced by the Central Election Commission (Table 15).
Table 14. Distribution of answers to the question: “Are you satisfied with the presidential election results announced by the Central Election Commission?”
Table 15. Distribution of answers to the question: “Do you think the election results announced by the Central Election Commission could be trusted?”
Table 16 shows that almost 36% of respondents doubted fairness of the past election. And over 40% do not trust the election results announced by V. Goncharik on the basis of his own information sources (Table 17).
Table 16. Distribution of answers to the question: “Do you agree that the past presidential election was free and fair and A. Lukashenko received the largest number of votes?”
Table 17. Distribution of answers to the question: “What is your attitude towards the results of the presidential election announced by V. Goncharik on the basis of his own calculations?”
Naturally, if election commissions included representatives of all participants of the election process, people would have trusted the election results much more. Table 18 is a strong proof of it. But, as we know, at the past election the authorities did all they could to prevent representatives of the opposition from entering election commissions.
Table 18. Distribution of answers to the question: “Many of our fellow citizens do not trust the election returns because election commissions did not include representatives of the opposition. What do you think in this respect?”
Therefore, regarding attitude towards the Central Election Commission Belarus’ voters are split in two halves. More than 38% believe this body to be independent and guided only by law. The same number of voters is confident that the Central Election Commission is fully controlled by the President (see Table 19). And if we consider that, according to the majority of voters, the candidates for presidency faced unequal conditions during the election campaign (see Table 20), we might state that voters have enough reasons to distrust the announced voting returns.
Table 19. Distribution of answers to the question: “Which of the below listed statements do you agree with?”
Table 20. Distribution of answers to the question: “Do you think all the candidates for presidency enjoyed equal conditions during the election?”
Table 21 demonstrates that on the whole during the past election campaign Belarus’ population proved active only in the voting procedure. Few activists and functionaries participated in a more active way.
Table 21. Distribution of answers to the question: “How did you take part in the presidential election?” (more than one answer is possible)
Table 22 shows that to a different degree almost 40% of voters agree with the opposition saying various violations take place during the voting. Only one third believes there were no violations.
Table 22. Distribution of answers to the question: “The opposition claims there were numerous violations on September 9 (voting for other people, issuing voting bulletin without checking one’s ID, coercion to vote before time). Do you agree with such statement?”
Surely, criteria of importance of election legislation violations are quite different. What is considered significant by some people seems insignificant to other people. In particular, many do not consider coercing to vote before time and issuing a voting bulletin without checking one’s passport a serious violation. Nonetheless, Table 23 proves that some voters spotted various violations during the voting. More often they witnessed coercing to vote in advance or issuing voting bulleting without checking one’s ID, as well as voting for other persons and campaigning on the day of voting.
Table 23. Distribution of answers to the question: “Did you spot any violations during voting at polling stations?” (more than one answer is possible)
Aside from violations during the voting procedure, respondents say there were violations during the election campaign as a whole (see Table 24).
Table 24. Distribution of answers to the question: “Do you think any law violations took place during the election campaign?” (more than one answer is possible)
As one could see, 27.6% of respondents pointed at monopolization of state-run mass media by a single candidate (sure, this is not V. Goncharik and S. Gaidukevich!), and 13% said authorities prevented A. Lukashenko’s opponents from campaigning, 9% – visual campaigning was upset, etc. Table 25 reveals that, according to one third of respondents, the above mentioned violations were made in favor of A. Lukashenko. Commentaries are excessive!
Table 25. Distribution of answers to the question: “If you spotted such violations, in favor of what candidate were they made?” (more than one answer is possible)
Table 26. Distribution of answers to the question: “Influential international structures (OSCE, European Parliament, Council of Europe, etc.) claim the presidential election in Belarus did not correspond to OSCE’s standards. Some people believe this is a fair decision, others think in the opposite. What do you think?”
Thus, the population’s attitude towards the past election is quite heterogeneous. Many voters reasonably doubt its fairness and correctness. And it is not just a matter of a ratio of those who doubt and those who do not doubt, the matter is that a considerable part of socium does not trust the authorities, which did their best to make people feel this way. Therefore, the election’s main result is a further deepening of Belarus’ society split. Today an indifferent part of the population is split in two, and Table 26 proves it. This split in political sphere is a real “achievement” of A. Lukashenko for seven years of his presidency.