Back in August, as we know from IISEPS data, almost two thirds of respondents said they have no enough information about each candidate for presidency (see Table 1). More than 40% of them were going to vote for A. Luakshenko (see Table 2). However, among all supporters of A. Lukashenko the ratio of those well-informed was two times higher than among all voters. That means that to some degree the parliamentary election scenario recurred, when a considerable part of the population voted having no proper information, but in line with their political-ideological preferences. What could be said about information availability at the presidential election, and how information knowledge is related to personal choice of voters?
Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question: “Do you have enough information about the candidates for presidency?”*, %
* Data of the survey conducted by IISEPS in August of 2001. Read horizontally
Table 2. Voting at the coming presidential election depending on availability of enough information about the candidates*, %
| Variant of answer |
Voting at the presidential election: |
|||||
|
For Lukashenko (47.4) |
For Domash (12.1) |
For Goncharik (11.4) |
For Gaidukevich (4.1) |
For no one (10.6) |
DA/NA (14.4) |
|
| Yes (23.8) |
66.2 |
9.2 |
11.6 |
3.7 |
3.9 |
3.4 |
| No (65.4) |
42.0 |
12.3 |
11.6 |
4.5 |
12.6 |
17.0 |
| DA/NA (10.8) |
39.0 |
17.1 |
9.8 |
2.9 |
13.3 |
18.9 |
* Data of the survey conducted by IISEPS in August of 2001. Read horizontally (for example,11.6% of those who had enough information about the candidates for presidency said they would vote for V. Goncharik)
The election campaigning of the last several weeks achieved the goal – awareness of voters jumped. More than 55% of respondents said that at the past election they had enough information of the candidates for presidency and their programs (see Table 3).
Table 3. Voting at the coming presidential election depending on availability of enough information about the candidates*, %
| Variant of answer |
Voting at the presidential election: |
||||
|
For Lukashenko (48.2) |
For Goncharik (21.0) |
For Gaidukevich (2.9) |
Against all (7.8) |
DA/NA (8.7) |
|
| Yes (55.5) |
58.1 |
19.7 |
2.8 |
4.2 |
6.5 |
| No (44.1) |
36.0 |
22.8 |
3.1 |
11.0 |
11.0 |
| DA/NA (0.4) |
14.3 |
– |
– |
– |
42.9 |
* Only those who took part in the election are included. Read horizontally. (for example,19.7% of those who had enough information about the candidates for presidency said they would vote for V. Goncharik)
Correlation between information knowledge and support in favor of a certain candidate is as follows. Among those who said they had enough information about the candidates and their programs, almost 60% voted for A. Lukashenko, whereas for V. Goncharik – less than 20% (see Table 3). The majority of voters (more than one third) who had no enough information, also cast their votes in favor of A. Lukashenko (compare – only 22.8% voted for V. Goncharik). Thus, we could not say that uninformed people voted for A. Lukashenko. One might argue the degree of their information knowledge and how they understand it, but fact remains fact – 58.1% of those who had, or believed they had enough information about the candidates for presidency voted for A. Lukashenko. So, we could assume these people made a conscious choice. At least, they think so.
OSCE’s mission for limited election monitoring concluded that in the process of the election campaign the candidates for presidency had no equal chances to use mass media. And more than half of respondents agrees with such opinion (see Table 4). It is worth mentioning that in this case estimations of those who voted for A. Lukashenko and V. Goncharik turned to be quite different – almost 55% of those who supported A. Lukashenko are confident the candidates enjoyed an equal access to mass media (twice as less of his supporters answered in the opposite), whereas the distribution of answers among V. Goncharik’s adherers is absolutely different – 5.9% and 85.3%, respectively.
Table 4. Distribution of answers to the question: “Do you think all the candidates for presidency enjoyed an equal access to state-run mass media?”, %
Many experts pointed at the fact that the presidential campaign was almost unnoticeable, that the candidates were not very active. Considering the conditions under which campaigning took place, and also its short-time nature, one could, of course, partially agree with the given statement having voters’ opinion as a basis. As we see from Table 5, voters distinguished traditional sources of information about the candidates for presidency – TV programs and newspapers. One cannot but admit that less than 10% of voters had personal meetings with the candidates and their representatives. However, it is widely known that direct communicating is not a comprehensive, but the most efficient way of campaigning.
Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question: “From which sources did you receive information about the candidates and their programs?” (more than one answer is possible)
As we could prove, the majority of respondents does not believe usage of state-run mass media was equal. Nonetheless, their estimation of the usage of mass media, first of all, television, seems of great interest.
Almost 70% of respondents watched the candidates speaking on TV, and there is no difference between all the voters and those who voted for A. Lukashenko or V. Goncharik (see Table 6). As it turned out, possibilities of the domestic TV, even considering limited airtime given to both A. Lukashenko’s rivals, according to respondents, were not used successfully – only one third of respondents said the candidates’ televised addresses had affected their choice to some degree (see Table 7). More than 43% of respondents think in the opposite. The given figures might be interpreted in two ways – either the candidates inefficiently used their right to speak on TV, or voters know well the candidates and no TV addresses could have influenced upon their vision. In fact, the number of those whose choice was affected by such televised addresses is about 30% higher among V. Goncharik’s supporters, than among all the respondents. This is an indirect proof that unusual for the Belarusian TV speeches of the civic coalition single candidate produce a certain result. Naturally, it turned more noticeable among democratic-minded voters and was not such impressive as expected.
Table 6. Distribution of answers to the question: “Did you watch the candidates’ televised addresses?”, %
Table 7. Distribution of answers to the question: “Did such televised addresses by the the candidates affect your decision for whom to vote?”, %
Table 8. Distribution of answers to the question: “Whom of the candidates who spoke on TV at the assigned time did you like most of all?”, %
At the same time, more than 40% of voters stated they did not like any of the candidates who spoke on TV. As we know, A. Lukashenko refused to appear on TV at the time assigned. Table 8 demonstrates that voters’ estimation of the candidates televised addresses depends on political preferences of voters. Most of A. Lukashenko’s supporters, since their favorite did not appear on TV, liked no one of the candidates, with S. Gaidukevich and V. Goncharik staying within margin of error with this group. V. Goncharik’s electorate liked democratic candidates.
All this should be kept in mind for future election campaigns of different levels, where democratic forces are going to take part. While planning strategy for such campaigns and fairly demanding equal conditions with authorities regarding access to state-run mass media, especially electronic, possibilities of television must not be overestimated. Perhaps, 40% of those who did not like any of the candidates speaking on TV resulted from lack of experience of candidates and low professionalism of their advisers. However, in a very polarized, value-split society, what we witness in Belarus, candidates focusing their election addresses on urgent political topics are able to provoke a reaction only from their electorates.