CAMPAIGNING BASED ONLY ON NEGATIVE INFORMATION HAS HAD NO EFFECT DESIRED

It is no secret that until recently election campaigning of democratic candidates has been based mainly on revealing information about “shady” affairs of the present authorities – its alleged involvement in elimination of prominent politicians and journalists, illegal arms trade, persecution of political opponents for political reasons, etc. To put it differently, voters offered information about moral image of those who govern the country and draw a conclusion: do they have the right to continue leading the country.

What are the first results of this campaign? We must admit that so far it has not come up to the expectations. Only one fourth of respondents believe in allegations voiced by former investigators of the prosecutor’s office D. Petrushkevich and O. Sluchek, the same number of respondents do not believe them, and about 40% heard nothing about it (see Table 1). As for the information revealed by I. Titenkov, the situation is similar (see Table 2).

Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question: “Former investigators of the prosecutor’s office D. Petrushkevich and O. Sluchek accused Belarus’ top leadership of involvement in the physical elimination of prominent opposition politicians and a journalist. Do you believe these charges?”*, %

* Here and below options “Find it difficult to answer” and “No answer” are excluded

Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question: “In his recent interviews I. Titenkov, former presidential affairs manager, charged A. Lukashenko with illegal bugging, illegal usage of arms trade revenues, involvement in the disappearance of opposition politicians, etc. Do you believe such accusations?”, %

Aside from that, voters are certain that sensational publications are unlikely to cause harm to A. Lukashenko – more than 40% stated that information voiced by D. Petrushkevich and O. Sluchek would not affect the election returns, and almost 60% said such information would not influence their personal choice (see Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. Distribution of answers to the question: “Do you think the information revealed by former investigators D. Petrushkevich and O. Sluchek could affect voting results regarding A. Lukashenko’s candidacy?”, %

Table 4. Distribution of answers to the question: “Would this information affect your choice while voting on September 9?”, %

Why potentially explosive publications and interviews have not led to the expected explosion so far? Why the respondents are rather reserved regarding influence of disclosing information upon voting results? Moreover, during the April survey about 40% of respondents said that information about a possible involvement of a candidate for presidency in the disappearance of prominent opposition politicians would affect their choice while voting (see Table 5).

Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question: “Would information about a candidate’s involvement in the disappearance of prominent opposition politician affect your choice while voting?”, %

As for convinced adherers of A. Lukashenko, the situation is more or less clear – they will never let their favorite be offended. The position of democratic electorate is also clear – those who believed the former investigators and I. Titenkov. Reaction by the “vacillatory” was relatively reserved, because an old stereotype seems to be in place – “it’s not my business, I am not an opposition politician, not a businessman, not a journalist, and therefore such repressions would not affect me personally”. In a similar situation in the Ukraine there were no mass public protests. We shall not also exclude that to some people the information revealed seemed unconvincing.

Undoubtedly, for voters the problem of security is important. And assessing actions by the head of state, whom V. Goncharik provided with documents proving involvement of some top state officials in the disappearance of prominent opposition politicians, respondents are guided by common sense – if there are documents, they must be checked rather than announced a forge (see Table 6). The majority is not satisfied how investigations into these cases are being carried out (see Table 7). Nevertheless, economy is mentioned as one of the main problems for the future president (see Table 8). In this respect the democratic candidate must not only reveal all demerits of his rival, he needs a convincing positive campaigning depicting him as a constructive politician able to solve problems of an average voter, who is far away from political battles. It is very difficult to change public opinion only by means of criticizing A. Lukashenko, especially considering the fact that until recently such actions haven’t been of a regular character and have been viewed differently than expected by democrats (see Table 9).

Table 6. Distribution of answers to the question: “What, do you think, the president should do in response to the address by V.Gocnharik, leader of the Labor Union Federation, who provided documents proving involvement of some top state officials in the disappearance of prominent politicians?”, %

Table 7. Dynamics of distribution of answers to the question: “Are you satisfied with A. Lukashenko’s guided investigation into the disappearance of prominent politicians Y. Zakharenko and V. Gonchar, businessman V. Krasovsky and ORT cameraman D. Zavadsky?”, %

* This question was not included into the April and June surveys

Table 8. Dynamics of distribution of answers to the question: “Which of the existing problems the future president of Belarus shall solve first of all?”, %

Table 9. Distribution of answers to the question: “In different programs on Russian TV channels (“Here and now”, “Times”, “Today at midnight”) leaders of the Belarusian opposition criticized A. Lukashenko. Has you opinion of him changed because of these programs?”, %

Another possible reason for such a reserved reaction is that about 70% of respondents said that people in Belarus are afraid of expressing their political views to some extent (see Table 10).

Table 10. Dynamics of distribution of answers to the question: “What do you think about Belarusians’ readiness to express their political views?”, %

There is also an indicative and suspicious point – voters’ awareness of candidates for presidency (see Table 11). Several weeks left before the election almost two thirds of respondents have no enough information about candidates for presidency. And A. Lukashenko’s supporters are the most informed in this respect.

Table 11. Distribution of answers to the question: “Do you have enough information about candidates for presidency?”, %

Table 12. Voting at the presidential election depending on having enough information about candidates*, %

* Read horizontally, for example, among those who have enough information about candidates for presidency, 11.6% said they are going to vote for V. Goncharik

Naturally, now when the election teledebates have started the situation must improve. None the less, at the 2000 election to the Chamber of Representatives the situation was similar, but voters cast their votes in line with their political and ideological preferences. And those who have no such views, would traditionally vote in favor of A. Lukashenko because of the information shortage (see Table 12).