«

»

ELITE AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The completion of the survey among opinion leaders coincided with the ending of the signature collection campaign to support the contenders, when it became clear that the majority of them fell off the further presidential race. However, there are names of 21 contenders in the survey materials, since it began in early July, when all the contenders demonstrated full confidence in their prospects. By that time only N. Masherova had claimed she was stepping down, and her name was excluded.

From analytical point of view the given circumstance, as we see it, is quite useful, since it allows to see to what extent declared ambitions by the contenders, who collected signatures, are adequate to the results received. At the same time, one could once again become certain of reliability of sociological researches, which show electoral possibilities (to be more correct, absence of such possibilities) of most of the contenders who left the field.

So, the survey results reveal that the overwhelming majority of leaders, regardless of structures they represent, do not want A. Lukashenko to be the president of Belarus for another term. (See Table 1). However, as one could note, there is a certain tendency when the number of supporters of the above opinion is decreasing while the number of its opponents is creeping up, and not only in the state sector. We believe it relates, first of all, to the fact that a part of Belarus’ elite is more and more disappointed with real figures opposing A. Lukashenko, second, it should not be excluded that on the threshold of the presidential election Belarusian authorities are trying to bribe officials in different ways, for example, by means of raising salaries, etc.

Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question: “Would you like A. Lukashenko to be the president for another term?”, %

Variant of answer

All respondents

Public sector employees

Private sector employees

04’01

05’01

07’01

04’01

05’01

07’01

04’01

05’01

07’01

No

91.4

87.5

81.5

77.8

71.0

64.3

100.0

98.0

94.6

Yes

4.3

7.5

9.2

11.1

19.4

17.9

2.7

Table 2 shows that the majority of leaders from any structures is going to take part in the upcoming presidential election. Naturally, the June survey revealed no one who was going to ignore the election. It proves how acute the current presidential campaign is for leaders.

Table 2. Dynamics of distribution of answers on intention to take part in the presidential election, %

Variant of answer

All respondents

Public sector employees

Private sector employees

04’01

05’01

07’01

04’01

05’01

07’01

04’01

05’01

07’01

Yes

66.7

82.5

86.2

74.1

87.2

85.7

61.9

79.6

86.5

No

13.0

11.3

14.8

6.4

11.9

14.3

Will make decision depending on political situation

20.3

6.2

–*

11.1

6.4

–*

26.2

6.1

–*

* In the July survey the given option was omitted

As one could see from Table 3, over the last two months ratings of S. Domash and V. Goncharik jumped, both in state and non-state sectors. Although a new name appeared in the list of contenders – M. Marinich – it almost did not affect distribution of forces in the opposition camp. In our opinion, it resulted from the formation of the democratic candidates’ coalition, as we foresaw it.

Table 3. Dynamics of distribution of answers to the question: “If the presidential election had taken place tomorrow, whom would you have voted for?”, %(open question)

Variant of answer

All respondents

Public sector employees

Private sector employees

04’01

05’01

07’01

04’01

05’01

07’01

04’01

05’01

07’01

S. Domash

15.9

18.8

29.5

3.7

6.5

10.7

23.8

26.5

43.3

V. Goncharik

7.2

10.0

16.9

3.7

16.1

25.0

9.5

6.1

10.8

М. Marinich

12.3

17.9

8.1

А. Lukashenko

1.4

7.5

7.7

3.7

19.4

17.9

М. Chigir

10.1

23.8

6.2

11.1

22.6

9.5

24.5

10.8

А. Yaroshuk

4.3

4.6

3.7

3.6

4.8–

5.4

L. Kalugin

1.5

3.6

* Those mentioned in the latest survey are included

However, if leaders from state structures gave their preference to V. Goncharik, non-state structures’ leaders spoke in favor of S. Domash. The above fact, regardless of their participation in the coalition, reflects an existing contradiction between the given contenders and their supporters, which might potentially lead to a split of democratic electorate and, as a result, to a defeat at the election.

As for the other members of the coalition, leaders’ opinion clearly spotted M. Chigir’s high negative rating driving him from the first to the fifth place and, finally, kicking him out. The names of two other members of the coalition – S. Kalyakin and P. Kozlovsky – were not mentioned in the open rating, because they fell off from the list of potential contenders.

Table 4. Dynamics of distribution of answers to the question: “For whom of the below mentioned politicians are you ready to vote at the presidential election?”, % (closed question)

Variant of answer

All respondents

Public sector employees

Private sector employees

01’01

07’01

01’01

07’01

01’01

07’01

S. Domash

21.6

32.3

3.3

10.7

34.1

48.6

V. Goncharik

18.9

23.1

26.7

32.1

13.6

16.2

М. Marinich

–*

12.3

–*

14.3

–*

10.8

А. Lukashenko

4.1

10.8

10.0

25.0

М. Chigir

14.9

6.2

13.3

15.9

10.8

А. Yaroshuk

5.4

4.6

3.3

3.6

6.8

5.4

L. Kalugin

–*

1.5

–*

3.6

–*

P. Kozlovsky

4.1

1.5

6.8

2.7

* Was omitted from the list

There is a tendency of growing A. Lukashenko’s support among leaders of state structures, though its overall level is relatively low (every sixth of the respondents), which might be evidence of their uncertainty of democrats’ power because of the above mentioned contradictions. As for the other contenders, their support is insignificant.

In general, dynamics of the open rating proved our supposition that the leaders’ list of major contenders for presidency has finally stabilized. And M. Marinich’s attempt to edge his way into the number of candidates from democratic forces, which failed, did not affect it. Besides, M. Marinich’s action could be viewed as an attempt to split the democratic opposition, i.e. playing in A. Lukashenko’s hand. If M. Marinich was honestly mistaken of his chances and objective role, it is just a further proof of his personal analytical abilities, and abilities of his team. Sure, there is a third variant: key figures of his team intentionally mislead him. The fact that he joined the coalition and might strengthen it reduces the first variant to nothing.

The closed rating reveals a similar distribution of major contenders (see Table 4): the favorites are the same, their ranking is the same (a comparison with the January results is made for the sake of correctness, because May and April surveys offered the closed rating on the basis of a question put alternatively). The difference from the open rating is that absolute figures of all the contenders is slightly higher, which is quite explicable.

The data of Table 5 is of certain interest. As one could note, opinion leaders, regardless of structures they represent, are positive towards all democratic-minded contenders. V. Goncharik (87.7%) tops the list, leaving the rest of candidates far behind. Then goes M. Chigir (80.8%), who was kicked out, and S. Domash (76.9%). M. Narinich (9.2%) leads in terms of negative attitude, followed by S. Domash (9.3%) and V. Goncharik (10.8). At the same time many respondents have not determined their attitude towards S. Domash and M. Marinich, whereas everything is clear regarding V. Goncharik.

Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question: “What is your attitude towards each of the below listed politicians?”, %

Politician

All respondents

Public sector employees

Private sector employees

Positively

Negatively

Heard nothing about him/her

DA/NA

Positively

Negatively

Heard nothing about him/her

DA/NA

Positively

Negatively

Heard nothing about him/her

DA/NA

V. Goncharik

87.7

10.8

1.5

85.7

10.7

3.6

89.2

10.8

М. Chigir

80.0

15.4

4.6

64.3

25.0

10.7

91.9

8.1

S. Domash

76.9

9.3

1.5

12.3

60.7

10.7

3.6

25.0

89.2

8.1

2.7

М. Marinich

72.3

9.2

1.5

17.0

85.7

3.6

10.7

62.1

16.2

21.7

А. Yaroshuk

58.4

15.3

26.3

46.5

10.7

42.8

67.6

18.9

13.5

P. Kozlovsky

55.3

18.4

7.7

18.6

35.7

21.5

14.3

28.5

70.3

16.2

2.7

10.8

S. Kalyakin

41.5

35.4

6.2

16.9

25.0

28.6

10.7

35.7

54.0

40.5

2.7

2.8

L. Kalugin

30.8

41.5

13.8

13.9

57.1

14.3

14.3

14.3

10.8

62.1

13.5

13.6

L. Sinitsyn

30.8

53.8

9.2

6.2

32.1

46.4

14.3

7.2

29.7

59.4

5.4

5.5

S. Antonchik

27.7

44.6

9.2

18.5

10.7

46.5

21.4

21.4

40.5

43.2

16.

Z. Poznyak

18.5

73.8

7.7

10.7

78.6

10.7

24.3

70.2

5.5

А. Lukashenko

13.9

81.5

4.6

28.5

60.7

10.8

2.7

97.3

Y. Kryzhanovsky

13.8

30.8

30.8

24.6

10.7

53.6

35.7

24.3

45.9

13.5

16.3

V. Tereschenko

9.2

52.3

20.0

18.5

14.3

25.0

39.3

21.4

5.4

72.9

5.4

16.3

S. Gaidukevich

4.6

83.0

3.1

9.3

3.6

78.6

7.1

10.7

5.4

86.5

8.1

Y. Dankov

3.1

44.6

32.3

20.0

3.6

35.8

46.4

14.2

2.7

51.3

21.6

24.4

V. Levonevsky

3.1

53.8

24.6

18.5

3.6

25.0

50.0

21.4

2.7

75.7

5.4

16.2

S. Skrobets

3.1

17.0

58.5

21.4

3.6

10.7

57.1

28.6

2.7

21.6

59.5

16.2

К. Kononovich

1.5

15.4

55.4

27.7

7.2

60.7

32.1

2.7

21.6

51.4

24.3

N. Mekeko

1.5

24.6

50.8

23.1

3.6

3.6

60.7

32.1

40.5

43.2

16.3

V. Semako

9.3

64.6

26.1

3.6

67.9

28.5

13.5

62.2

24.3

We could also note that leaders view S. Gaidukevich rather negatively, though he still retains chances to run for presidency. As for the other participants of the presidential race, only those who are democratic-minded (the coalition members plus M. Marinich and A. Yaroshuk) enjoy leaders’ positive attitude. The rest are mostly viewed in the negative by leaders or there is no clear attitude at all.

According to leaders, N. Masherova’s participation in the presidential race could hardly have changed something: three fourths of respondents have no doubt in this respect (see Table 6). Therefore, her quitting in the very beginning of the race just simplified the situation and was not useless for the democratic opposition.

Table 6. Distribution of answers to the question: “Many regret N. Masherova quitted the presidential race. Do you think she had chances to win?”, %

As leaders believe (see Table 7), A. Lukashenko (75.4%), V. Goncharik (63.1%) and S. Domash (46.2%) have the best prospects to enter the second round, if there is a second round. According to leaders, regardless of structures they represent, the coalition made the right choice nominating V. Goncharik as the single candidate from the democratic opposition. Table 8 shows this statement is true, and provides leaders’ opinion regarding possible variants for the second round of the presidential election. As we might see, here leaders prefer V. Goncharik giving him 78.5% of votes, whereas S. Domash gets only 70.8%. The given ratio is true for state and non-state structures.

Table 7. Distribution of answers to the question: “Who of the below mentioned politicians has the strongest chances to enter the second round of the presidential election?”, %

Table 8. Dynamics of distribution of answers to the question: “If today you were to choose the president from the following two politicians, how would you have voted?”, %

Variant of answer

All respondents

Public sector employees

Private sector employees

04’01

05’01

07’01

04’01

05’01

07’01

04’01

05’01

07’01

А. Lukashenko – V. Goncharik
For А. Lukashenko

5.8

7.5

10.8

14.8

19.4

25.0

For V. Goncharik

78.3

76.3

78.5

63.0

54.8

60.7

88.1

89.8

91.9

Against both

5.8

12.5

3.1

3.7

19.4

7.11

8.2

5.4

А. Lukashenko – М. Marinich
For A. Lukashenko

–*

–*

3.1

–*

–*

7.1

–*

–*

For M. Marinich

–*

–*

76.9

–*

–*

75.0

–*

–*

78.4

Against both

–*

–*

6.2

–*

–*

–*

–*

10.8

А. Lukashenko – М. Chigir
For A. Lukashenko

5.8

7.5

7.7

14.8

19.4

17.9

For M. Chigir

78.3

80.0

73.8

59.3

71.0

50.0

90.4

85.8

91.9

Against both

8.7

7.5

7.7

14.8

6.4

10.7

4.8

8.2

5.4

А. Lukashenko – S. Domash
For A. Lukashenko

5.8

7.5

10.8

14.8

19.4

25.0

For S. Domash

69.6

72.5

70.8

48.1

51.6

50.0

83.3

85.8

86.5

Against both

13.0

16.3

6.2

18.6

22.6

9.5

12.2

10.8

А. Lukashenko – P. Kozlovsky
For A. Lukashenko

5.8

7.5

9.2

14.8

19.4

21.4

For P. Kozlovsky

69.6

65.0

64.6

48.1

51.5

39.3

83.3

73.5

83.8

Against both

10.1

17.5

9.2

11.1

19.4

10.7

9.5

16.3

8.1

А. Lukashenko – S. Kalyakin
For A. Lukashenko

–*

7.5

13.8

–*

19.4

32.1

–*

For S. Kalyakin

–*

46.3

47.7

–*

35.5

28.6

–*

53.1

62.2

Against both

–*

33.8

24.6

–*

35.5

17.9

–*

32.7

29.7

А. Lukashenko – L. Sinitsyn
For A. Lukashenko

–*

–*

7.7

–*

–*

17.9

–*

–*

For L. Sinistyn

–*

–*

35.4

–*

–*

25.0

–*

–*

43.3

Against both

–*

–*

40.0

–*

–*

32.1

–*

–*

45.9

А. Lukashenko – Z. Poznyak
For A. Lukashenko

–*

–*

10.8

–*

–*

25.0

–*

–*

For Z. Poznyak

–*

–*

21.5

–*

–*

7.1

–*

–*

32.4

Against both

–*

–*

50.8

–*

–*

42.9

–*

–*

56.8

* The given pair was not offered in the survey indicated

Table 8 reveals that two thirds of leaders would like to see a member of the democratic candidates’ coalition the future president. Much more leaders from non-state structures share this opinion (83.8%). As for leaders from state structures, they would equally (37.5%) opt for a member of the coalition or another candidate, most probably M. Marinich, as Tables 3 and 4 show.

And, finally, only 21.4% of leaders from state sector want to see A. Lukashenko as Belarus’ president. There are no such answers in non-state sector.

Table 9. Distribution of answers to the question: “Whom would you like to see the president of Belarus?”, %

Table 10 presents leaders’ opinion on how the majority of voters would vote at the upcoming election. As we see, 41.5% of pollees are confident that a candidate from the democratic coalition would receive the majority of votes, whereas 35.4% believe A. Lukashenko is likely to win. Less than 11% of leaders say another candidate would win. However, in answers to this question there is a strong dependence on the sector leaders represent: in state structures more respondents say A. Lukashenkos is going to win (53.6%), in non-state structures – a candidate from the coalition (54.1%).

Table 10. Distribution of answers to the question: “For whom, do you think, the majority of Belarusians would vote at the presidential election?”, %

The above fact once again reminds that Belarus’ elite is heterogeneous, its different groups have different interests, which, in the end, do not contribute to the victory. Therefore, a consolidation is necessary, a compromise variant must be looked for. It should unite interests of different groups and segments of Belarus’ elite, opinion of which is indicative for a considerable part of the electorate.

There is another important problem, which mostly saddens prospects for the democratic opposition in the presidential campaign. This is the problem of confidence in the election returns. As we could see from Table 11, four out of five leaders are confident that the upcoming election is unlikely to be free and fair. In non-state structures the ratio is even higher. In state structures it levels at three out of five. Even though the figure is rather high, the tendency of growing confidence in the election returns among those, on many of whom it depends, causes certain concern.

Table 11. Dynamics of distribution of answers to the question: “Do you think the upcoming presidential election would be free and fair?”, %

Variant of answer

All respondents

Public sector employees

Private sector employees

04’01

05’01

07’01

04’01

05’01

07’01

04’01

05’01

07’01

No

85.6

82.4

80.0

74.1

67.8

60.7

92.9

91.8

94.6

Yes

7.2

6.3

10.8

18.5

16.1

25.0

Thus, leaders’ prognosis regarding the presidential election for a wide democratic coalition is rather optimistic. However, realization of possibilities in many respects depends on how the candidates-democrats – V. Goncharik and S. Domash – would be able to honor agreements reached by the “five”. Practice shows that the formation process of the “five” was of a complex and contradictory nature, however it completed positively. Uniting the outsiders’ teams (members of the “five”) to work for a single candidate is unlikely to be easy. However, uniting electorate of all democratic candidates is of greater importance to win the election. Otherwise, victory is out of the question.