MASS MEDIA AND THINK TANKS – THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTICIPANTS OF SOCIAL-POLITICAL PROCESS IN BELARUS

Results of the future presidential election and further development of social-political process in many respects are defined by people’s readiness to openly express their political views. Belarusian authorities constantly repeat that there are no obstacles for that, the opposition always underscores the atmosphere of fear, which has been formed in the country under the rule of A. Lukashenko. To make the situation clear, for the first time we asked our respondents a direct question. (see Table 1).

Table 1. Assessment of Belarusians’ readiness to express their political views

As we could see, the overwhelming majority – almost 70%! – of respondents believe that this or that way they are afraid of expressing their political views. Therefore, demands of the opposition and international organizations to create an atmosphere of trust are absolutely reasonable.

However, no matter what social-political atmosphere exists in the country, the presidential election shall be staged. First, because the majority of Belarus’s citizens are dissatisfied with present situation and want changes (54.6% of respondents say that during voting the most important clause of the program of candidates for presidency will be “introducing sweeping changes to present policy of A. Lukashenko”). Second, because the overwhelming majority considers election as the most important way to introduce such changes (today more than 76% of respondents are ready to take part in the upcoming presidential election). Refusal to participate in it (boycott) or even its delay may strengthen a widespread apathy, unbelief in positive changes, or hopes for new “strong arm”. Both these factors would distance prospects of Belarus’s democracy.

Table 2. Assessment of factors affecting outcome of presidential election most of all

What the majority of Belarusians looking for sweeping changes and presidential election could rely on, what, in their opinion, will affect its outcomes most of all? See Table 2 for citizen’s answers to this question. As we could see, regardless of the atmosphere of distrust and fear, the majority of citizens rely, first of all, on themselves, on their own vote. The matter is: who and how could help Belarus’s citizens form an objective opinion, which would be base on actual, rather than distorted (lying propaganda, narrow political interests, etc.) reality, and even more – to express one’s opinion not only at the final stage of election (at polling booths), but also during election campaign. As a matter of fact, only under such conditions the election would be recognized as free and fair. From the same table we could see that adequately assessing role of so-called administrative resource (A. Lukashenko plus local authorities) Belarusians give a very important role to mass media. But as we know, absolutely different mass media operate in our country: state-run and non-state, Belarusian and foreign. Which social-political positions do they have? What do they affect? What role will they play during the election campaign? To answer these questions we would carry out a comparative analysis of their permanent audiences, i.e. those who listen to and watch them daily (see Table 3).

Table 3. Comparative social-political portrait of permanent audiences of different mass media, %

* BR – Belarusian state-run radio, FM – private Belarusian radio stations, FR – foreign radio stations (not Russian!), BTV– Belarusian state-run TV,RTV – Russian TV channels, FTV – foreign TV channels
** Alternative candidates – those who declared their intentions of running for presidency: S. Gaidukevich, V. Goncharik ,S. Domash, P. Kozlovsky, Z. Poznyak, M. Chigir

Another important institute, which offers citizens necessary information, assists in formation of objective public opinion, are independent Belarusian research and analytical centers (think tanks). IISEPS has already published results of numerous national opinion polls, in line with which ratings of public trust to thinks tanks far exceeds ratings of trust to many other state and public institutions (including government, parliament, local authorities, political parties, labor unions, etc.). In our opinion, growing role of these structures in public-social process explains increasing authorities’ pressure upon them. Charges of being subjective, commercially dependent, politically engaged, and even spy accusations have become a permanent refrain of statements by many officials, which affect activities of think tanks. A direct question in this respect shows people’s attitude towards such activities (see Table 4). As we could see, more than half of respondents know about activities of Belarusian think tanks, and the bulk of them trust their figures and analysis. Therefore, the majority of Belarusians do not supports calls of some “guards” of public opinion not to publicize results of sociological opinion polls, because they considerably affect public opinion and political situation in the country (see Table 5).

Table 4. Distribution of answers to the question: “Could figures and analysis by independent research centers be trusted?”

Table 5. Assessment of calls not to publicize results of sociological opinion polls, because they significantly affect public opinion and political situation in the country

As we could see, audiences of Belarusian and foreign, state-run and non-state electronic mass media differ greatly in the majority of social-political features. Listeners of Belarusian non-state and western radio, and especially Internet users – are people who share democratic and market values, support Belarus’s independence, respect international structures and standards. On the contrary, anti-democratic and anti-market values are peculiar to audience of Belarusian state-run radio and television, it shows suspicious attitude towards international structures and standards, and the country’s sovereignty is not a value for it. Those who watch Russian TV channels are placed between these two groups. Projecting these data on the election campaign (and social-political process as a whole), with high degree of probability one could make prognoses of role of different mass media and what voices and positions they would represent. Therefore, OSCE’s demands to grant access to state-run mass media to the opposition seems a quite reasonable and necessary condition for staging a free and fair election.

Interest in data by independent researchers and trust to them from the side of society becomes a powerful factor of their influence upon public opinion. Results of this influence are seen from Table 6.

Table 6. Comparative social-political portrait of those who trust figures and analysis by independent research centers and also those who know nothing about them, %

As one could notice, audience of think tanks – those who share democratic and market values, supporters of Belarus’s independence respecting international structures and standards. But those who know nothing about activities of these centers very often adhere to absolutely opposite opinions. It is impossible not to spot similarity of this “picture” with the above “picture” on mass media: independent research centers exert the same influence (by nature, if not by scale) upon public opinion, as independent mass media do. Aside from that, as results of the previous national survey by IISEPS showed (which was conducted in late 2000), almost 57% of those who trust independent mass media also trust think tanks (compare: opposition political parties have only 21.2%, labor unions – 17.1%, government 17.0%, Supreme Council – 19.3%, National Assembly – 11.3%).

Reasons for such close interaction of audiences of non-state mass media and think tanks are obvious: both institutions unite (though in different proportions) two major activities – perception of society and influence upon it. Their inner mechanisms differ greatly, but they provide a similar result – information and analysis addressed to society. Moreover, alliance of these two institutions of civic society is mutually beneficial: information and analysis offered by non-state mass media on the basis of materials provided by think tanks becomes more reasonable and persuasive; in turn, by getting a direct contact with society think tanks gain publicity and respect. Since scale of activities and influence of independent mass media (its permanent audience is 4fold smaller than that of Belarusian TV) and think tanks (where there are fewer people than in one state academic institute) cannot be compared to state-run mass media, their alliance strengthens positions of both sides, intensifies their influence upon society, including their role in the starting presidential campaign.

Until opposition circles discuss the issue of to what extent mass media and research centers, which resist attempts of imposing control from the side of these circles, shall be supported, Belarusian authorities – knowing well potential role of alliance of independent mass media and think tanks – create new restrictions for their activities. The recently published presidential decree № 8 puts serious obstacles in this respect, since the bulk of independent mass media and think tanks receive different support from international structures. Undoubtedly, rise in this unique alliance’s role in social-political process amplifies roles of other powers of society, which are interested in changes, open new perspectives for democratic development of Belarus, strengthening its independence and return to European community.