As was repeatedly stated, there are millions in Belarus who are not proponents of present authorities’ policy. However, the majority of them have not yet taken the side of the opposition. Why Belarus’s political elite does not use considerable public support? See Table 1 for opinions of representatives of domestic elite.
Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question: “Present opposition does not enjoy public support in Belarus, because opposition leaders:”* (%)
| Variant of answer |
All respondents
|
Private sector employees
|
Public sector employees
|
| Have no opportunity to convey their views and programs to people |
63.2
|
73.5
|
52.9
|
| Are guided by their own interests and party programs, rather than people’s interests |
36.8
|
32.4
|
41.2
|
| Resort only to criticism, suggesting no constructive ways out |
26.5
|
20.6
|
32.4
|
| Are nationalists, and against friendship with Russia |
20.6
|
11.8
|
29.4
|
| Receive material support from the West and convey its interests |
14.7
|
2.9
|
26.5
|
| Want to build capitalism dividing society into rich and poor |
2.9
|
2.9
|
2.9
|
| Are radicals, extremists, urge for violent change of present policy, what may lead to civil war |
1.5
|
–
|
2.9
|
| Other reason |
11.8
|
14.7
|
8.8
|
* More than one answer is possible
As the major reason for that representatives of state as well as non-state structures pointed at the absence of opportunity for the opposition to convey its views and programs to people. This explanations seems quite reasonable. One of the first things that A. Lukashenko did as the president was denial of access to state-run mass media to his opponents, especially to electronic mass media with the largest audience. Up to 1994 summer the opposition enjoyed a more or less free access to mass media, but its ratings were basically the same.
Today opponents of official authorities have quite a free access to non-state mass media. Undoubtedly, their total circulation is lower than that of state-run newspapers and magazines. But members of the opposition always have an opportunity to express their point of view in independent newspapers. As it turned out, representatives of state structures closely watch non-state press (see Table 2), though so far it has not affected their assessment of the opposition.
Table 2. Distribution of answers to the question: “Which non-state mass media do you prefer to read, listen to, watch?”, %
| Variant of answer |
All respondents
|
Private sector employees
|
Public sector employees
|
| Newspapers: | |||
| BDG |
69.1
|
73.5
|
64.7
|
| Narodnaya Volya |
45.6
|
41.2
|
50.0
|
| BG |
44.1
|
47.1
|
41.2
|
| Nasha Svaboda |
25.0
|
32.4
|
17.6
|
| Belorussky Rynok |
8.8
|
2.9
|
14.7
|
| Svobodnye Novosti |
8.8
|
17.6
|
–
|
| Belarus Today |
4.4
|
2.9
|
5.9>
|
| Belaruski Chas |
2.9
|
–
|
5.9
|
| Izvestia |
2.9
|
2.9
|
2.9
|
| Komsomolskaya Pravda |
2.9
|
2.9
|
2.9
|
| Rabochaya Solidarnost |
2.9
|
–
|
5.9
|
| Argumenty i Facty |
1.5
|
–
|
2.9
|
| Birzha Informatsyi |
1.5
|
2.9
|
–
|
| Va-bank |
1.5
|
–
|
2.9
|
| Courier> |
1.5
|
2.9
|
–
|
| Navinki |
1.5
|
–
|
2.9
|
| Nasha Slova |
1.5
|
–
|
2.9
|
| Pagonya |
1.5
|
2.9
|
–
|
| Rabochy |
1.5
|
2.9
|
–
|
| Radio stations: | |||
| Liberty |
22.1
|
26.5
|
17.6
|
| Ratsyia |
11.8
|
20.6
|
2.9
|
| BA |
10.3
|
5.9
|
14.7
|
| Radio-Rocks |
8.8
|
8.8
|
8.8
|
| Alpha-Radio |
4.4
|
5.9
|
2.9
|
| Mayak |
4.4
|
2.9
|
5.9
|
| FM-stations |
2.9
|
–
|
5.9
|
| TV channels: | |||
| NTV |
63.2
|
67.6
|
58.8
|
| ORT |
26.5
|
29.4
|
23.5
|
| RTR |
20.6
|
14.7
|
26.5
|
| 8 channel |
16.2
|
5.9
|
26.5
|
| Kultura |
8.8
|
8.8
|
8.8
|
| CNN |
2.9
|
–
|
5.9
|
| TV-6 |
2.9
|
2.9
|
2.9
|
| Cosmos TV |
1.5
|
2.9
|
–
|
| TNT |
1.5
|
–
|
2.9
|
Almost one third of non-state structures’ employees and more than 40% of those from state structures believe that opposition members are mostly guided by their own interests and parties’ programs, rather than by people’s interests, and 20.6% and 32.4%, correspondingly, pointed at a non-constructive nature of the opposition behavior, which, as they put it, resorts only to criticism suggesting no alternative ways out.
It is noteworthy that regardless of Belarusian TV efforts to portrait opponents of authorities as radicals and extremists, less than 3% of state experts agree with this assessment. At the same time workers of state structures still consider opposition members as nationalists, who are against friendship with Russia (29.4%) and conveyers of the West’s interests, who receive material support from there (26.5%). In general, reputation of the opposition in the eyes of nomenclature (though without a union with part of which winning the presidential election seems problematic) is not the best. Probably, due to various reasons opposition members could hardly achieve any changes here without outside assistance.
It seems that a special election platform might become the basis for achieving consolidation of all political forces and social groups, who stand for changes in Belarus’s society today. Prospective candidates for presidency from democratic forces are recommended to sign it. Ideally, all of them should go to the election as a single team, where everyone plays an approved and assigned role. For example, one – candidate for presidency, another for premier or Security Council secretary, etc.
Such platform could produce a declaration of common principles that not only shared by a candidate and members of his campaign, but are able to attract as many allies as possible. Therefore, principles of the election platform shall be stated so that coalition of structures, movements, separate leaders, etc., under agreed name of “For Changes” becomes as wide as possible. Its leaders should not have an opposition stamp, should not be associated with political parties, which at the moment is not acceptable for nomenclature. A single candidate for presidency needs real support of democratic and, first of all, opposition structures, but not a formal approval by the Congress of Democratic Forces, for example. Also it should be noted that so far all attempts to elaborate requirements or criteria for a single democratic candidate have proved unsuccessful. Partially because of their excessive ideological cruelty.