The topic of social unity is one of the main topics of the head of state’s speeches. Naturally, he didn’t avoid it in his seasonal greetings, but this time he approached it differently, from the split viewpoint: “We saw for ourselves what internal feuding, hatred and intolerance lead to. The line between bright and loud slogans and society split is very thin. The line between this split and a war is even thinner. And if people forget about the value of peace and consent, they cross all these lines in a blink of an eye”.
Global practice shows that democracy is the most efficient tool to overcome splits. However, there is no such tool in the arsenal of present power. On the contrary, A. Lukashenko sees democracy as a source of chaos. He solves the problem of unity by the breeding method, borrowed from soviet nomenklatura. To a great extent he reproduces their system of values.
Breeding is a mechanism of integration of cultural unity by means of differentiation (alienation of aspects that cannot be integrated and prevent from integration in principle). Let us remind you one of favorite phrases of V. Lenin, which defined his position in regard to factional struggles in parties: “Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation.” This legendary phrase vividly demonstrates political meaning of breeding mechanism.
In modern Belarus breeding is being carried out by way of dividing society into people who are loyal or disloyal to the power. The former enjoy certain preferences, while the latter are being marginalized (during Stalin rule disloyal people were killed or sent to labor camps).
Breeding methods constantly improve. Let us just make mention of the Decree No. 5 “On Strengthening the Requirements for Managers and Employees of Organizations”.
Not a single state institution (from educational ones to military ones) is freed of preliminary work of “human material” breeding. Their joint efforts permanently maintain a technologically necessary level of fear in society, which makes individual people self-determinate in the system “power – opposition”. Efficiency of these efforts is documented in Table 1.
Table 1. Dynamics of answering the question: “What do you think about the readiness of people in Belarus to express their political views?”, %
|
Variant of answer
|
02’01
|
06’06
|
10’10
|
06’11
|
03’13
|
12’14
|
|
No one is afraid
|
20.0
|
18.6
|
18.3
|
10.6
|
14.0
|
16.9
|
|
Very few people are afraid
|
33.8
|
28.5
|
16.3
|
16.9
|
18.7
|
24.2
|
|
A lot of people are afraid
|
29.5
|
40.2
|
40.5
|
46.1
|
41.4
|
42.7
|
|
All people are afraid
|
6.3
|
7.9
|
18.8
|
22.3
|
19.3
|
11.5
|
|
DA
|
10.4
|
4.8
|
6.1
|
4.1
|
6.6
|
4.7
|
|
Positive answers total
|
55.8
|
47.1
|
32.6
|
27.5
|
32.7
|
41.1
|
|
Negative answers total
|
35.8
|
48.1
|
59.3
|
68.4
|
60.7
|
54.2
|
A record high total of answers “a lot of people are afraid”/”all people are afraid” was documented in June 2011. It amounted to 68.4%. If we take into account the fact that “The State for the People” is the slogan of President’s official website, then we should recognize that the state truly actively participates in people’s lives.
In December 2014 level of fear in society dropped by 14.2 points in comparison with the record high level (54.2%). But we wouldn’t advance a conclusion that the power changed their views on breeding policy to softer ones. Probably, this is another manifestation of Anomaly-2014.
The logic of answers to the question of Table 1 can easily be seen in the dynamics of answering the question “According to you, are human rights respected in Belarus?” (Table 2). Anomaly-2014 manifested itself in this case as well (in December 2014 the total of positive answers jumped by 6.5 points in comparison with March 2013, while the total of negative answers dropped by 4.5 points over the same period). The total of positive answers was record high in the year of the third presidential elections.
Table 2. Dynamics of answering the question: “According to you, are human rights respected in Belarus?”, %
|
Variant of answer
|
03’03
|
03’04
|
06’06
|
03’13
|
12’14
|
|
Yes
|
10.5
|
11.2
|
24.9
|
16.2
|
17.4
|
|
Rather yes
|
21.7
|
31.7
|
36.1
|
34.9
|
40.2
|
|
Rather no
|
38.7
|
31.5
|
20.0
|
29.1
|
25.5
|
|
No
|
23.7
|
19.1
|
14.3
|
14.7
|
12.2
|
|
Na
|
5.4
|
6.5
|
4.7
|
5.1
|
4.7
|
|
Positive answers total
|
32.2
|
42.9
|
61.0
|
51.1
|
57.6
|
|
Negative answers total
|
62.4
|
50.6
|
34.3
|
41.8
|
37.7
|
The input of Anomaly-2014 can easily be seen in the dynamics of readiness to participate in public protests as well, if we compare the results of the last two columns (graph 1). The almost 10-fold decrease of readiness to go on strike is the most impressive one. Today we register minimal level of Belarusians’ participation in protests over almost 15 years of IISEPS monitoring.
Result of power’s attempts to build a national unity is reflected in Table 3. Public opinion was divided roughly into two halves in their estimations. Besides, less than a half of Belarusians agreed with the official version of unity.
Table 3. Distribution of answers to the question: “According to you, is there a national unity in Belarus today?” depending on attitude to A. Lukashenko, %
|
Variant of answer
|
12’14
|
Attitude to A. Lukashenko
|
|
|
Trust
|
Don’t trust
|
||
|
Rather yes
|
48.4
|
66.6
|
24.1
|
|
Rather no
|
42.9
|
25.6
|
69.4
|
|
DA/NA
|
8.7
|
7.9
|
6.5
|
Society, which relies on a basic consensus, cannot be created by means of breeding. This conclusion was perfectly illustrated by the unsuccessful attempt of Lenin’s and Stalin’s successors to create a new historical entity “soviet people” during years of perestroika. What was perceived as a socio-cultural entity by internal and external observes, almost momentarily ran away to national “homes”; and national party elites actively participated in this process or even directed it in certain republics.
Anomaly-2014 is a temporal phenomenon. Going forward from one victory to another, effective managers of Kremlin brought Russian economy to crisis. It is natural, that Belarusian model also caught it like flu.
Belarusians already start to think about the consequences of negative changes in economy. But what makes them look at current events critically is not connected to understanding official policy’s invalidity. A typical example from the majority cares only about how economic problem will influence him and his family. In other words he evaluates what’s going on the basis of self-preservation and survival. One more time he tries to adapt to the authoritarian regime without thinking about changing this regime.