ELITE WANT INTO EU BUT DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN SUCCEED

Public opinion leaders and experts from both public and private sectors are amazingly unanimous in their assessments of relations between Belarus and EU member states: an overwhelming majority called them very poor (private sector – 100% and public sector – 90%).

They are not that unanimous though when it comes to choice of a future development path for Belarus, yet their stances are well defined: 79% claim that Belarus should become an EU member. (See Table 1). Comparing answers of leaders and the population, we can assert that the country’s mass opinion hasn’t yet determined on this issue and is presently more inclined to Euro-skepticism.

At the same time, there’s nothing surprising in that the population in general and its leaders offer different development paths for the country. Actually, this is the current opinion of leaders and experts that shows what will mass opinion be after a while. They have more information and greater experience to understand the situation and its development tendencies. Let’s see now how well informed are the elite about the European neighborhood policy practiced in the EU towards its neighboring states.

Thus, Table 2 shows significant disproportion in awareness of public and private sector employees about the EU key program on cooperation with Belarus. Mirror-like disproportion points out to lack of communication between representatives of these two sectors as well as between the sectors and EU bodies.

Answers to the question in Table 2 are a kind of the litmus paper. The European neighborhood policy provides investment for the projects of transboundary co-operation and can be very important at the national level (for example, fortification of the border) as well as at the level of local government bodies, NGO’s and for business. Non-participation of most public sector employees and even their unawareness about such programs can be explained in several ways. Probably, this is unwillingness to get this information, or no access to this information. Over lately, the authorities have taken international contacts, and especially grants from abroad assigned for particular projects, under their special control. This is why “unnecessary knowledge” and what’s more participation may seem simply dangerous for public sector employees. At the same time, it is doubtful that the elite would have totally refused from monitoring of situation in this field. It is noteworthy that the private sector employees appeared well informed on this issue, even without access to state-owned resources. Speaking about the population in general, it is informed approximately to the same degree as public sector employees.

Once again, the Belarusian elite are unanimous in thinking that the West is not hostile to Belarus (90%) and in willingness to get more information about EU member states and activity of European organizations (85%). A more significant differentiation appears in answers to political questions.

As the Table 3 shows, an overwhelming majority of private sector employees gave positive estimates to resolutions adopted by the EU Council of Ministers and NATO PA in which they call the Belarusian authorities to observe democracy and human rights as well as undertake to render assistance to democratic forces in Belarus. These resolutions were taken in the positive in the public sector as well, yet not that unanimously. As regards the population, indifferently positive attitude is prevailing here. Unlike the elite, common citizens don’t take foreign resolutions as able to influence their lives.

Asked about the changes which took place in the neighboring states (Poland, Latvia and Lithuania) after their accession into the EU, 71% of private sector employees said that their living improved. The opinion dominating in the public sector is that life didn’t change in these countries (47%). As regards population, 25.2% share this same viewpoint and 23.7% say that the Poles, the Letts and the Lithuanians live worse now. By the way, this standpoint is not considered at all among leaders and experts irrespective the sector they represent. Remarkably, a considerable part of public sector employees (23%) and population (31.7%) found it difficult to determine their positions on this issue. This might indicate to the lack of information about life in neighboring countries; yet in answers of experts on the EU countries which they visited, the leading is Germany (57%), main economic partner of Belarus, then go Poland (47%) and the Baltic States (43%). Frequency of visits barely depends on the sectors which respondents represent (it is slightly lower in the public sector).

Meanwhile, if a hypothetical referendum on accession of Belarus into Europe takes place tomorrow, 76% of the elite and 32% of population would vote “for” on it. Among experts, the greatest optimists on the European issue are private sector employees (84%) and, as compared with common citizens, twofold more respondents from the public sector supported this idea (67%). The skeptics on the European issue make 8% of the elite and 26.8% of the population. The alternatives “I wouldn’t vote” and “Difficult to answer” received approximately equal votes among population (about 20%) and were almost never given by the elite.

What is an incentive for the elite when they choose the European development path? Accession into the EU will let Belarusians move freely across Europe. This is how 57% of the polled leaders and experts, irrespective the sector, explained their choice. Approximately the same popular, with a small overbalance in the private sector, is willingness to bring the Belarusian legislation in agreement with the European laws. Further, 49% of respondents (52% in the private sector) are convinced that accession into the EU will increase people’s welfare. Another 41% of leaders and experts – the public sector prevails here – have chosen the geographic factor. Finally, 36% of respondents almost irrespective the sectors have given preference to the alternative that Belarus as an independent state has prospects only in the EU.

Opponents of accession into EU explain their stance with the statement that “No one expects Belarus in Europe.” This is the most popular alternative among opponents and it received 10% from public sector leaders and experts and 6% – from the private sector. The necessity to close the border with Russia in case of accession into the EU has provoked the protest of 7% of public sector leaders and experts and 3% of private sector leaders and experts. Understanding of integration into the EU as a hindrance of integration into Russia has become an argument only for public sector representatives – that same 7%.

It is obvious that accession into the EU is very attractive for the Belarusian elite and they differ considerably in this regards from the population in general which hasn’t yet determined its position and is now ready in its majority to be a part of both the EU and Russia. Choosing between integration into Russia and accession into the EU, 79% of leaders and experts preferred the EU. This choice is almost unanimous in the private sector (79%). In the public sector, 33% chose Russia and 60% – the EU. This is economic situation which to a greater extent expounds for the choice of experts. Despite the image built by the state-run mass media, the EU and not Russia is becoming the main economic partner of Belarus.

It should be noted that possibility to visit the EU and see the real situation didn’t appear a determining factor for public sector experts when choosing the direction of integration. Asked “Have you been to the EU countries over the past five years?”, only 57% of public sector representatives and all 100% (!) of the private sector employees answered in the positive. It is not likely that 43% of public sector employees couldn’t visit EU countries because of the visa ban imposed on some Belarusian officials suspected of involvement into disappearance of their political opponents. Mostly likely, EU-Belarus co-operation confines to the trade mainly. Probably, necessity for government officials to get permission for trips abroad from the country’s top authorities can be another reason. In the private sector, there is no such a restriction.

If we compare data in Tables 4 and 1, we will see that despite their confidence in expediency of Belarus’ accession into the EU the majority of experts think that ten years after Belarus will be still closer to Russia than to the EU (48%). At the same time, the opinions of two sectors representatives are mirror-like: 65% of private sector employees say about greater proximity to the EU while 64% of public sector employees – to Russia. The opinion of the population is almost the same as that of the public sector employees: during the nation public opinion poll 63.1% of respondents pointed out to the country’s greater proximity to Russia.

Accordingly, if the elite give preference to accession of Belarus into the EU, most of its members now don’t see how they could accomplish their goals in a short-term perspective. As it goes from the analysis of opinions given by supporters and opponents of accession to the EU, integration into Europe is promoted the most by opponents to the current president of Belarus. In accordance with the nation public opinion poll, 72.6% of oppositionists stand for accession of Belarus into Europe, but for all that only 17% of respondents placed themselves among the opposition. Consequently, it is presently very difficult for Belarusians to make a geopolitical choice as the society is divided into supporters and opponents to the current authorities and, what’s more, turning to Europe is the slogan of opponents.

We should like to underline considerable disproportion of awareness among public and private sector employees about the key EU program on co-operation with Belarus. Public sector leaders are as ignorant in this issue as the common citizens. This is not normal as the elite, especially those figures involved into country management, have more access to information.

There are all grounds to assume that such conditions are created artificially. It is true that failure of communication between public and private sectors can go from political expectations of their employees, i.e. be natural in view of people’s independent choice. However, restricted access for the public sector to basic information necessary for decision taking on the governmental level which we found out during the polling is obviously not a self-restriction. As a rule, if a governing official refuses himself/herself from such information, this jeopardizes his/her position in view of decreasing value of this particular official. This is why we are certain there are some deliberately introduced filters which restrict access of public sector elite to information. As far as the EU bodies are information-open, the Brussels cannot be responsible for creating such filters. Consequently, it has been built within the Belarusian Cabinet, which means that making a geopolitical choice in Belarus is hard due to deliberate misinformation of public sector employees.

Back   Top