CONDITIONS OF WILL AND TRUST TO THE PRESIDENT

As it is known, parliamentary elections are going to take place in Belarus this autumn. Almost a half of respondents (49.6%) already declare they are going to take part in them. Approximately every fifth respondent (19.9%) has decided not to vote, and about 30% of the polled have not come to a decision yet. Such readiness to take part in voting displayed long before the elections testifies to the fact that the Belarusians still believe in elections as in an instrument of people’s will. What conditions of the electoral process and, first of all, of the voting procedure would they like to see?

As it can be seen from the data of Table 1 most respondents consider absence of any generally known principles of electoral democracy an obstacle to recognition of elections fairness. Thus they do not differ in any way from international observers who are not much respected by the authorities. On the other hand, data of Table 1 are evidence of the fact that estimations of different election conditions importance depend to a great extent on the attitude of the polled to the current authorities of Belarus, more precisely – to its head.

An almost unanimous opinion that infringement of any cited conditions makes elections unfair is peculiar to those who do not trust the president. Opinions of those who trust the head of state are more differentiated and at that are more shaded. E.g., as far as suffrage of parties is concerned balance of their assessments is negative, i.e. the relative majority among them is sure that elections can be fair without it. As for the other conditions, the opinion about their obligation in order to consider the elections fair prevails there.

The question was deliberately asked in an abstract form. Respondents were not asked, to what extent these conditions are observed or will be observed at the real Belarusian elections; and whether it is possible to consider the elections fair if they are not observed, in order not to arouse discord between their political believes and assessments. It follows from Table 1 that supporters of the president are not some peculiar people who are ready to give to their idol all the rights to determine what is proper and fair; and the procedure approach to the assessment of the election fairness is not alien to many of them, at least on the abstract level.

Data of Table 2 testify to it. According to them, many people, including supporters of the president, believe that election procedures could be improved in quite many aspects.

As in Table 1 it is not difficult to notice that those who do not trust A. Lukashenko are quite unanimous in their support of the majority of the proposed electoral rules improvements. However, those who do trust the president do not reject many of them either. Ideological lines are quite clearly seen in the attitude of this group to some of the listed above measures: to allow campaigning without prior permission is a disorder, no one knows what they could do; to let them campaign using the collected money – it is still a question where this money will come from, and this way only money-bags might come to power. A rather calm attitude of the polled – supporters as well as (relatively) opponents of the president – to preschedule voting draws attention to itself, too. Perhaps, in this case people think about an opportunity to vote when it is convenient for them rather than about chances of falsifications which this type of voting creates.

Nevertheless, when answering the direct question whether preschedule voting can contribute to election results falsifications 46.9% of respondents answered in the affirmative and only 38% – in the negative.

Answers to the question: what observers at the elections deserve trust to the greatest extent, look quite enlightening, too (Table 3).

In our opinion, answers of respondents given in Table 3 are mostly manifestation of the Soviet stereotypes. The second place given to work collective observers is tribute to these particular stereotypes: such observers, by the way, constitute insignificant minority and their dependence on their bosses is quite considerable. However, these are, so to speak, working people who are occupied with something important, not with incomprehensible and dangerous politics. At that trust to observers from "loafers" – from all types of politicians, including the ones from the authorities is noticeably lower. Anyway, foreigners are on the first place. To all appearances, new and old approaches agree here: for some people it is a look of Europe – a bearer of the highest values, for others – a quite Soviet ambivalent attitude to foreigners from whom, of course, we do not know what to expect, but who are nevertheless more honest than our people.

As for the answers to the question about election falsifications, the overall result (51.2% consider that falsifications do take place) impresses us to the same extent as dispersal of opinions among supporters and opponents of the president which has already been observed in Tables 1 and 2. Among those who trust A. Lukashenko almost 55% are sure about the absence of falsifications, whereas among those who do not trust him only 9.1% think so.

The situation looks somewhat paradoxical: the majority of people think that without realization of many conditions elections could not be considered fair, and every second person supposes that falsifications occur in the course of elections. At the same time almost a half of respondents are ready to go and vote right away! Perhaps, these are different people – a half of them believe that falsifications take place, and the second half is ready to go and vote.

As it can be seen from Table 4, the connection is present; however it is by no means 100%. The relative majority of those who consider that falsifications take place during elections still intend to go to the autumn elections. Why? One of the explanations is that for many people taking part in voting is a form of displaying loyalty to the authorities. The essence of the electoral process does not worry them too much. They may even realize that the essence is quite far from their own idea of fairness. For them the goal of the whole procedure is not at all election of authorities by people. This type of motivation may be peculiar to that part of the president’s supporters who think that falsifications occur in the course of elections (there is about a quarter of such people among those who trust the president).

Another explanation is hope: may be this time it is going to be different; may be somebody manages to force his way through; after all, these are not presidential elections – there are many places. This motivation is supported by peculiar non-alternative forms of self-expression, including the ones connected with elections (Table 5).

As it can be seen, the share of those who are ready for an open protest in case of falsifications is almost 8 times more among those who do not trust the president, than among those who trust. However, the most widespread form of "protest" among the former as well as among the latter is to talk to one’s acquaintances about what is going on in one's Motherland, or to do nothing at all.

If the mood is like this, why not go and vote, why not express one’s attitude, even if it is not going to be considered anywhere?

Back   Top