A BLIND ALLEY MADE BY HANDS

More than two years have passed since the day of the third presidential election; however sociologists of the IISEPS continue to take an interest in the results of that "earth shattering" voting. The result should not change substantially if we make allowance for demography dynamics. As a matter of principle, this simple logic proves to be true. Owing to the slow increase in the number of respondents, who did not take part in voting, the number of votes got by the candidates sinks from one poll to another (Table 1). Increase in the number of those who voted against all the candidates is the only exception to the given rule. It is not too large, but it is significant statistically. One should not be surprised at the registered anomaly. In this case sociologists state a worldwide tendency. When mobilization efforts directed at attracting attention to some concrete persons "disperse", a part of electors go back to the state habitual for them that can be characterized by the formula "I do not believe anybody" and that projects on the results of the previous voting.

Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question: "Whom did you vote for at the presidential election in March, 2006?", %

Variant of answer	04'06	06'08
For A. Lukashenko	54.2	48.4
For A. Milinkevich	15.8	12.9
For A. Kozulin	6.0	6.6
For S. Gajdukevich	4.4	3.1
Against all the candidates	3.1	8.7
Did not want to answer the question	7.0	5.3
Did not take part in voting	9.5	14.3

No fundamental changes have occurred on the political field of Belarus during the two years which separate us from the third presidential election. That is why when respondents answer the question: "If tomorrow presidential election took place in Belarus, whom would you vote for?" the upper lines of the list are occupied by our old friends: A. Lukashenko – 38.9%, A. Milinkevich – 6.4%, A. Kozulin – 4.8% and S. Gajdukevich – 2% (there are 17 names altogether). Thus 52.1% of electors' sympathy falls on four political figures and only 2.7%–on the remaining "baker's dozen".

If we divide 2.7% by 13 we will be able to determine the level of political popularity, which should be considered "below the plinth" following A. Lukashenko's example. Today it is insurmountable for the most politicians in the country. This conclusion should be equally attributed to representatives of the opposition camp, as well as to supporters of the head of Belarusian state.

Consequently, 54.8% (52.1+ 2.7) of voters find themselves among those who "have already made up their mind". Doing a simple sum it is easy to ascertain that almost a half of the Belarusians (45.2%) are in the electoral "backlog". Therefore, wonderful prospects open up before the eyes of those who have decided or will decide to devote their life to political activity…

Unfortunately, experience ("the son of difficult mistakes") suggests that such prospects are virtually absent today. Firstly, about a third of the electoral "backlog" representatives are not able to respond to mobilization calls in principle owing to their indifference towards politics. They are the very people who constitute the basic bulk of those who do not take part in voting. Secondly, indifference towards politics of the remaining two thirds of the potential electors does not mean that they are able to fall under any kind of propaganda. Under the conditions of still deepening disunity of the Belarusian society there are virtually no chances for sorting out variants of voting and that is why among those who have not made up their mind today everything is, in fact, already determined.

The question: "If tomorrow presidential election took place in Belarus, whom would you vote for?" allows different answers. Respondents themselves name the politicians they are ready to vote for. It is interesting to note that when we pass from the question allowing different answers to the one with the fixed answers ("If tomorrow presidential election were conducted again in Belarus and the same candidates as in March, 2006 took part in it, whom would you vote for?") A. Lukashenko gets the same 38.9% of votes, but an obvious regrouping is beginning to show among his opponents. According to Table 1, 2.6 times more voters supported A. Milinkevich in March, 2006 than A. Kozulin. Today A. Milinkevich continues to be in the lead of the confrontation in the democratic camp, however not so convincingly any more. In June his advantage over A. Kozulin does not exceed 1 percentage point (8.3% vs. 7.3%).

In our opinion, one should look for the almost triple advantage of A. Milinkevich over A. Kozulin in the course of the presidential election neither in election programs of the candidates nor in the agitational activity of their teams. The point is that A. Kozulin took part in the election as a candidate on his own, whereas the opposition character of A. Milinkevich was confirmed by the Congress of the democratic forces.

Establishment of the Congress institution is probably the main achievement of the Belarusian opposition forces during the years of independence. No party, no politician could today compete with the institution of the Congress in the level of authority in the opinion of democratically disposed part of the Belarusian society.

However, not without the help of the state a certain exception to the given rule begins to take shape. A. Kozulin's arrest and the subsequent severe verdict created him an image of "the one who had suffered for his believes". Today it is not easy for any political figure in any country to convince voters of one's sincerity and unselfishness. "He will deceive us anyway" – this is the most typical opinion of the modern electors about the competitors for the top political posts. And it should be admitted that it was not formed for good reason. That is why a politician, who endures ordeals with dignity and does not at that repudiate his views, gets an additional electoral resource.

Judging by numerous statements of A. Lukashenko addressed to the former head of the Belarusian State University, he is well-aware of the problem. Let us quote a short excerpt from the last message: "They have found a "lousy" oppositionist who got one and a half or even fewer percent at the presidential election, and made him a great political prisoner...

The opposition does not want him to be discharged any more. If he is released from prison tomorrow, there will be no opposition. Don't you understand what kind of person he is? We do know what the opposition is occupied with and how much they want it. He had an opportunity, and I have just mentioned it: five people used it and the sixth one refused. His "moment has not come yet", can you believe it? Do you understand?"

Table 2 vividly demonstrates limited means of the official propaganda. In spite of all media resources which the state has at its disposal alteration of the public opinion occurs in the direction opposite to the one desired by the authorities. At that the majority of the country’s population (49.6% vs. 18.1%) understands that A. Kozulin has no prospect of discharge in the next two or three years.

Thus the authorities themselves have created a blind situation. Keeping A. Kozulin in prison they contribute to the further growth of his popularity. However, owing to the "result" already achieved the authorities are not able to set A. Kozulin free. From this the Belarusian-American conflict follows and the chance of its settlement in the near future is minimal.

Back   Top