OURS EVERYTHING

According to the journalist K. Skuratovich, growth of the GDP is the main property of the Belarusians. Sociologists do not argue about it; however they suppose that the electoral rating of the head of state does not rank last in the price-list of the national properties either. The crisis has introduced its own amendments. Growth of the GDP gave place to a drop, even if it was quite moderate – its dependence on the foreign market opportunities told upon it. There is nothing surprising in the fact for the country with open economy, but a sad conclusion that our main property is not completely ours follows from it. It turns out, what goes around there comes around here. On the other hand, the electoral rate of the head of state is not subjected to such pernicious influence from the outside. National opinion polls of 2009 vividly confirm it (Table 1).

The mentioned rating has been making us happy with its stability for a year and a half already, and for the last three months it has even grown 3.1 percentage points. The November rise in pensions must have told on it. Although it did not make up for the inflation loss completely, it nevertheless made pensioners – A. Lukashenko’s main social "support group" – feel better. Attention must be paid to the fact that a slight rating growth had also occurred in August, 2008 after the rise in pensions.

As it follows from the data of Table 1 the peak value of A. Lukashenko’ rating was reached in April, 2006 right after the third presidential elections when the mobilization excitement had not dispersed yet. The 20 point difference in comparison with the mean value of 2009 is the mobilization resource of the authorities. It is determined by the propaganda potential of the state mass media, as well as by generosity of social payments. In 2006 the authorities had no problems with the payments.

The dynamics of the trust rating for the last year and a half almost do not differ at all from the dynamics of the electoral rating (Table 2), at that the value of the trust rating is approximately 10 percentage points higher than of the electoral rating. In April of 2006 both ratings graded up to each other on the mobilization peak. Everything is logical here. Being abstract in the every-day life, the question "If presidential elections were conducted in Belarus tomorrow, whom would you vote for?" at the moment of the elections reformatted the people into the body of electors who found themselves facing a real choice, and the choice demanded realization in a concrete action (voting). It is natural that all who trusted A. Lukashenko voted for him. Otherwise a mass cognitive discord (tension which appears when one becomes aware of incompatibility of any two pieces of information or actions) might have arisen.

It is believed among the Belarusian analysts that the majority of the Belarusians are consistent supporters of a strong state. If one wishes to, it is possible to find a lot of confirmation to ground such an opinion among the IISEPS opinion polls. However, from our point of view it would be more correct to speak about the Belarusians as about consistent anti-adherents of the strong state power. They worship not the state, but power. Power is experienced and interpreted by them out of correlation with the state. Let us quote the Russian cultural scientist I. Yakovenko: "In a critical situation an ordinary person sets his hopes not upon the state, but upon power. He complains to it, he has confidence in it, he appeals to it when in conflict with an official. Power is attributed soul to and can turn to a person a kind face. The state is heartless and dangerous... The state as a social institution called to protect the rights and to realize citizens’ interests does not simply exist in the traditional consciousness".

Power in the opinion of the majority of the Belarusians is united and indivisible. And, what is very important, it is personified. The principle of power indivisibility is assumed as a basis of the Belarusian Constitution (in the edition of 1996). There are not so many constitutions in the world in which, on the one hand, separation of powers is provided for and, on the other hand, presence of a president hovering with ease above other branches of government is envisaged. For the sake of convincingness let us refer to the authority of the Belarusian constitution main architect: “There are judicial, legislative and executive branches of government above which constitutionally there is president who coordinates and directs them, "brings them together", "moves them apart", etc".

That is why when answering the question "Who (what) would you pin your hopes on economic development of Belarus with?" the Belarusians invariably place the National Assembly, the judicial system and mass media (the fourth power in the opinion of liberals) at the end of the list. At that it is important that the answers find themselves within the limits of statistical uncertainty.

A certain exception is made by the Belarusians for the government. To all appearances it is not so easy for the majority of the Belarusians to separate the executive power from the power in general. It is the task of any power to execute something. Such power, just like matter, is given to the Belarusians in the sensations of the every-day life. Owing to the fact the trust index of the government fluctuates as a rule in the same phase with the trust index of the president, i.e. the government is regarded as a certain extension of the president.

The mentioned tradition was broken in December (Table 3): the trust index of the president grew in the last month of the year against September and the trust index of the government, on the contrary, decreased. What can it be explained with? The public dressing-down that the president made for the government on November, 30 must have affected it. The country, to its surprise, learnt that the government team of like-minded persons in practice turned out to be a team of "good-for-nothings". The head of state also distanced himself from the government in his other TV-appearances which became more frequent in connection with summing up 2009 and making plans for the coming year. It is difficult to say so far whether it happened by accident, or whether we became eye-witnesses of a well thought-out element of the incipient presidential election campaign.

Rating tendencies of 2009 positive for the head of state also told upon answers to the question "Do you think A. Lukashenko coped with the responsibilities of the president well enough to be elected for this position once again, or do you think it is high time somebody else was given a chance to fulfill the responsibilities?" (Table 4). The share of respondents who agreed "to give a chance to somebody else" decreased 3.3 percentage points. We mentioned more than once before that excess in the number of supporters of such electoral changes over conservatives should not be taken in all good faith. Answers to the question of Table 4 reflect "electoral languor", rather than a real need for changes. The authorities only have to switch on the mobilization resource as the apportionment of votes usual for the presidential elections will be restored.

The data of Table 5 confirm the above mentioned conclusion. In December the ratio of those who considered prolongation of A. Lukashenko’s presidency extremely useful/more likely useful to their political opponents (it is more likely to be harmful/it is going to be very harmful) exceeded 1.6. At that the share of the electoral "swamp" which has been looked at with such hope by many opposition politicians for so many years already, constituted one third. Whose third may it become in the future? The answer, as practice proves, depends in many respects on the political preferences of the person answering it. An analysis of the previous opinion polls shows preference for the supporters of the authorities.

Sociologists are often accused of inadequate reliability of some data. Such accusations occur as a result of incomprehension of the opinion polls nature. "Some data" cannot be doubtful, because if the sampling corresponds to the population than a certain analogue of a roentgenogram where everything is conditioned comes in. It is senseless to accuse a roentgenogram of in authenticity of its separate parts. However, interpretation of the obtained results is a horse of a different color. The level of an interpreter’s proficiency plays an important part here, but even if it is quite high, it is not serious being in one's right mind to lay claim to the final and unambiguous truth as social reality is more complicated than any our ideas about it.

Back   Top