More state than nation: Lukashenko's Belarus.

• Author: Manaev, Oleg
• Position: Inside the Authoritarian State - Report

Belarus, a post-Soviet country ruled by Alexander Lukashenko since 1994, is a case of a contemporary regime that reverted to authoritarianism after a brief stint as an independent democracy. While some of the characteristics of the Belarusian system are typical of other nondemocratic regimes around the world and in the post-communist region in particular, others are distinct and set Belarus apart. This article emphasizes the role that social cohesion and national-identity formation play in perpetuating the current system. We apply the lens of public opinion to our analysis and focus on characteristics of the Belarusian regime that explain its vitality. Our analysis sheds light on the role played by such factors as national identity and social cohesion in the persistence and durability of authoritarian regimes.

**********

In many times and in many places, authoritarianism has emerged, disappeared .and reemerged from the ashes like the mythical phoenix. (1) This cycle has continued in recent years. The Democracy Index published by the Economist Intelligence Unit in 2010 notes that there has been "backsliding on previously attained progress in democratization," with more states characterized as flawed democracies and authoritarian regimes in 2010 than in 2008. (2) This phenomenon is global, but the entrenchment of authoritarianism has been particularly pronounced in much of the former Soviet Union, where the earlier trend of democratization has stalled or reversed. In this context, Francis Fukuyama's assertion that "the twin crises of authoritarianism and socialist central planning" have been overcome by liberal democracy is no longer self-evident. (3)

The Republic of Belarus is a stark example of authoritarian resurgence. It was once part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, one of the most liberally governed European states of the time, and was then ruled by Poland. It was later subsumed by the Russian Empire and became part of the Soviet Union in 1919, after the Bolshevik Revolution. When the Soviet Union was dismantled in 1991, Belarus emerged as an independent state and enacted a constitution with democracy and the rule of law as its core principles. A hotly contested election in 1994 that brought the current president, Alexander Lukashenko, to power was a testament to this commitment to democracy. Today, however, Belarus is recognized as "Europe's last dictatorship." (4) In 2010, the Economist Democracy Index classified it as one of the world's fifty-five authoritarian regimes, ranking it 130th out of 167 countries and underscoring its consistent backsliding. (5)

The country has passed through almost all of the commonly cited stages of political development: it transitioned from progressive medieval monarchy to totalitarianism, then to emerging democracy and ultimately to renewed authoritarianism. While the Arab Spring of 2011 appeared to reverse this trend globally by overthrowing despots in the Middle East and North Africa, Belarus is headed for at least another four years of rule by Lukashenko. "There will be no pink, orange or even banana revolutions in Belarus," he once famously declared. (6)

Several features of Belarusian authoritarianism are typical of other contemporary undemocratic regimes, such as those in Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Others factors are peculiar, setting the country apart. We focus on several interrelated factors in this analysis: the growing divergence of political and social values in Belarusian society, the redrawing of its social landscape, the unformed national identity of its people and their consequent ambivalence about the country's geopolitical orientation. In our discussion we apply the lens of public opinion, basing our analysis on a series of nationwide surveys conducted by the Independent Institute of Socio-Economic and Political Studies (IISEPS), a nongovernmental organization dedicated to conducting sociological research in Belarus. (7)

A GRADUAL FAREWELL TO THE SOVIET UNION

Alexander Lukashenko became president in a relatively free and fair election in 1994, three years after Belarus emerged from the collapse of the communist bloc. (8) He has since concentrated economic and political power in his hands, ruling the country through direct, personal control with a simple strategy: rebuilding a Soviet-style command economy while isolating Belarus from the social and economic chaos that engulfed much of Eastern Europe in the mid- and late 1990s. He satisfied public expectations by overseeing continuous economic growth and reducing unemployment below 1 percent. (9) Throughout Lukashenko's time in office he has marginalized or eliminated potential political rivals, and a controversial public referendum conducted in 2004 allowed him to extend his stay in power beyond the limit of two five-year terms specified in the constitution.

Many observers describe the existing regime as a totalitarian system and a country "stuck in a neo-Soviet time warp." (10) This assessment is true to some extent. The termination of check-and-balance mechanisms significantly changed the structure and function of the parliament, the Central Election Commission, the courts, local administrative bodies and political parties. Most state enterprises were never privatized and remain in government hands, employing an overwhelming majority of the workforce. In addition to modifying the constitution and general legislation to meet its needs, the Lukashenko regime created various unconstitutional political, legal and economic structures to secure its hold on power.

On the other hand, the nature of the current political order is a departure from Belarus's Soviet past. Many social, economic and political elements that could not have existed twenty years ago are present today. Civil society includes fifteen official political parties and over 2,000 registered nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)--plus several hundred that are unregistered--creating a semblance of political pluralism. (11) Though weak and marginalized, independent media is comprised of dozens of newspapers, radio stations and local television stations, and the private sector's contribution to GDP is estimated at 25 to 30 percent. (12)

More importantly, Belarus's Soviet heritage is being slowly but steadily overcome by the changing views of its people. Evidence of this trend is demonstrated by the gradual evolution of responses to public opinion polls conducted by IISEPS between 1993 and 2011. (13) Over the past seventeen years the percentage of respondents favoring restoration of the Soviet Union decreased by half and the percentage of those opposing it increased almost threefold. (See Figure I on the following page.) While the current system is a clear departure from the democratic aspirations of the early 1990s, society appears to be decisively against travelling back in time.

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL VALUES DIVERGE

Belarus today is distinguished less by the people's nostalgia for the past than by their ambivalence about Belarus's geopolitical orientation and their polarization over Lukashenko's rule. Two decades since independence, one ruling elite has been replaced by another. The ideas that inspired perestroika-era reformers- democracy, rule of law, free markets and a rediscovery of the country's European roots--gradually became marginalized through various political, economic and educational means. The values promoted by the government today are patriarchic rule by the bat'ka (or "father"), the fair distribution of prosperity and maintaining close ties with Russia. (14) This has boosted levels of public support for the president but has also widened the divide between those who embrace the new values and those who oppose them.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Since 1997, national opinion polls conducted by IISEPS have been taking stock of public attitudes toward Lukashenko, gauging his command of public trust, his image as a politician and his support at the ballot box. The results divide the electorate into three categories--committed supporters of the president, committed opponents and hesitating voters--and indicate pronounced demographic differences among these groups. (15) The first group is dominated by people with weak socioeconomic standing, such as the elderly and rural residents who have lower incomes and less education and are more dependent on the state. (16) The second includes a larger percentage of young, educated and self-reliant urban residents, and the third is a mix of the two.

The social divide is rooted not only in demographics but also in people's belief systems. Survey responses given by Lukashenko supporters indicate that they have little concern about the curtailment of democratic freedoms and infringements on human rights. Most consider recent elections free and fair, support pro-government candidates and oppose the privatization of state property. Of those who reportedly "trust" the president, 48 percent agree that the best method of ruling the country is a "strong hand," while 43 percent prefer democracy,w Conversely, staunch opponents of the president have profound concerns about both human rights infringements and the current political climate and favor privatization of state enterprises. They mostly support alternative and independent candidates and question the fairness of election results. Among those who "distrust" Lukashenko, an overwhelming majority (82 percent) selected democracy as their preferred method of government while only 10 percent chose a "strong hand."

When asked to evaluate the state of political development in 2010, 41 percent of respondents who "trust" Lukashenko defined Belarus as a developing democracy and only 17 percent defined it as an authoritarian system. (18) On the other hand, of those who oppose him, only 5 percent gave the first answer and 53 percent the second.

These two groups exhibit striking differences in their degree of adjustment to current social and economic conditions...