The opposition's conditions include the following points: access of all opposition parties to the state-run mass media; halt to politically motivated prosecution; improvement of electoral law; development of amendments to the Constitution and the law on parliament. This goal can be met if the voter turnout on October 15 will be below 50 percent. The boycott is the only active method to meet the goal. Going to the polls and crossing all the candidates off the ballots is not the solution, because formally the elections will be considered valid.

Boycott is a constitutional right of any man and party. There are no parties that would not want to participate in the elections. But the boycott is an active form of participation. People resort to boycott when there is no other peaceful way to exercise their right to make free choice.

In 1985, the Polish trade union Solidarity boycotted elections in the country, held on the traditional Communist model, when people were deprived of choice. Formally, the Solidarity lost. General Wojciech Jaruzelski managed to hold the elections and had the Sejm elected. The Sejm, however, failed to carry out the necessary reforms, because its newly elected members loathed reforms. Five years later, confronted with the economic crisis, the regime had to start negotiations with the Solidarity and agree to holding free elections. The Solidarity received an overwhelming support at the elections and Jaruzelski's regime collapsed. Lukashenka's prospects are hardly better.

With the 1985 boycott, the Solidarity built the foundation for its success in the early 90s. Back in 1985, the Polish public received a signal that the country's intellectuals wanted changes. Many well-known lawyers, economists and public figures kept clear of the electoral farce. Later, they received the majority of the votes at the first free elections.

For almost a decade since gaining independence, Belarus has been living in a vicious circle because its people agree to play by the rules set by those in power. The country will be caught in the circle for another six years, if it does not boycott this fall's elections.

Lukashenka fears to make the electoral procedure democratic because he knows that once losing control over the state-run media and election commissions, he is doomed at the 2001 presidential elections. This is the core of the current political conflict. He is also well aware that if the quasi elections for his quasi parliament are internationally recognized, with the current commission and voting procedure unchanged, he will be free to manipulate the results of the presidential elections.

Beside this crucial goal - to prepare the ground for free presidential elections - there are other, equally important reasons to boycott the parliamentary elections. First, not to legalize the results of the 1996 constitutional coup, which vested the president with almost absolute power while minimizing that of parliament. Second, not to make valid the agreements with Moscow, which restrict Belarus' sovereignty. Third, not to undermine the legitimacy of those members of the 13th Supreme Soviet who refused to serve in Lukashenka's parliament.

The decision to boycott the elections was made at the 4th Congress of Democratic Forces on July 2. It was obvious that not all the nine opposition parties would endorse the decision. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the Belarusian Party of Communists (BPC) made it clear that they would participate in the elections. The two parties made a deliberate choice to assist the regime in its plans. So if the international community recognizes the elections it would be largely the fault of the LDP and the BPC. Beside betrayal, there could be another motive behind the parties' decision to break the opposition ranks - the desire to raise their rating at the expense of other parties that boycott the elections.

The Congress revealed another threat for the democratic opposition, namely, the attempt to juxtapose the party decision and the choice of an individual. For decades, the Communist Party had dictated that the party's will should be a law for its members. Perhaps, some of the democrats perceived an echo of totalitarianism in the Congress' decision. Mikalaj Statkevich, leader of the Belarusian Social Democratic Party (Narodnaja Hramada), was the first to challenge the decision of the democratic opposition and enter the election campaign. There was a threat that other democrats would forsake the collective decision and rush to serve the dictator in parliament.

The opposition has resisted the temptation. A dozen of politicians who ignored the decision of their parties, did not split the opposition. On the contrary, some of them have ruined their own political prospects.

How should the united opposition react to [former Prime Minister] Mikhail Chyhir's decision to run for parliament? It should cross his name off the list of opposition candidates for the presidential elections. Democratic parties should do it without fail. They should demonstrate that bearing responsibility and being consistent in one's actions is a norm of political culture. We do not usually place much trust in an individual who leaps from one extreme to another. A similar behavior ruins a political party leader. When the leader challenges a collective decision he should be replaced, as the laws of democracy dictate. It is still better if he resigns.

Anyway, the conflict provoked by a dozen of persons who ignored the norms of political culture, will not trigger a crisis in the opposition. It will most likely strengthen and purify it. Ten years of struggle have brought results: both the people and democratic parties are gaining experience. It is good that the country's democratic forces have had an important lesson before the most important event, the presidential campaign.