Siarhej Hajdukevich [chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party], Siarhej Kaliakin [chairman of the Belarusian Party of Communists] and Mikalaj Statkevich [chairman of the Belarusian Social Democratic Party], who ran for parliament and failed, were not weak candidates. Besides personal merits, each of them had a strong backing of party comrades. But this proved not enough to ensure victory even in their electoral districts.

The main reason of their failure was the "electoral" system constructed by Aliaksandr Lukashenka. The election commissions did not "ensure" the sufficient voter turnout in the districts where strong opposition candidates ran. Lukashenka's system could not risk, so the best method to isolate the party leaders was to let things go, because the authorities saw that the elections in those districts would be declared invalid due to a low voter turnout.

The electoral districts in which the party leaders were nominated are examples of the boycott's success and the demonstration of the strength of unity. The losers should not be upset. They did understand that it was not a high honor to be a member of the House of Representatives and that the democrats' participation in the elections had many negative aspects. Isn't it high time to forget the ambitions and commit oneself to democratic unity?

All the opposition forces should be driven by one goal - the victory in the 2001 presidential elections. Post-Lukashenka Belarus has bright prospects. If Lukashenka is replaced with a more educated and more patriotic leader, the country will be able to make advantage of its geographic position and even of the facts that it was the last dictatorship in Europe and was affected by the Chernobyl disaster.

But to have their candidate elected, the opposition should be united. This is a difficult objective. The opposition's unity can be strengthened by the awareness that it is responsible to the people. The unity will be effective even with the current composition of the Coordinating Council of Democratic Forces. Any organization that refuses to join the Council will not be regarded as democratic by the people.

Unity requires much efforts and coordinated work. Recently an NGO called Elections-2001 was set up. Its organizers said their goal was to promote persons who could challenge Lukashenka at the presidential elections. This goal is worthy of praise. It is not clear, however, how the organizers will coordinate their work with the Coordinating Council of Democratic Forces, which unites democratic parties, whose main purpose is to fight for power, trade unions and NGOs similar to Elections-2001. If it is necessary to create a new body, one should discuss its place in the opposition system, and it should coordinate its actions with the existing organizations.

This delicate issue was not mentioned in the Election - 2001 statement and in the interview of its co-founders Henadz Hrushavy and Vasil Shlyndzikau to the Narodnaja volia daily of October 25. There is a potential threat of conflict in hushing up the issue. Especially given the fact that the members of the new organization are those who did not support the boycott tactics.

According to Hrushavy, they had agreed on their tactics before the Congress of Democratic Forces, which decided that all democratic political parties should boycott the parliamentary elections. Here lies another weakness and contradiction. The issue of participating in the elections, especially a collective participation, is a political one. So the impression is that the organizers of Election-2001 either consciously or unconsciously mix the functions and responsibility of political parties and NGOs.

NGOs in normal democratic societies are created to lobby and protect a particular interest. In this respect they are similar to parties. But the methods of lobbying the interests are different. A party interest is an ideological one. If we take for instance the Social Democrats, what they promote are not the socio-economic policies of Stanislau Shushkevich (leader of the Belarusian Social Democratic Hramada) or Mikalaj Statkevich. The Social Democrats have a common system of values and priorities in the whole world. Equally, if the Liberals advocate privatization, it does not mean that only they will participate in the process.

Methods of NGOs are more flexible. They as a rule do not oppose the authorities, although it is very difficult in Belarusian conditions. They cooperate with the authorities in some way. Unlike political parties, they can receive financial support from the West. But that is why they do not have a formal or moral right to fight for power.

But it is the financial well-being of NGOs that lures their leaders into meddling in politics. Actually, it is not forbidden. But there are only two ways to do so. Either to join some party, or to create a new party. It is impossible to use one's financial position in another way. The donors will never agree to it and the people will not understand.

This article is written in the period when the new NGO has not made any steps that could generate a conflict and weaken the Belarusian opposition on the eve of the presidential elections. To avoid danger and reach the goal, the new organization should establish a close contact with the Coordinating Council of Democratic Forces. There will be plenty of work for everybody: to pick up presidential candidates, to develop concepts of economic, state and cultural reforms and to advocate virtues of democratic candidates for presidency.