Two Haydukevichs in one country are too many

2006-02-15

By Valery Karbalevich

The West surely supported the Belarusian opposition before, but that support was comparable to European and US assistance to civil societies in other post-Soviet countries. The support was moral rather than actual. It even had something of simulation sometimes, like with the Belarus program of Deutsche Welle.

One reason behind that attitude was that the West had not seen prospects for democratizing Belarus and had not noticed forces within the country capable of making democracy true.

But the situation has changed now that Belarus is moving toward a presidential election. The West has given a clear reaction. The united pro-democracy opposition's leader Alyaksandr Milinkevich met with presidents of Lithuania and Poland (and had a speech in the Polish parliament), chancellor of Germany, foreign ministers of France and Ukraine, and made a speech in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Milinkevich team's trip to Brussels could have been a climax of diplomatic breakthrough. The presidential contender met with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, EU's High Representatives for Foreign and Security Policy Xavier Solana and Commissioner for External Relations, Neighborhood Policy Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Parliament Speaker Josep Borrel and foreign ministers of all EU countries. In addition, Milinkevich also spoke in the European Parliament. A foreign political figure can hardly have a higher level of reception in the EU.

Support is of course purely political. It has not transformed into actual influence on Belarusian society and has not become a factor of the opposition's force. But the very trend of the EU's changes in its attitude to Belarus is already a strong signal.

Such solidarity with Belarusian democracy is even more surprising and impressive, because the balance of forces in the country has not shifted in favor of the opposition. According to independent opinion polls, Lukashenka's rating is still above 50 percent. Most experts predict another victory for him and speak about slim chances for the opposition.

Why have European political figures engaged themselves into a campaign that cannot produce immediate effects?

There are several reasons behind. First of all, the weight of the Belarusian question in European politics - and in the politics of the West in general - has grown much bigger recently. The political elite in Europe and the USA is already too tired of the Belarusian regime's aggressive anti-Western rhetoric and totalitarian trends within the country. And there is always a point when quantity turns into quality.

Secondly, Europe is inspired by examples of successful color revolutions in some CIS countries.

Thirdly, and even more importantly, the West has discovered a real alternative to the present authorities in Belarus. In 2001, the opposition's single candidate was selected only one month before the election. It was impossible to organize international support for him within such a short period of time.

Now the opposition got united long before the election, managed to develop a joint project, brought to the Congress of Pro-Democracy Forces and selected a single presidential contender. A high degree of the Belarusian opposition's self-organization is an important factor behind the fact that European capitals take a serious approach to potential challengers of the Belarusian authorities. They also got more clarity on the question as to who they could talk to in supporting Belarusian democracy, both now and in the future.

A reaction to Milinkevich's triumphant European tour has come from Russia. The country's deputy prime minister and defense minister Sergey Ivanov said that Russia was ready to help to prevent public disorder in Belarus. But his reaction obviously inadequate. The voice of the Belarusian opposition that came to Russia from Europe must have sounded too terrifying for Moscow.

Lukashenka has been actually earlier than the Europeans in noticing that the Belarusian opposition is gaining power. This could be seen in his decision to move the presidential election from the widely expected July to March.

But what is even more important is that Belarusian society, too, has found an alternative in the person of Milinkevich and political forces behind him. To have a rating of 25 percent when his name was explicitly mentioned in the questionnaire and 17 percent when those interviewed had to recall his name on their own is a great achievement two months before the election. No opposition politician has had anything similar in the past decade. And this is in conditions in which the name of Milinkevich is a taboo in the state-controlled television.

Another interesting fact that the two main non-state newspapers - the Narodnaya Volya and Komsomolskaya Pravda v Belorussii - have given more publicity to Alyaksandr Kazulin rather than to Milinkevich, according to a monitoring of the Belarusian Association of Journalists. However, Kazulin's rating is just three percent (when respondents had to recall his name on their own), according to a poll by the Gallup/Baltic Surveys.

Incidentally, Kazulin has resorted to a not really elegant tactic, probably to re-shape the electoral trend. The former university rector is criticizing the opposition more than Lukashenka now. Thereby he is washing away the idea of an alternative from public mentality, trying to present himself as a third force.

But this niche has long been occupied - by Syarhey Haydukevich. Two Haydukevichs in one country are too many.