Lukashenka Tolerates "Seditious" Statements by Opposition Candidates to Gain Quasi-Democratic Legitimacy

2006-03-08

By Valery Karbalevich

The speech of the former university rector is being discussed all over the country, even by those who are usually far away from politics. Its text is being searched for in the Internet and handed over from person to person. The beginning of glasnost under Gorbachev used to have a similar effect. The government's attempts to make the election campaign seem as something routine and unimportant are under a threat.

Why did the authorities allow the candidates to make those speeches in the first place? Long before the election was announced the freedom of speech had been suppressed as never before. The government's fear of written or spoken criticism acquired irrational forms. Independent newspapers, even the ones with a limited audience, were removed from the state-run system of distribution. Police detained people who handed out harmless small calendars with Milinkevich portraits.

One can recall that the authorities kept out of radio and television most critical statements made by candidates for parliamentary seats in the run-up to the parliamentary elections of 2004. And now millions of TV viewers are given the possibility to watch Lukashenka's political opponents articulating such "seditious" words that thoughts of many voters must have been in a whirl.

The speeches are not live but pre-recorded. There is no doubt that they have been previewed at the highest level. The ruling team had the possibility to cut out the most unpleasant parts under the pretext of removing them because they contained what could be interpreted as illegal appeals for government overthrow or defamation of Lukashenka. However, the first speeches were shown to the general public uncensored, but then the authorities did cut some pieces off the second addresses.

That such television addresses are envisaged by the Electoral Code is of course not an explanation, because the Belarusian authorities are notorious for their selective approach to legislation, especially electoral regulations.

The airtime allocated for the opposition candidates was chosen in a way to minimize the effects of their speeches. Most people were on their way home from work. And the form of their appearances - "a talking head" during 30 minutes - was also intended to bore viewers.

The real reason for such an outbreak of glasnost lies in a different domain. Lukashenka needs quasi-democratic legitimacy for his rule. Such legitimacy can come from a presidential election that the average voter would recognize as genuine rather than ridiculous simulation. Opposition candidates and their (almost) uncensored televised speeches should serve as evidence that the election is genuine.

So, the statements by Milinkevich and Kazulin have stirred the stale public climate, broken the dull course of the campaign and caused wide repercussions. But what next? Can they produce a specific electoral result in the form of a high rating and people's readiness to vote for these candidates?

It is difficult to say. Firstly, two 30-min addresses on TV and two on radio are not enough to overcome the 12 years of propaganda in favor of the incumbent leader. Secondly, to look at a political figure with interest does not mean to vote for him. Everybody likes to watch television appearances of the notorious Vladimir Zhirinovsky but his chances to become Russia's president are illusory.

Milinkevich looked self-confident, balanced and capable of talking without written notes. He was convincing in dispelling myths created by the state propaganda. And his Q&A session was a good choice.

Some say that the united opposition's candidate is not charismatic. But it is not a critical shortcoming. Kostunica and Yushchenko are not really charismatic either. Putin, who has a rather high rating for six years, cannot be called a charismatic leader. What is important for a leader is to be in focus of public expectations.

Milinkevich has a different problem. He is not really technological, so to say. In his first speech on TV he chose the same dubious way that the party coalition Five Plus chose in the run-up of the parliamentary election of 2004 with its program Five Steps to Better Life. He tried to give specific answers to specific questions. It is a mistake. When a voter asks a presidential candidate about his program, he wants to listen to something else than a list of economic, social and other measures that would be taken.

The main drawback of Milinkevich is that he has not offered an integrated alternative project for Belarus, a vision of Belarus' future. He has failed to communicate to voters the meaning of his slogan Freedom Truth Justice. All his specific answers in the television speech were poorly linked with that slogan and with the central idea of his campaign. As a result, his image is rather blurred. If you ask an average voter to say what was remarkable about Milinkevich's speech the following day, he would hardly answer?

Compare it with Lukashenka's public appearances. No matter what the president is speaking about he always refers to his central idea - "I have not allowed the country to be robbed and I have not plunged people into thoughtless reforms" - and he always mentions it, be it fitting with the main topic of his speech or not.

Televised addresses are the culmination of the election campaign. Most people see presidential candidates for the first and last time. A successful television appearance is worth dozens of tours around the country.

"I had not had time for rehearsing and consultations with speechwriters. I did the presentation as I could," admits Milinkevich in an interview with BelGazeta.

That does sound strange. Great human and material resources have been spent to prepare a program for the united opposition's candidate. But this document is going to be studied by a narrow circle of people. Its impact on voter preferences is close to zero. Does Milinkevich's campaign really have a manager?

Kazulin takes a different approach, the one that was once chosen by Lukashenka. He decided to stir the "Belarusian swamps" by non-conventional moves. He is creating the image of a terminator. His courage is to be praised. His head-on attack against the president made him a political hero for some time. He was more skillful than Milinkevich in finding and hitting Lukashenka's sore points.

However, Kazulin's actorish performance during the speech looked unnatural at times. There was certain imbalance in the way he talked and looked. To play the role of a former marine, a satirical performer and a respectable professor is too much even for a talented actor.