Opposition Succeeds at Least in Reviving People's Interest in Politics

2006-03-27

By Kiryl Paznyak

Let us analyze all kinds of messages that presidential candidates are sending to their voters, ranging from their programs to their interviews and radio and TV addresses. In fact, many voters have not seen the programs, let alone scrutinized and compared them. The style of such documents is usually dull and fails to attract a lot of attention from ordinary people. But if program provisions are inserted into live remarks of candidates, it is already quite a different matter.

Alyaksandr Milinkevich's team is not really disappointed that their candidate's program has not been published in state newspapers, at least they make it look so. In fact, it is their own fault that the program was not published, because they failed to submit its text to the newspapers in time, due a technical failure in the work of Milinkevich's campaign team, they say.

That could be the most ridiculous and unforgivable failure in this election campaign. Elections for politicians are like Olympic games for athletes. Milinkevich could be compared to a biathlon man who starts the race without several bullets to cover all the required targets. In other words, he would not be able to embrace as many voters as he could. This does not lead to a defeat automatically, of course, but gives certain advantages to competitors (among which Lukashenka is already a frontrunner).

"Freedom, Truth, Justice" is the key slogan of Milinkevich. These words by themselves are abstract notions. And it is difficult to fill them with specific content that could be understood by average voters, especially as democratic values do not rank first for Belarusian society. Moreover, communication with the general public is limited by the authorities. Milinkevich's slogan can only be adequate as a sign for alternative and revolution.

More or less the same applies to Alyaksandr Kazulin's slogan, "For the Country! For the People! For You!" Such calls are good for battles. But we have to admit that he has been indeed rather aggressive in his words and deeds.

Alyaksandr Lukashenka's The State for the People continues his image as the people's president. But one can ask a reasonable question as to why he is going to build such a state after 12 years in power.

It would seem that Syarhey Haydukevich comes up with an oppositional slogan, "New Belarus-Unity. Order in the Country, Sufficiency at Home." However, he offers just a few cosmetic changes in the country, mostly in the field of economy. Moreover, Haydukevich expresses a lot more criticism toward opposition candidates than toward the incumbent. But sometimes he does sound like Milinkevich or Kazulin: "The country is starting to slow down in certain respects" or "The Soviet legacy is already gone, and we need new decisions."

For comparison, Milinkevich says the following on that matter: "Stability in our case is stagnation," "We believe that it is time to run the country in a different way. Another style of governance is needed." Kazulin is of the same opinion: "The stability that the ruling authorities are praising as its greatest achievement is not stability but stagnation. A crisis always follows stagnation," "The time of running the country is a Soviet style is over."

The programs of all candidates have a number of common points, especially when it comes to socioeconomic issues. If voters had to distinguish among candidates just by their economic positions, they would not really able to succeed and remember who offers what. Incidentally, some candidates even accuse their rivals of stealing their ideas.

The programs of Milinkevich and Kazulin have particularly a lot in common. The main difference is in their tonalities. Milinkevich is calm, while Kazulin is more emotional and aggressive, like Lukashenka. As a result, the two candidates fit each other very well.

The most understandable topics for average voters are about the level of pay and various allowances. The opposition candidates are really generous. Even Lukashenka, who is often called a populist, reproaches his rivals for populism.

Like expected, the candidates do not speak much about the national issue, particularly the condition of the Belarusian language. It is not a successful topic in a Russified society. National independence is not used by the opposition in its pre-election campaigning, either, even those the incumbent's opponents have been keen on it since the 1990s. The fact is that Lukashenka is using this topic quite successfully in recent years. Moreover, he is trying to convince the public that the country's independence is impossible without him.

Quite expectedly, Milinkevich and Kazulin focus on sore points of Belarusian society: forced government assignments for university graduates and contract-based system of employment. They come forward for abolishing them. But Lukashenka does not flirt with voters in that respect: he says that he will keep both systems.

Both Milinkevich and Kazulin criticize Lukashenka a lot. Most of their interviews and public speeches have more criticism than presentation of their programs. By criticizing the existing system both of them try to show to the general public that things would be different under new leaders. They are proceeding from the contrary so to say.

On the one hand, that form of presentation makes things more understandable, but on the other hand, many voters do not like to hear negatively worded speeches, especially as the authorities always say that the opposition is destructive by nature.

Meanwhile, a lot of Belarusians appreciate the stability they have, not matter what one could say about it. And Lukashenka says he will stick to this policy: "The itch of changes is not a sign of real intellect. They [the opposition] do not want to understand how fragile is the border that separates peaceful life from blood and cruelty, stability from chaos and anarchy."

Lukashenka's program is actually the same as the program of the country's socioeconomic development for the next five years, the one that was approved by the recent All-Belarusian People's Assembly. Even if it is not the best one, it is reliable in the sense of the probability of its implementation. This is the idea that the authorities tried to send to the delegates of that forum.

At the same time, what Milinkevich and Kazulin offer is risky, because it is new. It is still difficult to say whether they have managed to win a revolution in people's minds and hearts, but it is already obvious that they at least succeeded in intensifying the country's political life. The question is now for how long this more active interest in politics can stay.