Lukashenka Shows Most Powerful Publicity Technologies

2006-02-15

By Kiryl Paznyak

It would seem that opposition contenders should employ the most advanced publicity technologies, as their positions in the upcoming election from the very beginning are far from the lead. However, they are making use of either amateurish or common technologies, which means they are poorly efficient. There are no unexpected moves, although they could be of great help under unequal political conditions. But the oppositionists are doing as if they have the same information and propaganda resources as the ruling head of state.

Meanwhile, Lukashenka has unconditional advantages, nearly monopoly, in the media sector. The Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ) has found out as a result of its media monitoring designed to review the coverage of the presidential election that it is really so. The survey was conducted between January 16 and 27, that is, in the final days of ballot-access signature collection.

BAJ experts point out that the presidential election was not at all a priority issue for the state broadcast media and the state-controlled press during that period. Instead, their policy was to create a positive image for just one participant in the race, for the incumbent. His challengers were either not mentioned or mentioned very scarcely. There were very few reports about how signature collection was going on.

ONT programs devoted 90 percent of the time used for covering the election to the president. Most reports were either positive (66 direct or indirect characteristics to that effect) or neutral (13). The Presidential Administration's newspaper Sovetskaya Byelorussiya dedicated 80.2 percent of its reports about political subjects of the election process to Lukashenka.

People in Belarus traditionally vote by their hearts. There is no competition among different political programs. And very few voters are actually interested in them. Therefore, giving candidates two times half an hour each to make radio and television presentations and allowing them to place their programs in seven state-run newspapers cannot make any substantial impact.

Lukashenka's rivals do not have concise summaries of their programs to make them understandable to average citizens. There are no remarkable slogans, either.

Milinkevich seems to be the one who is most critical toward the ruling authorities. At the same time, he usually speaks in general terms, apparently trying not to look like a radical person. However, the state press would do anything to make a scarecrow out of him anyway. In particular, he is branded as a nationalist who would impose the Belarusian language in case of coming to power, although many people in the country do not speak it well. A rather small audience, mostly consisting of readers of independent newspapers and users of the Internet, can know what Milinkevich really says about his plans, without having him treated by the state propaganda.

The same applies to Milinkevich's most important publicity achievement: self-presentation in the West. Several meetings with high-ranking officials of European Union institutions and leaders of some EU countries are certainly a breakthrough. However, just a small part of the Belarusian population knows about his foreign trips, let alone their content, due to the reasons mentioned above, and secondly, a part of those who do know criticize him for them. It would be better if he worked with voters at home, they say.

The closer the election the more often Milinkevich's remarks about an ultimate victory of democracy are combined with the sad admittance that Lukashenka will win anyway with the help of various manipulations and the call for trying to work for the future. He actually gives an a priori justification of defeat and prepares pro-democracy voters for new disappointment.

At the same time, Milinkevich's team is trying to enhance his competitiveness in the eyes of the voters by spreading findings of independent polls about his rapidly growing rating. But the same polls also show that Lukashenka's rating is more than 50 percent today, which is enough to win the vote already in the first round. In addition, the pro-presidential pollsters Ekoom and Presidential Administration's Institute of Social and Political Studies make public (and at a much larger scale) their findings showing that the head of state's rating is even more than 75 percent.

There is obviously a war of ratings going on. A war of exit polls is to be waged on the main day of voting, March 19.

The ruling authorities are using the most powerful and well-tested publicity technologies. ONT's series of concerts featuring Belarusian and Russian pop singers is one example. Conducted under the slogan For Belarus! and extended over time within ninety days before the election, they will cover all regional centers and the capital city. The first concerts already took place in Hrodna and Brest. February and March will see six more performances: in Homyel, Vitsebsk, Mahilyow and three in Minsk.

The first two were strongly politicized. The performers called on the public "to make a correct choice" and vote "For Belarus!" And anyone immediately knew which candidate exactly they had to vote for.

For a Strong and Prosperous Belarus! is a slogan that Lukashenka used in the presidential election campaign in 2001. The call to vote For Belarus! was widely used during preparations for a referendum in October 2004 that allowed Lukashenka to run for President indefinitely.

Can the ONT concerts be considered as early campaigning for the incumbent? Since the slogan was extensively used in previous election campaigns, it is firmly associated with Lukashenka now.

According to Mikalay Lazavik, the central election commission's secretary, For Belarus! is not about campaigning, since it does not contain the mentioning of any personality: "I think all the four contenders could subscribe to this slogan." In his opinion, the concert tour is aimed at "increasing political activity of citizens and their interest in the election campaign."

As for Syarhey Haydukevich, he has decided to be silent before he is officially registered. However, he made one statement that confirmed his reputation as Lukashenka's sparring partner. The leader of the Liberal Democratic Party said that he did not have any doubts that the ruling president would win the vote again, which is why Haydukevich is already thinking about plans for 2011.

Alyaksandr Kazulin's team also says that their participation in the election is oriented toward the future. Kazulin himself does not want to recognize Milinkevich as a single pro-democracy challenger to Lukashenka and criticizes him for his Western bias.

Some analysts think that Kazulin is the Kremlin's creature and that Moscow keeps him in the race for the sake of any unexpected developments related with the election. In other words, to prevent political initiative from being taken over by Milinkevich in the event of street protests.

Observers have noticed that Kazulin has sufficient resources. His nomination group showed much higher efficiency during signature collection in comparison with Milinkevich's team. Moreover, the largest non-state newspapers, such as the Narodnaya Volya and Komsomolskaya Pravda v Belorussii, have more reports about Kazulin than about Milinkevich. In particular, in the monitoring period between January 16 and 27, Kazulin got 18.7 percent of the election coverage in the Narodnaya Volya, Lukashenka 13.3 percent and Milinkevich just 2.4 percent.

The Komsomolskaya Pravda v Belorussii gave 31.01 percent of election coverage to Kazulin, 13.08 percent to Syarhey Skrabets, 4.59 percent to Lukashenka and 2.21 percent to Milinkevich.

Meanwhile, Milinkevich's team made public "a leak of information" from the authorities: the opposition leader's people claim that the powers that be decided to use manipulations to put Milinkevich last in the ranking of final vote results to discredit him and the entire united opposition. This can trigger the effect of mobilization, as some part of the electorate would vote for Milinkevich specifically in spite of what is allegedly schemed by the regime.