Opposition misses new opportunities

2007-01-31

Valery KARBALEVICH, commentator

Local elections went unnoticed in Belarus. The public lost interest because elections have turned into a feigned and boring ritual, while local soviets (elected councils) have turned into dummies.

Still, there was one interesting thing about the election – participation of the opposition. Tensions between Belarus and Russia stirred up public interest in politics and its willingness to hear alternative opinions. The dispute over oil and gas prices could be interpreted as failure of the Belarusian government’s policy and the socioeconomic model it has created.

That gave the opposition additional opportunities and tools. In a period of uncertainty, alternatives and those who propose them usually play a bigger role, and the public comes to realize the need for an opposition.

The government announced the election date in summer. Signs of an imminent dispute over oil and gas prices also could be seen long before the election. Therefore, one could expect the opposition to rally and come up with specific proposals on how to address the most pressing issues.

But things went the other way round. Political opponents were unable to perform functions of a real opposition in the last two months losing on all opportunities presented by the election. The opposition did not have any objective for the campaign (apart from reaching voters, which is not an objective), as a result opposition supporters were quite passive.

But the main setback was political parties’ failure to act in unison. The pro-democratic coalition actually broke up, although it continues its formal existence.

The opposition forces’ campaign would be more effective if they adopted a common, simple, specific and popular message. For instance, during the 2004 parliamentary election opposition political parties promoted a manifesto entitled “The Five Steps to Better Life.” During the local election, every opposition candidate had his own agenda. The public could not possibly understand what they wanted.

No less surprising was the lack of a common tactics. The Belarusian Party of Communists (BPC) urged its candidates to pull out before registration for the vote. Some candidates withdrew from the race days before voting. Others ran until the end. Members of the same parties could not come to an agreement with each other. Voters completely lost their bearings and did not know what to do, to vote or ignore the elections.

Opposition leaders also failed to take advantage of the gas row because they could not agree on a common position.

Former presidential candidate Alyaksandr Milinkevich said that Russia’s market-based approach to pricing was fair, drawing criticism from the nationalists for allegedly currying favor with the Kremlin. Vintsuk Vyachorka, leader of the Belarusian Popular Front (BPF), called for defending Belarus’ independence from the threat of incorporation. The United Civic Party (UCP) made a vague statement suggesting that it was concerned about the sale of Belarus’ gas pipeline to Gazprom.

Political parties are divided over the forthcoming Congress of Pro-Democratic Forces. Meanwhile, Milinkevich is forming a movement “For Freedom!” but his press comments exposed his lack of clarity about its purpose.

Finally, the BPC, the Belarusian Social Democratic Hramada (BSDH) and two smaller parties have recently held a conference in Chernihiv, Ukraine, to form a new, leftist alliance.

To put it short, the opposition does not put its effort in reaching voters, but wastes it on internal squabbling. It has been squabbling for years, however, it should not miss the opportunity to capitalize on the authorities’ weakness. The government has not clear answers as to what it should do in response to Russia’ gradual transition to market-driven pricing. This gives the opposition a good chance to come up with its plan and promote it.

After Russia announced its intention to phase out subsidies that propped up the Belarusian regime for years, the opposition immediately banked on a possible social crisis and public discontent. But even if a crisis occurs, it will be a political factor only if opponents take advantage of it. Can they overcome their own crisis of ideas, organization, political technologies and political responsibility?

It makes no sense to hold the Congress of Pro-Democratic Forces scheduled for February or March if the opposition leaders fail to agree on a meaningful agenda.