MILINKEVICH SET TO RESIGN

2006-10-30

By Kiryl PAZNYAK, commentator

Opposition forces performed during the 2006 presidential race no better than during the 2001 campaign. But if no changes in either human resources or ideology are taking place after a bad performance, you start thinking that the opposition is conducting a selfish political game.

You cannot resist the impression that while speaking to the European Parliament on October 16, US Ambassador Karen Stewart used an extremely optimistic (or extremely diplomatic) wording. Realizing by the opposition that democratic change, not fighting against each other, is the most important thing has become a significant change in the opposition camp, she said.

According to Stewart, who worked in Minsk back in 2006, the opposition is overcoming its defeat in the 2006 presidential election less painfully, without criticizing each other, as it was the case in 2001.

We can agree that this time they did without public quarrels about the grant money. But the other negative processes with the democratic movement are repeating almost like a blueprint.

Yes, their circle is small. You cannot change the opposition elites artificially. However, the opposition leaders again are unable to make a moral political step: to resign because they lost elections. Their fellow party members could later ask them to remain, but the former leaders would be clean in front of their voters. Why do they need to create an image of those catching on top seats?

On the other hand, oppositionists are now criticizing each other even more than five years ago. In 2001 it became clear that ex-candidate Hancharyk did not succeed and he had to quit big politics. But Milinkevich has decided to stay and is now paying for it.

See the website of the United Civic Party. The amount of criticism against the former single opposition leader there is equal to the criticism against the president. And here is the quote from the interview by Uladzimir Nistsyuk, deputy chairman of the Belarusian Social Democratic Party “Hramada”: “It has already taken over two years to reform and restructure the alliance of democratic forces. However, an efficient coalition, capable of acting together, has failed to emerge. All that its representatives can do is to implement the failed projects like the most recent one named ‘Milinkevich is Our President.’ And we are lucky that he failed to become the president, because there is only emptiness behind him.”

In the view of Nistsyuk, “nobody within the coalition now knows what to do because Milinkevich is their brand and the only evidence of unity. There has been no scenario of coordinated actions by all pro-democratic forces in this country. The single coordination center has not been created.”

The obvious transformation of the opposition field is taking place mainly under the slogans of overthrowing Milinkevich.

Owing to the conventional thinking and behavior of himself and his team, Milinkevich failed to reconfirm his status of the leader both during the electoral campaign and after the elections. There is a number of objective reasons for his failure in the period after March 19. First of all, after election campaigns, voters traditionally feel apathetic and disappointed in the defeated oppositionists. Secondly, the opposition was not really doing anything anyway. Thirdly, the popularity rating of Milinkevich was growing because of the election campaign. The campaign is over and the rating goes down. Milinkevich acquired even the status of the leader thanks to elections, yet he failed to spin off up to the level of a national leader.

One thing is not clear. Why do his competitors need a status of the opposition leader? It is still a long way before the next presidential elections, so whoever gets the leader’s jersey will have definitely worn it out by 2011. Yet, the most important thing for them now is to take the jersey away from Milinkevich.

By the way, he does not object to having the powers of the number one oppositionist in this country strengthened further. He says that he agrees with holding a new congress of democratic forces on condition that the elected leader will control all the opposition forces. Lyabedzka is against this. Does he lack confidence that he will take revenge?

Meanwhile, Milinkevich keeps saying that the Lukashenka regime can last for only one or two years – a propaganda trick for school-age oppositionists. It became clear long ago that the hopes for optimism failed to work. However, Milinkevich has continued talking about a short-term revolutionary perspective.

They can also use sociology for overthrowing Milinkevich. On October 13, prominent independent sociologists disseminated information that the rating of the ex-candidate fell to 11.6 percent in August against 20.4 percent during the presidential race. The sociologists concluded, “His popularity and authority does not match any longer the role of the single leader of pro-democratic forces in Belarus.”

Milinkevich is turning into a political loner. Even the Belarusian Popular Front announced a moratorium on the participation of its members in the For Freedom movement. Following the agreements of the first congress of democratic forces and in order to save face in front of voters and the West, the Belarusian opposition has continued recognizing Milinkevich as its leader at least de jure. A new congress of democratic forces has been lobbied for in order to formalize the official resignation of Milinkevch.

But, who will replace him? Whoever is proposed for the role of a new leader, his rating will not be higher than the one of Milinkevich today.