Political scientist, editor-in-chief of the religions.ru website Sergey Dunaev answers InFocus questions about events in Belarus and not only.
Observing the situation in Belarus after the presidential elections and the reaction of the Russian expert community to it, I note the first thing - we do not have specialists on Belarus. And it was never, its topic was not considered at all problematic. "Everything is so clear." Here is the consequence: what is happening does not receive a realistic explanation. There are plenty of patterns and platitudes, but they are usually helpless and useless.
There are a number of undoubted differences between Belarus and Russia, which are also worth noting, and this is a very unpleasant fact for Russian politicians and political technologists, who are used to working according to models - like how they acted in various elections here. And here is a person who worked, let's say, on some Duma elections in the Kursk region, and is very satisfied with himself and the achieved result, is ready to "feed" or comment on the elections in Belarus with the same baggage of knowledge, tools, a set of slogans, etc. And at some point he realizes that all his skills and abilities are not suitable at all, that he is banging his forehead against the wall, and the result is zero.
This happened for the first time in Ukraine during the presidential elections of 2004, where famous Russian political technologists worked, "serious people" who clearly understood that they came only to win. I am referring to Viktor Yanukovych's first campaign, which they successfully destroyed, although they had, in principle, a good introduction for their client.
Viktor Yanukovych was consistently close to 50 percent, but everything that could be spoiled, he missed the leadership position, they did it themselves. And not out of value or evil intent, but only because they did not understand the mentality of the second nation, at best, they tried to explain it with a stereotypical myth about the differences between Western and Eastern Ukraine. And this myth does not work at all in reality, it is explained exclusively for political failures. Although it is enough to look at the genesis of most Ukrainian nationalist groups from UNSO to "Azov" and "Right Sector", at the origin of the same Yushchenko, Filatov, in general, anyone who is the name of Ukrainian nationalism. And understand that this is not Lviv, but Kharkov and Dnipropetrovsk. Lviv gave only Tyagnibok, a parliamentary demagogue. But the active and symbolic characters are all Eastern. Visiting specialists did not understand this, because the reality contradicted their picture of the world, where the opinion was established that there is Western Ukraine, which supposedly gravitates towards Poland, and there is Eastern Ukraine, which gravitates towards Russia. Of course, these people successfully lost the elections. Yanukovych is a simple man, and he did not hold back his emotions about those who "led" him then.
"Pobeda" in the second round was annulled and declared illegal, the authorities formally agreed with Maidan, appointed a third round with an already obvious different result.
Embarrassed and apologetic don't win. But in reality, Yanukovych could win, having the eastern elite behind him, the support of the current president and the post of prime minister! They won't win with such a resource - a kind of special virtuosity. Victory was not the most difficult problem. The problem turned out to be that his slogans addressed to some invented "destitutes" did not work. "If you want to go to Russia for work - vote for Yanukovych!" This could not but cause rejection. At the same time, his electorate responded to other motives, by the way, many even called him a "prisoner" with some respect. It was not used at all. We have, they say, a ready-made program, why study local moods?
Therefore, when Yanukovych ran for president for the second time, he chose American political technologists who emphasized completely different themes and other symbolic points in his election campaign. And he won this campaign cleanly, because the topics on which he focused turned out to be important to the electorate. Although I had to abandon the priorities declared at that time.
Stupidly writing off the Russian experience is a failed approach. By the way, there were no significant Russian political technologists working in Belarus, which is due to the regime's distrust of other people's recipes and confidence that Lukashenko will solve his own problems in his country. Of course, Belarus is a simpler country than Ukraine in terms of its internal schedules... However, what started there after the elections is much more complicated than the black-and-white presented, typical of the Kyiv Maidans.
I had to visit there many times since 1993, communicate with locals in different regions, and often a dispute arose, where there are more civil liberties, in Russia or in Belarus. And what should be considered the priority of such freedoms.
What is happening here? In recent years, let's say, the conservative lobby has been strengthening, which has a determining influence on the wording of laws, the tone of television noise, and the president's evaluations. His attitude is to reject the world, to his civilizational identity, to the traditions that bind him. And at the same time, they aim at "how to think and how to look." Obviously, the formation of a certain surrogate of ideology and a claim to its comprehensive meaning.
This has never happened in Belarus. And it is difficult to imagine such a thing in a country where more than ten percent are Catholics. And with Protestant activity there, too, there is an ancient history, rooted in the Middle Ages, which the state recognized. In the very center of Minsk, next to the Presidential Administration, there is a church, which is always full of people, and at the same time it is a place of attraction for young people, all kinds of roller skaters, skaters, etc., social gatherings. Demonstrators were also hiding there, some of whom tried to storm the Presidential Administration in the 10th year. That is, the Catholic Church existed there as not only a religious, but also a political institution, and the authorities considered it without trying to crush it with a bulldozer. Now he's trying - but it's too late... The classic authoritarian regime has never interfered with what fellow citizens think about, what they wear, and what they believe. And this is not accidental. However, in relation to the rallies, he was not intolerant and harsh...
Hence the difference between the modern Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. And the question is, where are more natural freedoms? Where the personal ideological status of the state is mostly indifferent, or where there are more opportunities to rally, but there is actually a state ideology? At the same time, there was no pathetic glorification of Lukashenko on TV, in the mass media, in popular culture, or any mind-blowing songs about him - the great "cosmic savior", world-class strategist. And here, some exotic people even tried to deify Putin. Most of those voters of Lukashenko, with whom I spoke, laughed at the "father", made fun of him. But the relationship with inhalation was not noticed at all.
At the same time, the ideologically marked population, the base 10-15 percent, always hated him fiercely. But the mass voter never imagined that Lukashenko is a historical ruler, a cunning strategist, that with him Belarus rose from its knees, that he has his own "cunning plan"... Although in fact, as a tactician, until recently he was very good, balancing qualitatively between players with obviously opposing interests. In this, he was truly unique, there are no similar leaders in Belarus. However, this (personal merits) was not a topic of propaganda. That he is a "strong economic man" and the second "will be worse" - yes. If this was not mentioned directly, then it was broadcast indirectly.
But nothing more. The Belarusian president did not have any grandiose programs like those of Putin or Nazarbayev. There were assurances that "I will keep it, I will not allow it, you live with dignity, and everything will be better in the future" - such rhetoric, in principle, resembles the program of United Russia in the 2003 elections to the State Duma. When ER was advertised like this: "we bought a refrigerator, and next year we will buy a car or a motorcycle." In 2003, Putin himself was not ideologically oriented - rather, he was a centrist with ideas about everything good for everyone. It was about how we began to live better. Quite a Lukashenko "wave".
So, the Belarusians laughed at the "father". They were impressed by his simplicity, political incorrectness, clumsiness. It was clear that he was not building a "living monument" of himself. Does not try to pose as a poster. The last election campaign was conducted to the joke song "Sanya will stay with us, everything will be okay." What a charismatic guy...
However, the attempts of the opposition to organize in Belarus were fought very hard; so that this opposition practically did not remain: many left, many did not. Many "moved away". There were no such leaders who could authoritatively appear on any SNN, on other foreign platforms, not to mention their own platforms. The last ten years for sure. There are 110 seats in the House of Representatives of the Republic of Belarus, in 2016 the conditional opposition received two seats there. But their deputies hastily merged even at the symbolic level.
There is a very important point about which we are silent. And this topic is full of politics. Any conversation about independent Belarus in Russian is objectively ridiculous. Belarusian patriots will say that without the Belarusian language, this territory has no spirit, no history, no sense at all. Here, if the factor of language is included, then with it - genetic memory, the myth of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Zhomoit is revived. Which, by the way, the government itself, led by Lukashenko, has been a guide for years, popularizing the history of the Ukrainian People's Republic of Ukraine, the cult of the Radziwills, erecting a monument to Grand Duke Olgerd in Vitebsk.
But who came to the opposition in the last elections? The head of a Russian bank, practically an official, then another official and a diplomat, who then already from Moscow demanded to punish Lukashenko for spoiling relations with Russia, then an entrepreneur-advertiser. All of them existed without problems under the regime all these years, they are part of this regime, its typical representatives. The first two are one hundred percent. It is possible to turn out to be an oppositionist with different motivations... For example, you fly from Courchevel and find out that your business is not going very well, the company has been swindled, and a fierce resentment immediately arises. Or maybe colleagues advised. Or maybe (and this happens), the regime itself appointed the opposition. Only these leaders who hatched before the elections did not say a word to the voters in Belarusian. Perhaps this did not even occur to them, they came to manage the country like a company. But the national development program was not reviewed for them. And in this capacity, they were ideal opponents for the current president, although he still removed them from the elections.
They say that the Russian leadership was annoyed with Lukashenko, and in Moscow they were not opposed to shaking him up. It is quite possible that Russian oligarchs have their own views on Belarusian assets and could support their fellow businessmen. However, it cannot be said that Moscow made a full bet on the victory of Tykhanouskaya, Tsepkalo or Babariko. Not the same level of the political game.
But it turned out to be shaken, and thoroughly. But here the second factor is included, because even nationally oriented Belarusians theoretically have more reason to vote for "Aleksan Rygorych" than for the same Tykhanovskaya. She has no political program, except for one word - "fed up!"
However, this very word turned out to be The Same. The real End has come, the moment of Lukashenko's saturation, even toxicity, imperceptible to him. It is quite likely that Tykhanovskaya (or rather, the "Fed Up!" party) won 60 percent of the votes in the district. In any case, where her team had access to the protocols, the result was even higher.
It is always difficult to predict the behavior of millions and even hundreds of thousands of people, but the behavior of Lukashenko himself is predictable. He is not in the mood to give up, he expects to survive the crisis, relying on his security forces. There is less hope for the people: he lost his march to the factory. At the same time, he can hope for military assistance and even say that they are preparing to hang Polish flags in Grodno: he seems to have lost his adequacy. And in a new genre, with a machine gun, he didn't get used to it.
On the military - yes, but he definitely does not rely on political-technological assistance. He was always a political technologist himself. Although it happens like this: what made you strong will destroy you in the end.
Belarusians have changed a lot over the years, but he did not catch the critical significance of these changes. Yes, the protesters agree that changes in the country are possible only at the price of a drop in the standard of living. But it happens that a person has gotten so much that you think less about the price than about the dream. The vivid emotions of the demonstrators are not just a disagreement with the presidential course in something separate, even if it is important. In addition, people no longer believe that he will protect them from the same economic problems. They are only waiting for him to be forced to change his geopolitical stubbornness to a more pronounced pro-Russian orientation. Or, on the contrary, the support of both Russia and the European Union will remain.
Lukashenko made an unforgivable mistake when he raised his bar in the elections too high - up to 80 percent... Another one, when in the first days of the protests he made a bet on violent crackdowns. And the fact that he then rolled back is already the third mistake. And talk that he is ready to leave in two years is not a sign of strength either. After all, a natural question arises: how come, having received (as he says) a mandate for five years from 81 percent of the population, the winner is gathering to leave his post earlier than the deadline? Even his supporters have the feeling that he is taking time, that he has no algorithm for overcoming the crisis.
And this despite the fact that he himself was the origin of the crisis back in 1994. In today's definitions, he is a real "orange" revolutionary. Odinochkoy, who went against the system, without a clear chance of victory, an ordinary deputy, who alone voted against the ratification of the Belovezhsky Agreement. He got hit on the square, they tried to press him... He was a lone fighter and he remained so in terms of his personality. Not bright in the Belarusian way, and in the realities of that moment - an outright extremist. Against the background of Kebych, Shushkevych, Mechyslav Hryb, managers from the past, who were not well-formed personally, he looked like Che Guevara... Young, active, loud. He put forward provocative ideas, he was a phenomenon.
The time has come - as in sports, as in art - to understand that leaving on time is the most valuable quality. This makes a man a living legend. It is possible to grow old gracefully - it is also a big task for a person. "He will die on stage" like Frank Sinatra... Perhaps the president wanted to, because he was not preparing any successor. But you have to be able to do this - and Lukashenko is aging ugly. Busy and hectic.
