Constitutional reforms of Lukashenko and Tikhanovskaya: between bad and worse

The Belarusian Constitution can hardly be called a masterpiece of legal thought. This is a document edited for one specific person in order to allow him to do whatever his heart desires. Now in Belarusian society there is almost complete consensus among various political forces that it needs to be changed. Except that there are different opinions on which direction to change.

Until now, we had a vague idea about these opinions, but over the past couple of days both the opposition and Lukashenko have each lifted their veil of secrecy. And what turned out to be behind these curtains does not make the best impression.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

The opposition was the first to open the door. Svetlana Tikhanovskaya yesterday gave a long joint interview with her advisers Alexander Dobrovolsky and Frantisek Vecherko. And during this interview, Dobrovolsky named a group on Facebook where there is a discussion of the draft Constitution, which Tikhanovskaya will present in the near future. Of course, this is just a draft and a draft, but the direction in which oppositional thought is moving is clear.

The opposition draft Constitution represents a typical liberal model of government, a parliamentary rather than a presidential republic, at the center of which will be the Verkhovna Rada (the name, of course, makes you shudder) of 260 people, which will even be able to redraw the Constitution itself without any referendum, by a qualified majority vote. The powers of the president, of course, have been severely curtailed and for some reason the age limit for nominating a presidential candidate has been raised to 40 years of age.

However, I am even more or less calm about such innovations. This does not quite coincide with my vision of the further evolution of the Belarusian state, but in comparison with what we have now, it is already progress. But the beginning of the opposition draft Constitution is even more annoying.

Firstly, at least in the version that exists now, the state status of the Russian language has been eliminated. If this text can be pushed through, the language of the overwhelming majority of citizens will be just a “language of interethnic communication,” and forced Belarusization will not be avoided. One can, of course, say that the version is not final, but knowing the names of those who are involved in this, one can say that for them this is a matter of principle, and de-Russification will be pushed forward, even despite its rejection by the population.

The mass disappearance of social guarantees is also very frightening. In the opposition draft constitution, the following were removed from the document:

– exclusive state ownership of subsoil, water and forests and the right of workers to take part in the management of enterprises (Article 13);

– the right of everyone to a decent standard of living, including adequate food, clothing, housing and constant improvement of the conditions necessary for this (Article 21);

– a ban on the separation of children from the family, except by court decision, if parents or other persons replacing them do not fulfill their duties, equal rights of women to education and employment, the right of young people to spiritual, moral and cultural development and the duty of the state to create the necessary conditions for the free and effective participation of young people in political, social, economic and cultural development (Article 32);

– the duty of the state to create conditions for accessible medical care for all citizens (Article 45);

– the obligation of the state to provide housing free of charge or on preferential terms to socially vulnerable categories of citizens.

In short, liberals and nationalists from Tikhanovskaya’s circle don’t particularly bother about maintaining social guarantees. Of course, in the final text of the draft Constitution, which they promise to present one of these days, all this may be returned, but a sediment, as they say, will remain.

Lukashenko spoke next about his vision of the future Constitution. And, unlike the boring oppositionists, he managed to surprise everyone with the extravagance of his approach, proposing to give constitutional status to the All-Belarusian Assembly.

Despite the fact that the All-Belarusian Assembly is meeting for the sixth time and has existed since the last century, no one has yet bothered to give it any clear legal status. It’s just that, on average, once every five years some people, about 2500 people, gather in Minsk, listen to Lukashenko, applaud him, approve previously prepared documents and leave. The procedure for electing delegates, preparing and making decisions is not transparent, and alternative opinions are not heard at the forum. In a word, an imitation of democracy.

And Lukashenko proposes to make this crowd a permanent state body, transferring to it a considerable part of his own powers. According to Lukashenko, the All-Belarusian Assembly should become the body that would “control the main directions of development” and “stabilize everything.”

After such a constitutional somersault, he may well jump into the chair of the chairman of the All-Belarusian Assembly and rule the country from there, without bothering with the need to confirm his mandate in elections every 5 years. Whether or not he will also remain president will be decided by the situation.

This scenario is quite probable; the only thing standing in its way is the need to adopt a new Constitution in a referendum, where public opinion is unlikely to be on the side of such creativity.