Crisis in Belarus: Who is to blame and what to do?
Belarus is experiencing the most severe political crisis in the history of its independence. Minsk and many Belarusian cities have been hot spots for the fifth day with shootings, explosions and clashes between security forces and protesters. And it seems that this is only the first phase of a crisis that could prove fatal for Belarusian statehood in general.
Who is to blame for this crisis and what to do? Let's take it in order.
First of all, the Belarusian authorities and Lukashenko personally are to blame. If only because he is an authoritarian ruler who has ruled for 26 years and all this time has tightly controlled everything that happens in the country, almost in manual control mode. And such control also implies personal responsibility.
Recently, the Belarusian ruler has little corresponded to the image of a wise and strict, but fair “Batka” propagated by propaganda. His decisions were often impulsive, illogical and out of proportion to the scale of the problems. He made many and big mistakes - he looked for alternative oil to the detriment of the economy, did not react very adequately to the coronavirus, organized the dirtiest election campaign in Belarusian history, from which he knocked out all strong competitors.
His biggest and most strategic mistake was his attempt to break with Russia. He saw the threat in the East, but missed the much more serious threat from the West. It was this mistake that became decisive immediately after the elections.
Lukashenko, his entourage and propaganda throughout the election campaign frightened voters with Russian interference in the elections, the puppet masters behind alternative candidates, and finally, the completely wild case of Russian “militants” detained near Minsk. They were accused of organizing mass riots and almost preparing a coup. The electorate was frightened by the fact that somewhere else 170 “militants” were waiting in the wings.
The elections have passed, the unrest is still going on, but no one saw any “Wagnerites”, who, as Belarusian propaganda said, specialized in sniper and subversive work, during the unrest. A couple of slender guys with Russian passports, who were shown on Belarusian television as provocateurs of riots, are categorically not suitable for the role of “hand of Moscow” - they turned out to be activists of Khodorkovsky’s “Open Russia”.
There was external interference, but it came from the other side. Ukrainian militants definitely came to support the Belarusian Maidan. And Mosiychuk, one of their leaders, openly admitted this. And one of the most important roles in these events was played by the telegram channels Nexta and Nexta.live, the total audience of which during the protests approached 2,5 million users. This is a monstrous figure for a country whose population does not reach 9,5 million.
It was on these channels that the most timely, but very biased news from the protests was given, there were calls to beat the security forces, and meeting points and forms of protest were announced. The face of the channels is 22-year-old blogger of Belarusian origin Stepan Putilo, who lives in Warsaw, but only a very naive person can believe that this handsome boy is the headquarters of the “revolution”.
Judging by the scope of his activities, he has a whole staff behind him, working under the control of the Polish authorities and intelligence services. And Poland’s claims to Belarus are well known - the phantom pains of the “passed-out cries” have not yet subsided, and even now in Warsaw they are openly talking about the need to draw Belarus into their sphere of influence and are no longer averse to getting involved in Belarusian politics, imposing their own settlement scenario. And where Ukraine and Poland are, there is the United States, whose Secretary of State Michael Pompeo has already announced the need for re-elections.
And now - what to do. Simply suppressing the protests and enjoying victory would be a mistake. The republic was seriously rocked. And such an approach will not solve the contradictions, but will only worsen them.
The split in society will remain, and the mutual hatred of its different parts will only grow. And sooner or later it will explode again. We need a strategy for national reconciliation. We will be grateful if we find support for this strategy in our ally Russia, but it must be a Belarusian strategy.
We need to start with dialogue. I am glad that two major parliamentary parties - the Republican Party of Labor and Justice and the Liberal Democratic Party - have initiated such a dialogue, and I hope that other political forces will join it. Parliament could play an important role in this, finally showing independence. I already see timid preconditions for this. You need to forget old grievances and give up revenge. This will be a difficult but necessary decision for peace in the country.
And then, we need a new creative project that will unite and reconcile society. Such a project could be constitutional reform. Lukashenko has long promised a new Constitution, in which there will be a real separation of powers, a redistribution of presidential powers in favor of the government and parliament, and strong local self-government.
This is what most of society wants. But constitutional reform should not be behind the scenes, as now, when the draft Basic Law is developed in secret from voters, but open, with the creation of the Constitutional Assembly, and broad public dialogue. This will give society hope for change for the better. After all, it was out of hopelessness that many voted for absolutely no Tikhanovskaya and went to the barricades for her.
In addition to constitutional reform, there must also be reform of electoral legislation. After all, it was the opaque voting with questionable results that became the main irritant that brought people to the streets. The numbers were fantastic, but there was no way to verify them. The new vote must be transparent and free. The choice should be made by ballots, not by batons and Molotov cocktails.
And then - a referendum on the new Constitution, parliamentary and presidential elections. We are for change, but change must be evolutionary and creative, not revolutionary and destructive.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.