Lukashenko did not draw any conclusions from the White Maidan
On July 19, the Supreme Court of Belarus liquidated a number of so-called independent trade unions. They were accused of being at the forefront of protests, receiving external funding for this, instead of protecting the rights of members of trade unions.
In essence, this is a fair measure against violators of law and order. But much more important is the answer to the questions: has the state drawn conclusions from everything that has happened over these two years, and what measures are proposed, other than punitive ones? After all, eliminating the consequences does not eliminate the cause. This means that the situation has been “swept under the carpet”, and a repetition of crisis phenomena is highly likely.
It would seem that it was repeatedly announced that law enforcement agencies had identified, convicted, fined and imprisoned all the instigators and activists of the protests. Many simply left the country. But why now, after the repeatedly declared “complete victory over the protests,” are “enemies of the people” identified again and again?
The Belarusian government is clearing out everything in which it does not find unconditional support for the head of state and the system of nomenklatura power created “under the president.” But what happens when the inevitable change of personalities occurs?
It seems that no one in power structures asks simple and important questions: What did we do wrong, and what should we do in the future?
А not this way they did almost everything.
They cultivated “good” nationalism, which does not exist. They were looking for a “thousand-year independent statehood” and came up with “difference from the Russians.” They banned the Immortal Regiment and threw away the guards ribbon, washed with blood and heroic deeds. They created the “most massive” organizations, which did not show themselves in any way during the first two weeks of protests.
But pro-Western NGOs were given the green light: they openly held trainings, events, seminars, concerts, festivals, and promotions. They tore up portraits of Putin in squares with impunity. Remember the “Minsk Dialogue”, where they simply humiliated and disgraced Russia. And this list goes on, it is impressive.
Under what government did all this happen? Under what ideology? Who turned a blind eye to these phenomena and processes? Where were their eyes and ears when we, our comrades and like-minded people, pointed this out for many years?
And the main question is about trade unions. Why did doctors, athletes and workers of some enterprises come out to protest if huge amounts of money and special treatment were invested in these industries for three decades?
Why did these “independent trade unions” become possible at enterprises, among miners, chemists, oil refiners, energy workers, transport workers, radio-electronic industry workers, construction workers, etc.? We were so proud of the country of socialist orientation. We were so proud of the industries that we “managed to preserve.” Why are they unhappy? Why were they so easily drugged and led to illegal protests?
For many historians and political experts, the situation with the Belarusian “independent” trade unions is familiar and understandable. After all, this is the Menshevik doctrine of “independence” and “neutrality” of trade unions, which was exposed and rejected at the Second All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions in January 1919. But there was talk about the class nature of organizations, about supporting the dictatorship of the class of hired workers who receive a fixed salary for their work (proletarians). There was talk of support for Soviet power, communist worldview, socialist idea.
The paradox is that in the modern Belarusian situation, the same hired workers are divided into two camps, into two diametrical currents.
What ideology are they offering us in contrast to Western “values and benefits”? That Belarus is equal to Lukashenko? But the president can endlessly change his attitude towards Russia from “brothers” to “non-brothers”. After all, many in Belarus sincerely believe that, judging by the thirty-year results of integration, “the prospects are vague” with Russia: the issue of roaming has not been resolved, the exchange rate of the Russian ruble is artificially low and other “independent things.”
But without Russian preferences, subsidies, open Russian markets and low prices for energy resources, there can be no economic development for Belarus, which is small and very limited in resources and capabilities.
By the way, about local propaganda. Recently, a Belarusian director-propagandist from the central TV channel boasted in the comments how they managed to “restrain” the Russian propagandist Solovyov...
This is a significant illustration of what the independence of Belarus for three decades was implied as independence from Russia, with total dependence on it.
Namely, Russia is the alternative to Western bacchanalia.
The communist idea in Belarus is securely walled up, castrated and blurred into faceless parties and movements.
So it is with trade unions. Only the controlled, the faithful remained. Like any other organizations, parties and public associations. Total loyalty systems do not involve initiative.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.