Belarusian Presidential Elections, 2010

[lord of flies]

On December 19, 2010, the people of Belarus will turn out for a nationwide election to determine the next President of their country. Almost certainly, the incumbent, Alexander Lukashenko, will win his fourth term as President of Belarus. After this election, there is little doubt that the United States and its European allies will take a negative position on the results, a position of firm disbelief or claims of voter fraud. More worryingly, Russia may do so as well, ending the relatively close ties of Belarus and Russia, two culturally close but in many ways strategically opposed nations.

 

The Independent Institute of Socio-Economic and Political Studies (IISEPS) performs independent public opinion polling in Belarus. Their data consistently puts Lukashenko as the most likely candidate to win by far, with only one other - Milinkevich, who has given up his Presidential bid in the 2010 election (Demotix) - taking double digit percentage points in the close-ended question, while Lukashenko consistently has more than 40% support in their pre-election polling.

 

The single most important facet that guarantees a Lukashenko victory if this poll proves accurate, however, is who people will not vote for under any circumstances. Only about a third of Belarusians will not vote for Lukashenko under any circumstances, but more than half state that they will not vote for any single other politician. In a political system like Belarus's, with a run-off between the two most successful candidates (if neither takes the majority in the "first round"), this alone would mean it is highly unlikely for Lukashenko to lose the election. Coupled with the exit of Milinkevich and Lukashenko's broad public support, it is virtually impossible (IISEPS).

 

The far greater threat to Belarusian democracy then, is not Lukashenko, but foreign and domestic elements which are unwilling to accept the natural result of such broad public support. The domestic opposition has in the past attempted to counter the results of the election, most notably in 2006 when they attempted (and failed) to oust Lukashenko from power. The United States has made it clear that they do not support Lukashenko and have backed opposition elements monetarily, having paid millions of dollars annually (National Endowment for Democracy).

 

What is likely the greatest threat to Belarus democracy, however, is Russia. Belarus and Russia are extremely close culturally, with most Belarusians speaking Russian in their homes, and the two countries are also heavily economically linked. For a time after the fall of the Soviet Union, it seemed very likely that Belarus and Russia would form a new political and economic union, known as the Union State of Belarus and Russia.

 

However, their differences are also crucial to understanding the now rapidly cooling relations between the two countries. Belarus has maintained (or regained after the disastrous rule of Lukashenko's predecessor) many of its socialist institutions and economic characteristics (see further done in this same post). Russia, on the other hand, went straight into the foolishness of rapid privatization following the end of the Soviet era, causing large loss of life as public services disappeared, and has gained many more reactionary institutions and economic policies since.

 

While the Union State and other formations of unity between Belarus and Russia nominally still exist, Belarus has consistently plotted an independent political and economic course from Russia. This independent course is visible in the June 2010 gas crisis that occurred between Belarus and Russia and briefly threatened European access to natural gas (RIA Novosti). He has also sheltered former Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Baklyev, whose ousting had the Kremlin's overt support (New York Times). Lukashenko's brinkmanship with Russia, which simultaneously maintains independence from both East and West, has proven an effective method to maintain Belarus's independence and economic egalitarianism.

 

Unfortunately, this has naturally provoked a hostile reaction from the Kremlin. Earlier this year, while Lukashenko was on a visit to Turkey, a "Minsk media source" stated that Lukashenko had declared that he planned to secede from the Union State, the CSTO, the Customs Union and others, if Russia challenged the validity of the election (Telegraf.by). It was also claimed that he planned to have the Belarusian Orthodox Church secede from the Russian Orthodox Church (Interfax). In addition, the Russian media has released a series of what amount to little more than half hour attack ads, a "documentary" miniseries which, among other things, accuses Lukashenko of killing his political enemies and suffering from "mosaic psychopathy" (MMC News). This is a media tactic that has been used repeatedly by the Russian oligarchy since the fall of the USSR: make so many false accusations that it is not possible for your opponents to effectively counter them.

 

The economic course plotted by Lukashenko in Belarus is an important aspect of the hostility that the West has towards him. This stretches even to Russia, where the Russian oligarchs wish to profit off of Belarus's robust economy. Unlike many other post-Soviet states, Lukashenko has chose to avoid the folly of rapid or in-depth privatization, and during the early period of his reign "re-nationalized" the banks (United States Department of State). By avoiding the encroachment of foreign corporations, Lukashenko has simultaneously angered the United States and Russia while enriching his own people.

 

In 2009, Belarus's GDP per capita (PPP) was 285.83% of its 1992 level. Belarus has had sustained economic growth (in terms of GDP per capita PPP) since 1996, which continued even through the financial crisis of 2009 (Index Mundi). For comparison purposes, Russia's GDP per capita (PPP) in 2009 was 190.73%; obviously significant, but Russia has a massive advantage in terms of raw natural resources and yet still fell behind (Index Mundi).

 

"But wait," you may be saying, "isn't that all oil growth?" Well, no. Firstly, Belarus's "subsidies" from Russia have been significantly cut down recently. Secondly, prior to 2007, Russia paid $0.75 per 1,000 cubic meters passed through 100 kilometers of pipeline in Belarus; after 2007, Russia paid $1.45 (Understanding Belarus and How Western Foreign Policy Misses the Mark). This is significantly below the Ukrainian rate, which in 2009 was $1.70 per 1,000 (Jamestown Foundation). In other words, while Belarus was paying little for its gas, Russia was paying little for its transit.

 

Thirdly, the early growth (1996-2000) can be attributed to "a first-mover competitive advantage for Belarusian exporters" caused by a "considerable (albeit artificial and temporary) price advantage for Belarusian producers" (World Bank). The later growth (2000-2004) can be attributed "especially indirectly" to a "drastically improved external environment" by "accelerating Russian growth and Russian demand" as well as "steadily rising domestic demand" as a result of "excessive government involvement in the economy" (Ibid).

 

Less than 1.6% of Belarus's population subsist at less than the lower regional line of PPP $2.15 a day, and 26.6% subsist at less than PPP $4.30 a day, in comparison to 18.8 percent and 50.3 percent in Russia, 3.0 and 29.4 percent in Ukraine, and 5.7 and 30.9 percent in Kazakhstan (World Bank). The unemployment rate in Belarus is one of the lowest in the world, at about 1 percent, while Russia suffers from chronic unemployment, currently at 8.4% (CIA World Factbook).

 

Belarus's Gini index is 27.9, one of the lowest in the world (CIA World Factbook). Over 80% of agricultural land is state-owned and most agricultural land is communally farmed (Australian Government). As of 2000, only 10% of Belarusian enterprises were privatized (Nations Encyclopedia). About 55% of the economy of Belarus is spent on the social safety net (Valery Dashkevich).

 

The economic victories of Lukashenko's rule have brought a broad swath of public support, and I fervently hope that they will be maintained for the years to come. So let's discuss the ups and downs of Mr. Lukashenko's controversial Presidency, and the upcoming election (which he will win in precisely one month and thirty days). I hope this post has been informative and provides a springboard for further discussion.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The guy is clearly a paragon of democracy: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_...elarus_election

 

MINSK, Belarus

[Walsingham]

I know, WoD. LoFtastic.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Only you, LoF.

[Humodour]

lol

[Guard Dog]

Let's see,

 

State Controlled News/Media: Check

History of mistreating non-slavic/minority ethnicities: Check

Planned Economy: Check

History of Human rights abuses: Check

Anti-Semetic leadership: Check

Majority of land owned by the state: Check

 

Yep, sounds like your kind of place LoF

 

In all seriousness, if the voters in Belarus want Lukashenko, they can have him. The US does, unfortunately, have a history of denouncing (and even overturning or meddling in) elections that do not turn out the way the administration of the day likes. Vietnam & Chilie come to mind right off the top. James Monroe was a wise man, if only we'd listened.

 

On topic I vaugely remember talk on the BBC radio news of unifiying Belarus & Russia back when Putin was in charge (heh, as if he still isn't). I wonder whatever happened with that.

[lord of flies]

The guy is clearly a paragon of democracy: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_...elarus_election

 

MINSK, Belarus

[I want teh kotor 3]

So in your ****ed up world its the PEOPLE'S fault they got stuck with a totalitarian government?

 

Come back to reality. This guy is a scumbag. How in the **** can you support him?

[Thorton_AP]

When will they learn? Don't start nothing, won't be nothing.

 

If only the communist revolutionaries understood this.

[lord of flies]

So in your ****ed up world its the PEOPLE'S fault they got stuck with a totalitarian government?

Yeah, the "totalitarian government" they elected four times now.

Come back to reality. This guy is a scumbag. How in the **** can you support him?

Because he's not actually a scumbag. Edited December 25, 2010 by lord of flies

[kirottu]

Mom said not to trust people with comb overs. They are liars who aren

[Walsingham]

I got to say the thing I most love about LoF is how he thinks that putting a gif of a computer game in his sig we'll somehow think he's into computer games. Rather than just spamming the board with propaganda every few weeks. It's almost endearing. Like a puppy wearing shoes.

[lord of flies]

I got to say the thing I most love about LoF is how he thinks that putting a gif of a computer game in his sig we'll somehow think he's into computer games. Rather than just spamming the board with propaganda every few weeks. It's almost endearing. Like a puppy wearing shoes.

I am into computer games, actually. I just don't feel the need to post about it incessantly on the internet!

[Walsingham]

I got to say the thing I most love about LoF is how he thinks that putting a gif of a computer game in his sig we'll somehow think he's into computer games. Rather than just spamming the board with propaganda every few weeks. It's almost endearing. Like a puppy wearing shoes.

I am into computer games, actually. I just don't feel the need to post about it incessantly on the internet!

 

Yes, because doing that on a games forum would be inexcusable.

[Malcador]

When will they learn? Don't start nothing, won't be nothing.

 

The Gospel of Will Smith.