BELARUS NEWS AND ANALYSIS

DATE:

11.10.2005, 23:30

Byelorussian opposition: condemned to death?

translated by Irena Yakovina, для УП, 11.10.2005, 23:30

Original article in Ukrainian by Serhiy Hrabovskyi

The fact Oleksandr Milinkevich, leader of the "third power" [non-governmental organizations] is the only candidate to run for the president of Byelorussia from opposition seemed to be a great news for all Ukrainians free-thinkers (Hurray! Democratic forces are united to overthrow Lukashenko's dictatorship!), but causes quite different emotions at further examination.

Firstly, as one of my cynical colleagues has told, the main intrigue of coming presidential election in an adjoining state will be not in the personalities participating in it, but whether the opposition candidate is killed or takes off his candidature, or gets into the car accident.

Secondly, "a single" Byelorussian opposition will inevitably split up with the help of some security services: in fact 399 participants of Democratic Forces Congress of Byelorussia voted for Milinkevich, as 391 persons voted for his main competitor Anatoliy Lebedko, Head of United Civil Party. Consequently, the minimum difference between the candidates may lead to the proper consequences.

Thirdly, rotation of authoritative elite in such neo-totalitarian state as Byelorussia by democratic, legal means may be implemented neither practically, nor theoretically. The reason is not in powerful propaganda to pressure on Byelorussians, as it really exists, but takes a back seat.

The major factor is that Lukashenko's regime managed not only to proclaim quite an effective socio-economic policy, but to make it a reality and to create, as his predecessors - Hitler, Kadar, Tito, Den Syao Pin - the real socialist market economy, more effective than a spontaneous, "wild" capitalism, or the oligarchic system, or the Stalin's planned socialist economy.

What has Lukashenko built in Byelorussia?

To understand why Lukashenko's regime cannot be overthrown in a usual way, let's address to the theory. American Huan Lints and Byelorussian Andrey Sannikov were the top researchers of the modern neo-totalitarian regimes.

According to Lints, the party form of government not necessarily leads to totalitarianism in a modern world. It is enough to create a society where only one political party exists and the government is not accountable to the elected bodies, therefore can not be overthrown legally. At that all other classic features of totalitarianism (powerful state propaganda, dominant role of enforcement bodies, elimination or neutralization of opposition, leading role of the government in society, absolute control of the government over economy, etc.) remain in force.

But nevertheless at the beginning of the XXI century neo-totalitarianism has features quite different from the classic totalitarian regime in the middle of the XX century and they were investigated by Byelorussian rights advocate and scientist Andriy Sannikov. Therefore, there are some other features, that may be determined as classical, such as complete governmental control over mass-media, actual absence of power division, ideological pressure on consciousness and sub-consciousness of population in order to manipulate them ("ideology of the Byelorussian state" or so called "lukashizm"), search of external and internal enemies and formation of vast terrorist system. Moreover, Sannikov calls some other traces of neo-totalitarian regime.

Among major ones is discriminative attitude towards history, imposing to society by government (that matters much in the modern information world), and total rejection of existence of system opposition (that threatens the life of Milinkevich, as his mission is to prove the opposite idea).

Sannikov accepts and develops Lints's theory of building and existence of neo-totalitarianism in the absence of party form of government. Indeed, does it matter, whether a leading party exists, if all power is concentrated in the hands of certain group non-accountable before freely elected bodies and if this group cannot be overthrown legally?

As for economic basis of modern Byelorussia, it may be called "market socialism" (do not confuse it with the social market economy of Germans, Scandinavians or Canadians!).

On the one hand, in Byelorussia all leverages, key enterprises and banks remain in the hands of the state directly, through controlling stock or other forms of control.

On the other hand, there is a private capital in the state, mainly small and middle-sized, able to follow the market rules, but fully loyal to the government and ready to satisfy all economic whims of ruling clique if necessary.

At the same time the state provides to the citizens high living standards (high not in comparison with the developed world countries, but with adjoining states which live on the verge of socio-economic collapse). Therefore Byelorussian people, comparing themselves to the neighbours, really feel concern of their leader and are grateful to tyrant Lukashenko for all he does.

Economic analysis

And now let's examine the socio-economic basis of stability of Lukashenko's regime.

Here are some official data for today and tomorrow. Byelorussia in 2020 may increase GDP twice as much out of 2005, according to Economy Minister Mykola Zaychenko who submitted the project of National Strategy of Stable Development up to 2020. Under the project, investment share in GDP must grow 2,4-2,6 times as much, that allows to modernize production on the basis of progressive technologies.

At the same time the share of services in economy structure must grow from 44% up to 52% in accordance with world tendency, and share of labour remuneration in GDP will grow from 36% up to 39-40%. Number of people having incomes below cost of living may decrease from 30% up to 15%. In general GDP per capita under purchasing-power parity in Byelorussia is to be increased from 30% up to 70% out of the similar index of the Central European countries.

This was, so to speak, the optimistic view the governmental officials should share.

And here is the traditional view of pessimists from International Monetary Fund. The IMF forecasts GDP growth in Byelorussia in 2006 by 4%, inflation rate to be 12,5%, in 2005 GDP growth will make 7,1% and inflation around 12,1%.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. At least, last year GDP growth was 11%, despite IMF forecasted only 7% at the beginning of year and 10% in autumn (the same season as the prognosis for the coming year mentioned above).

Indeed, growth rate of 6-7% during 15 years enables to double GDP, growth rate of 5% to approach it (in fact annually every 5% rest upon the enlarged basis).

So, does "Byelorussian economic miracle" really exist? Did Lukashenko succeed to create something more effective, than democracy? Not at all. Simply a successful socialistic market enables to the totalitarian state to look better only in comparison with adjoining states experiencing economic slump, but cannot be compared with countries based on real social market economy and political democracy.

But still Byelorussian economy, no doubt, is more effective than Ukrainian clan-oligarchic or Russian clan-chekist models.

Say, last year's GDP growth in Byelorussia was based on so-called "real sector", i.e. 52% of growth was ensured by industry, construction, agriculture, transport. 12% of population were employed in agricultural sector, they produced 10,7% of national product that provided increase of 12,9%.

Nevertheless, at large farm-market agricultures (collective and state farms) increase is higher, than in the small farms. Actually, it is natural, if economic mechanisms really work. So Byelorussian industry last year reached 130% out of 1990 level with 15,9% growth. It produces cars, busses, trolleybuses, tractors, television sets, radio sets, make optical and microelectronics devices up to the artificial heart valves.

Certainly, this production cannot be compared with American or Japanese goods. But under price-and-quality ratio considerable part of Byelorussian products are quite competitive in foreign markets. Consequently, Byelorussian tractors "Belarus", a little improved soviet specimen, work in Ukrainian villages instead of developed by domestic designers top-quality tractor "Ukrayinets".

The same situation is with MAZ [Minsk Automobile Works] buses, which are widely used all over Ukraine. Ukraine's LAZ [Lviv Automobile Works] buses are highly competitive in the market, but LAZ cannot make good use of its potential abilities, whereas MAZ increased buses production by 44% in 2004. At that they become cheaper and 90% of MAZ production is exported to Russia.

Striking fact: last year MAZ produced 20.500 tractors, tippers, timber carrying vessels, etc. (20% growth), whereas all Russia motor works put out only 13.700 machineries.

One can say that Russia is loyal to Byelorussia supplying it cheap gas and petrol. But this loyalty is the result of negotiations on the verge of blackmail: when Moscow had suddenly decided to price out energy resources for Byelorussia, Lukashenko immediately raised a question of withdrawal from the country the Russian air defense forces. As to build them anew costs Russia USD 25 milliard, Moscow will surely keep moderate prices on energy resources for Minsk for a long time.

To draw a conclusion I would like to say that any economic system, even so sluggish as soviet, is better, than the total state ownership division, which was carried out in Ukraine by Leonid Kuchma, and is going on until now.

One more interesting detail: Ukraine's economy has practically exhausted reserves of renewable growth that means it needs radical updating to resume the normal rates of GDP growth. Yet Byelorussia has partly modernized its facilities thanks to the dictator Lukashenko.

Nothing new: Hitler, by the way, also successfully modernized German industry in the 1930s...

Lukashenko's socialism

Byelorussian language and culture are in disfavour, for the only Minsk lyceum, teaching in Byelorussian, is closed. But in Minsk a new National library was built, and radio stations should broadcast no less than 70% of musical repertoire in Byelorussian. The question is about two different projects of Byelorussian national culture, one of "bourgeois-nationalistic" intelligentsia, other of the president.

And it is clear, why the last project wins: it is promoted by the developed socialism of Lukashenko.

Say, government expenses of Byelorussia on the health protection make 4,8% of GDP, in Russia 3,7% of GDP, as for Ukraine it is better to keep mum. The average amount of oldage pension in Ukraine has become equal to Byelorussian in dollars only this year, but we should count that there housing services charge is much less. Average wage in Byelorussia amounts around USD 250, the sum Ukrainians can earn only in Kyiv.

At the end of 2004 GDP per capita in Byelorussia and Russia equalized and made about USD 8.500. Of course, it is not much, but Lukashenko had lately returned 70% of Oshchadbank savings both to all the citizens of Byelorussia and Ukrainians who saved their money in Byelorussian banks in 1991.

As for social sphere, Lukashenko successfully follows his predecessors, as he does not allow social objects to be transferred out of the balances of enterprises to state or local budgets or to be privatized. The majority of the Byelorussian enterprises, unlike Russian, kept their hostels, sanatorium-preventoriums, aid posts, preschool institutions, gymnasiums and others like that.

Besides, unemployment rate in Byelorussia is the lowest among the neighbours - only 2%, similarly as in Hitler Germany in the middle of the 1930th. German leader, indeed, except social goods for workers and rapid economic growth, had provided the highest decent living standards of then Europe, yet Lukashenko never manages to do it.

To kill a dragon

All said above does not mean in any case, that the author is the supporter of Lukashenko's political-economical model of society. The point is of those economical and social models of Byelorussian adjoining states, such as Russia, Ukraine or Latvia (except Poland and Lithuania), which do not arouse desire to follow their example.

Consequently Byelorussian president, playing successfully on geopolitical problems of Russia and NATO, manages to get preferences to develop Byelorussian economy and to gain new export markets for domestic goods, including illegal export of weapon to "the hot sports" world-wide.

Until the state provides economic stability through social guarantees, building state apartments, paying salaries to teachers enough to save money and to go to the Crimea on holiday (unlike the ordinary Ukrainian teacher) and the difference in social status of citizens is not sharp, the incumbent regime will not be overthrown by general elections, wherein Lukashenko can easily use administrative resource.

No wonder the majority of Byelorussians tend to be sluggish, inactive, depressed or short-sighted. In the Third Reikh people behaved the same way that pushed Erich Fromm to write the book "Escape from Freedom". It is usual, when an ordinary man prefers stability, government protection and quiet life in the state, which guaranties minimum of consumer goods to political and cultural freedom voluntarily.

And more: we should give a serious meaning to the fact, that both socialist market economy, and the different types of totalitarianisms are responses (in the long run inadequate, historically deadlocked, still given by not elite, but people itself) for the certain development challenges.

German national-socialism, so-called Hulyashevyi socialism in Hungary and self-governing socialism in Yugoslavia were responses of the same kind. Now something similar engulfs some countries of Latin America, such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador...

In other words, to kill a dragon you should first find the joint in the armour, for totalitarian regimes do not evolve from nothing. And not obligatory to isolate dissidents, it is better to set them free, but deprive them of real influence on people.

Actually, Byelorussian opposition, despite everything, had at least illusory, theoretical chance, if not to succeed, then to conduct an effective presidential campaign.

One thing is to fail absolutely, the other to witness a serious public support of your ideas. But I am afraid today's chaos and absence of real economic success of Ukraine's new power which supposed to be a good example for Byelorussians, leveled that chance.

Therefore it is necessary first to kill a dragon in Ukraine...

Source:

http://www2.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2005/10/11/4826.htm