![2[1].jpg](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5abadf_f310244424a443b29215dadb17bba49b~mv2.jpg/v1/crop/x_5,y_0,w_1069,h_1080/fill/w_101,h_102,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/2%5B1%5D.jpg)
By Michael Knezevic
“Of course, we do not recognise the results.” This was Svetlana Tikhanovskaya’s response to President Alexander Lukashenko’s unconvincing re-election for a sixth consecutive term on Sunday night. The unassuming opposition leader took over from her husband, YouTuber Sergei Tikhanovsky, who was detained during the elections’ registration period. Since embarking on her campaign, she has become a flagbearer for the various opposition factions to rally behind in pursuit of their common goal – to oust the authoritarian president. Following the announcement of the predictable 80% victory in favour of the incumbent, the typically tranquil and politically apathetic country of 9.5 million people took to the streets to protest the result. Tikhanovskaya’s timid 9.9% of the vote is widely acknowledged as a farce.
The Belarusian Interior Ministry stated that 3,000 protestors were detained on the night of the election. The total has since risen to 6,000, with reports of torture and beatings prompting strikes at some larger state-owned companies. One person has died with many more injured as law enforcement used water cannons, tear gas, flashbang grenades, and even live ammunition to disperse the crowds. A resident of Minsk, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of the protests: “You look at all this and you think, is this really Minsk?” She explained that most social networking sites, with a few Belarusian exceptions, had been blocked from the day of the election until Wednesday morning. Metro stations in the centre have been closing at 6pm, she said, in an attempt to prevent mass gatherings after the working day.
The controversial result and heavy-handed crackdown have drawn much international criticism. Whereas, Lukashenko has praised the riot police’s dedication to protecting Belarus, describing them as “true patriots”. He also dispelled claims that law enforcement agents had laid down their shields in solidarity with protestors as “fake news” (BelTA). Political repression aside, the country was already suffering from economic turmoil and a very public mishandling of the Covid-19 crisis, with advice as absurd as drinking vodka and ‘driving tractors.’
As disillusionment with the authorities’ ability to manage the country grew, Tikhanovskaya was able to assemble Belarus’ largest rally in a decade on the 30th July. One NGO estimated the attendance to be over 60,000 while the police admitted a crowd of close to 20,000. This record was drastically beaten again a week after the election results were announced, with an unprecedented crowd of 200,000 people descending on government buildings in Minsk. Despite Tikhanovskaya’s high profile, she was also detained after the election. Once released, she fled to Lithuania for “the sake of her children”, having sent them there several days prior to the vote. By stifling any real democratic competition, political commentators believe that the legitimacy of Lukashenko’s regime will be undermined both at home and abroad.
The EU are contemplating new sanctions against the regime. Germany, Poland, Denmark, Czech Republic and the Baltic states have so far expressed their support for the introduction of economic counter-measures. Sanctions have previously been applied, following the similarly controversial 2010 elections; this contributed to the country being cut out of international debt markets. However, this election may be different. ‘Unless the president resorts to egregious repressions against the opposition, the election is unlikely to trigger a new wave of Western sanctions,’ claim analysts at the Carnegie Moscow Centre. ‘The West’s concerns over vote-rigging and the imprisonment of opposition activists are overridden by the desire to preserve the hard-won progress in relations, however modest.’ Western cooperation will likely persist in areas of mutual interest, such as diluting Belarus’ reliance on Russia for oil supplies. However, in light of its political repression, Minsk does risk losing the already uncertain loan from the International Monetary Fund or the planned macro-financial assistance from the EU – admittedly a secondary concern to the regime’s self-preservation. Western spectators fear that if Lukashenko’s government were to be toppled suddenly, the ensuing political vacuum and instability could facilitate Russian intervention – as seen in Ukraine. The EU has warned Russia against any such interference, while clarifying this is not presumed to be a substantial threat.
It seems Russia is also happy to keep the authoritarian leader at the helm. A continuation of the status quo is far more likely to hamper Belarus’ increasing engagement with the West than the emergence of a democratic candidate from the blossoming middle class. Russian President Vladimir Putin sent Lukashenko a congratulatory telegram, in which he revived the idea of a potential reunification. The Belarusian president had previously entertained the idea, but then dismissed it as an attack on his country’s sovereignty, bolstering nationalist sentiments.
In the months leading up to the election, Lukashenko was able to consolidate his hold over the country’s political system and structures by weeding out reformist ministers from his cabinet. The shake-up saw the dismissal of MPs involved in loan negotiations from the IMF, those pursuing reunification with Russia, advocates of authoritarian modernisation in the Singaporean or South Korean model, and even the Prime Minister. The new prime minister and silovik (a person with a background in security or the military), Golovchenko, previously served as ambassador to the Gulf states. His connection to the Middle East could prove invaluable in diversifying the country’s dependency on Russia’s crude oil, if ongoing talks between the states fail to come to fruition. The changes in the cabinet will strengthen Lukashenko’s hand in governing, nowhere more so than in the state security services.
However, the prevalence of businesspeople and social media personalities amongst this year’s political opponents suggests a new brand of anti-establishment opposition. Southern neighbour Ukraine saw Volodymyr Zelensky, an actor and comedian who played the part of the president on a popular TV show, come to power on a populist anti-corruption platform in 2019. His approach was largely based on his social media presence and public engagement rather than traditional means of political campaigning. The precursor to Ukraine’s unprecedented political shift was the Maidan Revolution in 2014 in which the then President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by a popular uprising. He eventually fled and sought refuge in Russia. Comparisons have been drawn between the two nations – Lukashenko, however, has directly dismissed them. It remains to be seen whether Belarus’ political unrest will undermine his legitimacy and prove wrong his assertion that “there will be no revolution.”
By Michael Knezevic
Comments