Opposition’s lack of agreement on how to elect single candidate may result in repeat of 2010 campaign

Category status:
April 22, 2016 18:56

Amid the lack of progress in negotiations between opposition leaders over how a single candidate should be elected the number of those willing to run for president is rising. In view of the events in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea by Russia, very few opposition leaders support the idea of changing power in Belarus through mass protests. Yet the opposition has not provided an alternative scenario of transforming the Belarusian regime which could unite opposition-minded citizens. Today, a re-run of the 2010 election campaign, with a gaggle of opposition candidates, seems a strong likelihood. 

Former presidential candidate Mikola Statkevich has proposed that the single candidate in the 2015 presidential election should be a present or former political prisoner.

As the presidential elections draw closer, the list of would-be presidents grows. Several have already announced their ambitions: Uladzimir Nyaklyaeu, leader of the Tell the Truth! Campaign (he also has the highest ratings), Sergei Gaidukevich, Chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party (loyal to the authorities), Anatoli Lyabedzka, Chairman of the United Civic Party, and General Frolov, Deputy Chairman of the Belarusian Social Democratic Party (Hramada).

Those who do not rule out their participation in the race include: Aleksandr Milinkevich, leader of the For Freedom Movement or his Deputy Ales Lahvinets, Olga Karatch, leader of the Nash Dom civil campaign, and Elena Anisim, vice-president of the Belarusian Language Society. Anisim’s candidacy has already been supported by the Rada of Belarusian Intelligentsia.

Meanwhile, the opposition leaders are unable to agree on the procedures for electing a single candidate, due to take place during a congress for pro-democratic parties and movements (a date has not yet been set). Methods under discussion are: collecting signatures, holding primaries, or nominating based on the number of local branches. The opposition leaders have so far been unable to reach agreement on how to identify a single candidate, as certain procedures favour some candidates, while other candidates would benefit from other procedures.

In addition, the opposition politicians are afraid that Western capitals might change their approach towards the Belarusian authorities. They believe that President Lukashenko’s recognition at the international level will induce a harsher environment for the opposition, a loss of their influence among the West, and, eventually, their exclusion from political processes.

In order to prevent such a scenario, former presidential candidate in the 2010 elections Mikola Statkevich proposes that a person who has a “political conviction” or “who is in prison on politically motivated charges” should be the opposition’s single candidate. Mikola Statkevich is one of President Alexander Lukashenko’s harshest critics in Belarus, and a supporter of bringing about regime change through mass protests. He is the only 2010 presidential candidate who is still serving a prison sentence (of six years) for organising mass riots after the presidential elections in 2010. Despite some organisations welcoming Statkevich’s initiative, for example, Tell the Truth! Movement, others, such as For Freedom Movement have rebuked it.

The opposition parties do not expect a radical change in the situation after the presidential election in 2015, namely, a change of political power in Belarus. In addition, each party will pursue its own goals in the upcoming campaign which prevents them from working together on a common strategy and election scenario in 2015. For example, the UCP’s priority is to raise the profile of free elections in Belarus. For Freedom Movement aims to unite its supporters around the idea of European choice and to strengthen pro-European sentiment in society – while former communists from the Fair World party would rather seek integration with Russia.

Meanwhile, the lack of progress in negotiations between the opposition leaders about how to elect a single candidate might result in more presidential hopefuls coming forward.

Similar articles

Belarusian and Ukrainian Defence Ministries entangle in confrontation spiral
October 02, 2017 11:57
Фото: RFRM

Over the past year, military-political relations between Minsk and Kyiv have become complicated. Due to their high inertia and peculiarities, this downward trend would be extremely difficult to overcome.

The root cause of the crisis is the absence of a common political agenda in the Belarusian-Ukrainian relations. Minsk is looking for a market for Belarusian exports in Ukraine and offers its services as a negotiation platform for the settlement of the Russo-Ukrainian war, thereby hoping to avoid political issues in the dialogue with Kiev. Meanwhile, Ukraine is hoping for political support from Minsk in the confrontation with Moscow. In addition, Ukraine’s integration with NATO presupposes her common position with the Alliance in relation to Belarus. The NATO leadership regards the Belarusian Armed Forces as an integral part of the Russian military machine in the western strategic front (the Baltic states and Poland). In addition, the ongoing military reform in Ukraine envisages a reduction in the number of generals and the domestic political struggle makes some Ukrainian top military leaders targets in politically motivated attacks.

Hence, the criticism of Belarus coming from Ukrainian military leadership is dictated primarily by internal and external political considerations, as well as by the need to protect the interests of generals, and only then by facts.

For instance, initially, the Ukrainian military leadership made statements about 100,000 Russian servicemen allegedly taking part in the Russo-Belarusian military drill West-2017. Then the exercises were labelled quazi-open and military observers from Ukraine refused to provide their assessment, which caused a negative reaction in Minsk. Further, without citing specific facts, it was stated that Russia was building up its military presence in Belarus.

Apparently, the Belarusian and Ukrainian Defence Ministries have entangled in a confrontational spiral (on the level of rhetoric). Moreover, only a small part of the overly hidden process has been disclosed. That said, third states are very likely to take advantage of the situation (or have already done so). This is not only about Russia.

The Belarusian Defence Ministry officials are restrained in assessing their Ukrainian counterparts. However, such a restraint is not enough. Current military-political relations between Belarus and Ukraine are unlikely to stabilise without the intervention of both presidents.