Original article in Ukrainian by Serhiy Hrabovskyi
The fact that Alexander Milinkevich, leader of the “third power” [non-governmental organizations] is the only candidate to run for president of Belarus from the opposition seemed to be great news for all Ukrainian free-thinkers (Hurray! Democratic forces are united to overthrow Lukashenko’s dictatorship!), but causes quite different emotions upon further examination.
First, as one of my cynical colleagues has said, the main intrigue of the coming presidential election in this neighboring state will not be found in the personalities taking part, but in whether the opposition candidate is killed or leaves the race, or gets into a car accident.
Second, "a single" Belarusian opposition will inevitably split up with the help of the security services: while 399 participants of the Democratic Forces Congress of Belarus voted for Milinkevich, 391 persons voted for his main competitor Anatoliy Lebedko, Head of the United Civil Party. Consequently, the small difference between the candidates may lead to unfortunate consequences.
Third, an institutional and therefore democratic rotation of elites in a neo-totalitarian state such as Belarus cannot be implemented practically or theoretically. The reason is not that Belarusians are bombarded by powerful propaganda. This does exist, but it takes a back seat.
The major reason is that Lukashenko’s regime managed not only to declare but to create an effective socio-economic policy, and to create-- like his predecessors Hitler, Kadar, Tito, Deng Xiao Ping -- a real socialist market economy, more effective than spontaneous, "wild" capitalism, the oligarchic system, or Stalin’s planned socialist economy.
What has Lukashenko built in Belarus?
To understand why Lukashenko’s regime cannot be overthrown in a "normal" way, let’s turn to theory. Two of the most interesting specialists on neo-totalitarian systems are American Juan Linz and Belarusian Andrey Sannikov.
According to Linz, in the modern world it is completely unnecessary for totalitarianism to have a party structure. It is enough that a monolithic power structure is created, in which the ruling group is not accountable to elected bodies, and therefore cannot be overthrown through institutional means. In these circumstances, all other classic features of totalitarianism (powerful state propaganda, the prominent role of the security services, the elimination or neutralization of opposition, the leading role of government in society, the absolute control of the authorities over the economy, etc.) remain in force.
But nevertheless early 21st-century neo-totalitarianism has features that distinguish it from the classic totalitarian regimes of the middle of the 20th century. These became the subject of research by Belarusian human rights advocate and scientist Andrey Sannikov. The traditional features of totalitarianism are complete governmental control over the media, the absence of any division of power, ideological pressure on the consciousness and sub-conscious of the population in order to manipulate them ("ideology of the Belarusian state" or so called “lukashizm”), the search for external and internal enemies, and the formation of a vast apparatus of terror.
Sannikov ascribes other traits to neo-totalitarian regimes, among them are a discriminative attitude towards history imposed on society by the regime (which is important in the modern information world), and a rejection (in word and in deed) of the existence of an opposition. The latter specifically threatens the life of Milinkevich, as his mission is to prove the opposite idea.
Sannikov accepts and develops Linz’s theory that the building and existence of neo-totalitarianism is possible without party rule. Indeed, does it matter whether a leading party exists, if all power is concentrated in the hands of a certain group, which is non-accountable to freely elected bodies? If this group cannot be overthrown by institutional means?
As for the economic basis of modern Belarus, it really is “market socialism” (not to be confused with the social market economy of the Germans, Scandinavians or Canadians!).
In Belarus, all economic levers, key enterprises and banks remain in the hands of the state directly, either through controlling stock or other forms of control.
At the same time, small and mid-sized private capital is allowed to exist in the state, and it is able to follow the market rules, but it must remain fully loyal to the government and be ready to follow the economic directives of the ruling clique if necessary.
At the same time the state provides high living standards to its citizens (high not in comparison with developed countries, but with neighboring states which live on the verge of socio-economic collapse). Therefore, the Belarusian people, when comparing themselves to their neighbors, feel the concern of their leader in real terms and are grateful that the dictator works for them.
Economic analysis
And now let’s examine the socio-economic basis of the Lukashenko regime's stability.
Here are some official data for today and tomorrow. Belarus in 2020 may increase GDP twice as much out of 2005, according to Economy Minister Nikolay 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 Belarus 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 "Belarusian 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 Belarusian economy, no doubt, is more effective than Ukrainian clan-oligarchic or Russian clan-chekist models.
Say, last year's GDP growth in Belarus 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, Belarusian 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 Belarus 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 Belarus, 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 Belarus 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 Belarusian 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 Belarus 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 Belarusian 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 Belarus 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 Belarus and Ukrainians who saved their money in Belarusian 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 Belarusian enterprises, unlike Russian, kept their hostels, sanatorium-preventoriums, aid posts, preschool institutions, gymnasiums and others like that.
Besides, unemployment rate in Belarus 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 adjoining states, such as Russia, Ukraine or Latvia (except Poland and Lithuania), which do not arouse desire to follow their example.
Consequently Belarusian 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 Belarusians tend to be sluggish, inactive, depressed or short-sighted. In the Third Reich 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, Belarusian 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 Belarusians, leveled that chance.
Therefore it is necessary first to kill a dragon in Ukraine...