BELARUS NEWS AND ANALYSIS
DATE:
05/10/2008
"The last dictator in Europe" is a friend of the West again
David Marples, Freelance
Last weekend, Belarusians voted for a new parliament. Events in this quiet republic of 10 million people rarely raise a ripple on the waters of central Europe. However, this election was widely regarded as a test case for the administration of President Alyaksander Lukashenko, once termed "the last dictator in Europe" by the U.S. government.
Lukashenko has been persona non grata in the EU and the U.S. for the past two years, along with more than 30 members of his leadership. Earlier this year, he expelled U.S. ambassador Karen Stewart following the U.S. expansion of sanctions against the leading Belarusian oil processing company Belnafttakhim. Relations with the EU had also deteriorated since the 2006 presidential election, which international observers declared seriously flawed. In that election, Lukashenko's official tally was 83 per cent, whereas reliable opinion polls subsequently suggested his total was less than 50 per cent.
Recently, however, the ebullient president appeared to have mended his ways. At Washington's behest, he released all remaining political prisoners, including former presidential candidate Alyaksandr Kazulin, who was given a five-year sentence in July 2006 for leading a demonstration after the elections.
Poland and Sweden announced new initiatives for Belarus, and Lithuania has been notably anxious to support closer ties between Minsk and Europe.
After the declaration of independence by South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia last month, Russia declared that Belarus would soon follow its example and recognize the two regional governments. Lukashenko declined to do so, thus leading to hopes in European capitals that he was moving his country out of the Russian orbit. Therefore, the U.S. and the EU declared that if the parliamentary elections of Sept. 28 were perceived by observers as "free and fair," they would rethink sanctions and consider developing friendly ties with the Belarusian leader.
Evidently, Belarusian TV was anticipating that opposition deputies would enter the 110-seat assembly and was ordered to free air time for interviews. Opposition leaders were divided during the election whether to boycott. Most did not, including Anatol Lyabedzka, the leader of the United Civic Party and Volha Kazulina, the daughter of Kazulin. The chairperson of the Central Election Commission, Lidziya Yarmoshyna, a close ally of Lukashenko, said she was looking forward to revisiting Paris as soon as sanctions were lifted.
However, OSCE observers have stated that the elections could not be considered democratic. They were denied access to one-third of polling stations and monitored several cases of direct falsification of results. Moreover, the reported 75.3-per-cent turnout is regarded with skepticism by many observers, who reported little activity at polling stations, especially in the capital, Minsk. Significantly, no opposition deputies won seats to the new legislature. Even Olga Abramova, Belarusian leader of the Yabloko party, who served in the previous parliament, lost her seat. Opposition leaders, including Kazulin and another former presidential candidate Alyaksandr Milinkevich, led a public demonstration in the city centre after the voting ended, many carrying banners stating "Yes to elections! No to the farce!"
How does one explain such an outcome? In theory, the Lukashenko government was in a position to re-engage with the West at a relatively small price. The benefits of allowing a free vote were potentially huge. Though Belarus is heavily dependent on imports of gas and oil from Russia, half of its trade is with the European Union. Lukashenko gave every indication that he wished to improve relations with his neighbours.
Evidently, his authoritarian mindset could not accept the possibility of any setbacks in a public election process. Emphatic victories are habit-forming and, in many respects, the 2008 parliamentary election resembled elections of the past, with the proviso that there was a marked lack of brutality against opponents of the regime.
Further, Lukashenko may have calculated that Europe's need for Belarus is greater than Minsk's need to kowtow to the dictates of Brussels. Despite the widespread condemnation of the way the election was conducted, there are still signs of hope for the president. These can be summarized as follows:
First, the German ambassador in Belarus, Gebhardt Weiss, who regularly communicated with Lukashenko despite sanctions, noted on Oct. 1 that the OSCE report was "not totally critical," and certainly not as harsh as in the past. Germany, he declared, would remain a partner of Belarus.
Second, Poland and the Baltic States have more to fear from Russia than an authoritarian leader in Minsk. Thus, Lukashenko could conceivably be forgiven, based on his earlier concessions to political prisoners. Lukashenko has already had a meeting with Ann-Marie Lizin, vice-president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to discuss future cooperation. There is every sign that the Europeans will return to "limited engagement" with Belarusians, no matter how unpalatable that might be in some quarters, and particularly to the hard-pressed Belarusian opposition parties.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will visit Minsk next week, doubtless to see where Lukashenko's loyalties really lie. A former loyal ally seems to have been led astray. Analysts concur that the Russia-Belarus Union is a meaningless entity and no Union State is conceivable in the near future.
Lukashenko seems to have got off lightly. The leader who eliminated his rivals, persecuted the opposition, tightly muzzled the media, and manipulated elections to ensure his own "lifetime" presidency could soon make a triumphant return to the capitals of Europe.
David Marples is professor of history at the University of Alberta
Source:
Archive
Subscribe Daily Newsletter:
Belarus News and Analysis Donate:
