Wednesday

18th May 2022

Opinion

Street vs. state: Where is Belarus headed?

  • Belarus street protests show no signs of going away (Photo: Darya Mustafayeva)

A week ago, the popular protests in Belarus seemed close to succeeding.

Lukashenko was speechless as workers in a tractor plant heckled him and demanded he resign.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

Observers were musing about a possible Ceaușescu moment - the late Romanian dictator, Nicolae Ceaușescu, awoke in 1989 from his shielded life to learn that Romanians wanted him out.

But Lukashenko has not left and it seems that the ruling elite and Moscow have remained loyal to him.

While many big state enterprises, under pressure from their workers, appear to have defected from the regime, state institutions have not changed sides.

Some have gone on strike, including state TV, but there have been few defections from ministries, parliament, security forces or local authorities.

At the same time, last Sunday the protesters showed their strength once again on the streets of Minsk and elsewhere.

In short, the country may be entering a stalemate between the street and state institutions.

The government seems to be toying with two tactics: Either to use force and coercion to end the protests or provoke violence as a justification for a wider "law and order" crackdown.

Or, hoping that protesters lose momentum, to cede the streets to them, while fortifying state institutions.

All this makes the protesters' stance difficult.

So far, they have shown a remarkable commitment to peaceful protest in the face of horrific violence.

Stressing their commitment to the rule of law, protesters are appealing to the Supreme Court for the election result to be annulled.

When Lukashenko addressed the factory workers last Monday, one of them shouted: "We don't want a revolution, we want fair elections!".

To outsiders this may look naïve - of course, fair elections in Belarus would amount to a revolution - a change of the system.

Why insist on the law, when Lukashenko has long shown that he does not take constitutional guarantees of human rights seriously?

He already implied that as long as he lives, he will remain president, doing away with any pretence of electoral competition.

When security forces arrested and tortured thousands of Belarusians, some of whom are still missing, it became even clearer that there is only one threat to law and order in the country: the president himself.

And yet, it is not naïve for the opposition to ask the government to act lawfully and hold real elections. This denies the authorities the pretext for a crackdown.

By remaining peaceful and insisting on the rule of law, the opposition has mobilised vast numbers of protesters some of whom might well have been deterred by talk of revolution.

The protesters have set an example of the path they want the country to take, which is one of peace and respect for the law.

Path to change

What lawful path could lead to change?

Some have demanded a recount of the votes cast on 9 August. Most protesters have rightly avoided this demand. A falsified election leaves a crime scene on election night.

That crime scene is now two weeks old and will have been compromised.

Ballot papers are reported to have been destroyed and new, fake ballot papers could have been produced.

The most obvious constitutional solution would be the president's resignation.

In this case, a new presidential election would have to be held within 30 to 70 days.

The protesters rightly insist on a genuine, democratic election in line with constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations.

Candidates must be able to register freely without threat of imprisonment.

State media must be required to report fairly and transparency must be ensured at all levels of the voting, counting, and tabulation processes.

Alternatively, the Supreme Court could annul the presidential election, but that would require a new-found independence from the executive branch.

Theoretically, parliament could remove the president, but this too is unlikely as the current legislature is the product of the deeply-flawed 2019 elections in which only pro-government candidates were gaining seats.

If none of this materialises, protesters need to find additional ways to increase the pressure and to keep momentum.

One option could be to target public buildings.

However, this increases the risk of violence and could undermine the peaceful nature of the movement.

The opposition could make use of alternative institutions, such as the recently established Co-ordination Council, to provide a more authoritative voice and structure.

But it will be hard to compete with state institutions which have salaried personnel, a budget, and legal status.

Whatever steps they take, protesters should be open to international involvement.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and chairmanship, currently held by Albania and next year by Sweden, has offered to start immediate talks with all sides.

The EU supports that call. Though the OSCE is a weak organisation in which the 57 participating states must reach agreement by consensus on many questions, it is the only significant pan-European inter-governmental body of which Belarus is part.

The EU already announced its intention to reintroduce sanctions against individuals involved in electoral fraud and violence, but it should remain flexible and signal that individuals can be removed from the list if they demonstrate support for a democratic, lawful process.

Putin's options

Meanwhile, for now, the Kremlin stands with Lukashenko.

Two months after constitutional changes in Russia opened the path for Russian president Vladimir Putin rule far into the future, the Kremlin is wary of Belarus setting the example of an illegitimately elected President being forced out of office by the people.

But if the protests maintain their momentum, Moscow may change its mind.

It may judge that the danger of a long-term alienation of Belarusians, who are closely linked to Russians, is greater than the symbolism of Lukashenko losing his post.

It is worth for the EU to keep talking to the Kremlin to find out if and when it may change its stance based on its experience in Armenia.

In 2018, Russia did not interfere in Armenian affairs and accepted the change on government that was brought about by street demonstrations.

International talks must include Russia, which is also a member of the OSCE.

But Russia should not be allowed to decide the future of Belarus, whose people have made clear that they want to decide for themselves.

Author bio

Michael Meyer-Resende is the executive director of Democracy Reporting International, a non-partisan NGO in Berlin that supports political participation.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Merkel and Macron offer Belarus mediation, help for Navalny

French president Emmanuel Macron and Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel offered EU mediation to Belarus, while also offered health care and asylum to Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny who is suspected of being poisioned.

Will Belarusian dictator hold on to power?

Belarusian protesters are - unconsciously - subjects of a geopolitical battle between the east and the West. That is why their revolution is both precious and fragile.

Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine - the case for granting EU candidacy

Granting EU candidacy status to Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine will firmly anchor their ties with Brussels — and enable the EU to secure its place in the Black Sea region, connecting Europe to China and energy-rich Central Asia, bypassing Russia.

Will 'Putin's Nato' follow Warsaw Pact into obscurity?

Valdimir Putin's equivalent to Nato — the Collective Security Treaty Organization of Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Armenia, Tajikistan, and Belarus — is convening in Moscow next week to give cover that Russia is not alone in its war against Ukraine.

The EU Parliament Covid inquiry: the questions MEPs must ask

A basic lack of transparency around the EU's vaccines procurement negotiations has prevented effective public and parliamentary scrutiny. It has also made it impossible to answer some of the key questions we put forward here.

News in Brief

  1. Germany shuts ex-chancellor Schröder's office over Putin ties
  2. Russia soldier pleads guilty to Ukraine war crime
  3. EU to protect Finland and Sweden until they join Nato
  4. Poland backs Hungary over frozen 'rule of law' EU funds
  5. EU to reduce size and scope of Mali military mission
  6. Band members testify about Bataclan attack
  7. German prosecutors want five years for alleged ex-Nazi guard
  8. UN urges Iran to halt execution of Swedish-Iranian academic

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic delegation visits Nordic Bridges in Canada
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersClear to proceed - green shipping corridors in the Nordic Region
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers agree on international climate commitments
  4. UNESDA - SOFT DRINKS EUROPEEfficient waste collection schemes, closed-loop recycling and access to recycled content are crucial to transition to a circular economy in Europe
  5. UiPathNo digital future for the EU without Intelligent Automation? Online briefing Link

Latest News

  1. Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine - the case for granting EU candidacy
  2. Watchdog calls for tougher curbs on 'problematic' revolving doors
  3. Borrell: EU arms flow to Ukraine amid 'record' Russian losses
  4. UK and EU edge closer to trade war over Northern Ireland
  5. Rescue crew face 20 years jail for saving migrants
  6. Roma refugees from Ukraine face Czech xenophobia
  7. EU not doing enough to help Ukraine, Yellen says
  8. MEPs raise ambition on EU carbon market reform

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us