After alleged election fraud by incumbent Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko on Aug. 9, Belarus experts are concluding that his reign might not last much longer.
On Aug. 11, 2020, the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center hosted a webinar on the breakthrough of democracy in Belarus. The participants discussed the sustainability of Belarus’ democratic transition, with both foreign and Belarusian experts examining what comes next for the country.
Thousands of people across Belarus have taken to the streets to protest after state-controlled exit polls declared Lukashenko the winner of the election, contradicting unofficial polls that showed opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya to have the majority of the vote.
To suppress political competition, Lukashenko had jailed his two main opponents prior to the election, while his third rival fled the country, fearing arrest.
At least one death was recorded and dozens of people were injured during the protests. Over 7,000 people were arrested during the first three days of the demonstrations. The protesters are demanding a fair election and the release of political prisoners.
Hanna Liubakova, a freelance journalist from Belarus, said that the events over the past week indicate a turning point for fundamental change in her home country.
“People started seeing value in democracy, they want freedom, they want their rights respected — they want to vote and to elect,” she said.
The protestors’ ability to improvise and persist amidst the violent crackdowns of the security forces, as well as internet shutdowns meant to curb protest gatherings, testified to their desire for change, Liubakova said. An example she mentioned was Minsk, where the opposition rally moved its location to various metro stations and neighborhood areas in response to police efforts to shut down every street in the center.
According to Franak Viačorka, a journalist jailed multiple times in Belarus, the efficiency and coordination of the law enforcement services as an oppressive apparatus should not be overlooked either. Viačorka compared Lukashenko’s strategy to employ the security services, namely the notoriously violent, Soviet-descended OMON and KGB forces, to that of Ukraine’s Berkut under former President Viktor Yanukovych back in 2014. However, he added that Belarusian security forces are more sophisticated and “one of the best in the region and perhaps in Europe.”
Yet the comparison between Yanukovych and Lukashenko is not the most accurate, according to Viačorka, since the Belarusian strongman has made it clear that he will not flee to Russia as the ousted Ukrainian president did in 2014.
The panel did not rush to predict an expiration date for the “last dictator of Europe.”
Konstantin Eggert, a Russian journalist and political commentator, was convinced that time was not in favor of Lukashenko unless he was ready for “massive bloodshed.”
“He could turn himself into Paul the Apostle, but it won’t be enough,” claimed Eggert, reiterating that it is unlikely that the Belarusian president can politically survive such hatred from his people. The panel reached a consensus that the threshold for tolerance of the status quo has passed for most Belarusians. However, the extent to which Lukashenko is willing to retaliate remains a grey area.
Another point of discussion was the inconsistent rhetoric of Lukashenko in regards to outside interference in the election process. For example, Lukashenko’s statement about Tikhanovskaya, his main rival for the presidency, suggested that she is under the influence of foreign “puppet masters” without elaborating which side was involved.
Lukashenko has a long history of playing the “external interference” card to his advantage. Back in 2004, when the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Belarus Democracy Act to help support the development of democracy in the political and non-governmental sectors, Lukashenko accused the U.S. of deliberately giving him a pretext to blame foreign enemies for the country’s issues.
Yet the recent detainment of 33 members of the Wagner group, a Russian paramilitary organization, by Belarusian authorities resulted in Lukashenko accusing Russia of lying about the group’s activities. He said these people “were sent to Belarus on purpose.”
In light of recent events, George Kent, deputy assistant secretary at the European and Eurasian Bureau of the U.S. Department of State, emphasized the U.S. commitment to the Belarus Democracy Act and the Magnitsky Act, which both aim to protect democracy within Belarus. Kent further stated that the official U.S. stance in regard to Belarus is similar to that of the Lublin Triangle (a joint partnership between Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine): calling for dialogue and diplomatic engagement with Belarus.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, reacted differently to the disputed landslide victory of Lukashenko by congratulating him personally. Eggert went on to argue that the ongoing revolutionary upheaval in Belarus was a “cul-de-sac” for Putin, jeopardizing the possibly last chapter of the waning post-Soviet romanticism of Russia. The biggest fear for Putin, according to Eggert, is the “heroic precedent” set by the 20,000 Belarusian protestors in the eyes of Russians.
“Putin will have to think long and hard before sending troops to Belarus,” said Eggert in response to the possibility of the Kremlin supporting Lukashenko’s regime with a palpable military force.
This is happening at a time when Russians don’t see the allure of Putin’s imperialism anymore, suggested Eggert.
Regardless of the leadership in Belarus, the panelists agreed that it is very likely that Putin will continue to talk with even the most democratically affiliated candidate for the sake of appearance. Furthermore, Russia’s sphere of influence within the economic, social and political sectors is far too strong to be quickly dismissed.
The panel concluded that the prospect of change and democracy still primarily remains in the hands of Belarusians themselves.
“A Belarus protest is possible only leaderless, without any politicians… This is what works the best in Belarus,” said Viačorka, emphasizing the effectiveness of a decentralized and faceless revolution of people with common goals and democratic values.
