Voters – the weakest link
The democratic opposition had no illusion about the nature of the regime and the outcome of the political campaigns - “parliamentary elections” and “referendum”. The authorities firmly refused to change election legislation and tightened its grip over civil society and media long before October 17. The situation with human rights and freedoms got much worse this year to say nothing about meeting four OSCE criteria or engaging in a meaningful dialogue with democratic opposition and the international community. During the campaign, the democratic opposition faced tremendous pressure. Its representatives were denied access to electronic mass media. They were refused to hold meetings with voters. The authorities did not include their representatives into election commissions. They could not respond publicly to slander that the authorities came up with in state TV and papers.
The authorities executed their detailed plan to administer the whole process of “elections”. It was the elections in form but appointment in meaning. Heads of local executive councils, members of election commission of al levels, approved candidates and force structures got instructions on who should win in the parliamentary race and how strong the public support for the Constitution change (question of the referendum) should be. They spent about $10 per voter in campaigning costs plus powerful administrative resource to ensure the “elegant victory”. On average, the democratic opposition candidate used about 4 US cents per voter, which is 250 times less than the authorities used.
International observers from OSCE observed mass violations of the democratic and open election process months before October 17. After October 17, they decided that the elections cannot be recognized as free and democratic. OSCE representatives did not observe the referendum. The Council of Europe and European Parliament observed neither the elections nor the referendum. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe stated that carrying out the referendum on the issue proposed by A. Lukashenko is a clear violation of the Belarusian Constitution. In addition Article 112 of the Election Code states that questions on “election and removing president from office can not be out on the referendum”.
At the same time, the authorities ensured participation of their own “politically correct observers” from CIS and western countries (Lithuania, Poland, USA, Belgium etc.). They were important for TV presentation the day after “the political show” and for subsequent decision of the Russian Duma to recognize the elections and referendum as free, fair and democratic. Russia alongside with other CIS “democracies” continues to remain the only country that recognizes the results of the obvious political sham.
There is one missing element here. It is the weakest link among political forces and groups in Belarus voters. The authorities isolated them from the process of real decision-making. They were denied the right to learn about voting options presented by the democratic opposition. They have not been given a chance to listen to opinions of those who did not want to change the constitution. They were an easy prey for state propaganda machine that poured torrents of lies on their gullible heads.
They were denied the right to elect and to be elected, to decide on the fundamental issue – amendment of the Constitutions - by about 100’000 persons directly (members of election commission on all levels, heads of local executive committees, the authorities’ observers) and about 50’000 indirectly (force structures, intelligence, deputies of local councils and the parliament). Presidential administration presided over the process of rigging the elections and the referendum. Regional elections commissions performed a formal role and let the executive bodies of power to control the activities of the ballot station election commissions. They acted impudently and with impunity as the judicial system willingly sanctioned gross violation of election legislation. In fact, courts became tools of discrimination against democratic opposition. They deny citizens the right to fair and unbiased judicial process. At the same time, they protect those who are instrumental in rigging the elections and referendum.
Official results vs. exit polls and opinion polls estimates
The authorities stated that about 80% of the voters (the turnout was about 90%) supported the amendment of the constitution. In the first round of parliamentary elections 108out of 110 deputies were elected. All of them are representatives of the authorities. The 109th deputy was elected in the second round in the end of October. He also supports the government and the constitutional amendment. The authorities effectively blocked representatives of all democratic political parties.
During the month before the elections and the referendum different opinion poll companies (Gallop International, Yuri Levada company) held opinion polls in Belarus. The popular support for referendum varied from 40 to 42% one week before October 17. Many democratic candidates had over 50% support in their constituencies. The exit poll on the Election Day showed that the change of the constitution was supported by 48.4% of voters. Adjusting this number to so called fear factor experts state that even less people supported the change of the constitution. It means that A. Lukashenko has lost the referendum. He has been denied the right to run for the president for the third time (for the fourth time according to 1994 Constitution).
Exit poll in 20 constituencies showed the following results. In five constituencies out of 20 ones randomly chosen democratic candidates did not run. In three constituencies, they were denied registration. In two constituencies, the democratic candidates were withdrawn from the parliamentary race (their registration was annulled by the election commissions). Thus there were no democratic candidates in 25% of constituencies which is similar to the situation in the whole country). Out of 15 remaining constituencies in Constituency № 105 in Minsk the democratic candidate won in the first round (63%). In seven other constituencies out of fifteen democratic candidates took the first or the second place. The total support of democratic candidates in these seven constituencies was over 50%. Hence, the results of exit polls show that democratic opposition should have 4 – 6 deputies elected in the first round and 30 - 40 candidates should take part in the second round of the elections. 32% of Belarusian voters supported representatives of democratic coalitions. If we adjust this number by excluding the constituencies where democratic candidates were denied registration or had their candidate mandates withdrawn the potential support for the democratic opposition increases to 47% in all the country and to 54% for constituencies where democratic opposition took part.
Hence,the democratic opposition has made five major achievements during the campaign. 1) We can state that Belarusian opposition has increased its popularity during the political campaigns. The people welcomed its unification. They came to vote and said “no” to Lukashenko. They came to support the change of the government. The single list of candidates was a big step forward. 2) “Five steps to better life” program can be viewed as the alternative to Lukashenko slogans. The opposition got the program of reforms that many more voters began to recognize as a viable alternative to the socialist practices of A. Lukashenko’s government. 3) Many candidates and members of their teams were well trained and prepared to campaign professionally in the hostile political and administrative environment. Party and civil society structures were tested too. 4) Weak structural and human elements were revealed. The campaign wan an important elements of the general power struggle campaign that will culminate in the 2006 presidential elections. 5) Finally people saw that the democratic opposition is not a bunch of evil guys, west agents and arrogant strangers. People had a chance to see that the opposition is a part of them. The opposition is becoming more a part of the people, common folks who do not make the division “we” and they (the opposition) any longer.
Rigging elections: most popular ways
During the campaign and on the day of elections the authorities applied the following tools and means of rigging elections and distorting people’s will:
1) representatives of democratic opposition were denied participation in election commissions (only about 0.2% of all members of commissions represented the opposition). Hence, the authorities had unlimited opportunities to influence the process of candidate registration, terms of campaigning and vote counting. The election commissions declared the results that were ordered to them. Moreover, ballot station election commissions were under close supervision of the local executive committees and monitored by force structures.
2) More than a half of independent candidates and representatives of democratic opposition political parties were denied registration as candidates. The reasons were clearly made up. Members of election commission and the executive power put much pressure on people who signed up for democratic candidates. The authorities openly cheated people who confirmed their signatures in favor of democratic candidates. The Supreme Court confirmed decisions of the Central Election Commission on all candidates. A few well-known candidates were removed from the parliamentary race just a few days to October 17, allegedly for violating the campaign rules.
3) To ensure the highest possible turnout the authorities reduced the list of voters in the register by about 370’000 voters. Voters who did not take part in previous elections were crossed out of the voter register. As a result, in some constituencies the turnout was over 100%. The unusually big number of voters was included in additional lists of voters.
4) During the campaign, the authorities violated the principle of equality of opportunities for all candidates and in campaign in favor and against the constitutional amendment. State printing houses refused to make information materials for opposition candidates. Private printing houses were threatened to have their licenses revoked. Radio and television statements (5 minute slot for each candidate) were censored without permission of the candidates. The local authorities did their best to prevent democratic candidates from meeting voters.
All opposition political parties were denied the right to state their position on referendum on state TV or in state newspapers. The state television endlessly broadcasted a video clip on how to vote, It urged the people to support only one option. It indicated the only valid and correct answer - “yes”. It is a gross violation of election legislation. The authorities made a huge amount of promotion and propaganda materials in favor of constitutional amendment. At the same time, they denied distribution of any materials against it. During the campaign two independent papers ‘Vremya” and “Nedelya” were closed down without any explanation. During the last year, about 15 papers were closed down. Other papers and individual journalists were under constant pressure. There were numerous cases of confiscation leaflets and newspapers with information on democratic candidates and against the constitutional amendment. On the Election Day at 11 a.m., the authorities announced the results of exit polls carried out by the government supported youth organization. This result was repeated continuously. In addition, many ballot stations had many election campaign materials sanctioned by the authorities).
5). The authorities force people to vote before the election date (the early voting started 5 days before the Election Day). Violating articles 5 and 55 of the Election Code voters were urged and in many cases force to vote earlier. It especially refers to students, the army, the police, hospitals and big plants. About 15% of citizens voted earlier. In some constituencies, the number was as high as 30%. As the ballot boxes were not sealed and guarded properly it was quite easy to change ballot papers to ensure necessary results. At many ballot stations, commissions ignored the demand of the observers to count ballot papers from early voting and the day of elections separately.
6). On the day of elections observers pointed out that many voters (as a rule in characteristic leather jackets) voted several times and were given many ballot papers. Members of many election commission signed additional ballot papers on October 17.
7). Independent observers were denied the right to observe the vote count. They were prohibited to approach the table where the counting was going on. Ballot papers were sorted out without declaring any results. Chairpersons of Commissions discussed the results of vote count before filling out the protocols. In many cases, observers were not given copies of protocols. All these facts give a lot of evidence to question validity of election and referendum results. Candidates to the parliament who did not recognize the results of the elections and voters who do not recognize the validity of the referendum are denied the right to challenge the official results in court.
Important omissions and mistakes of the democratic opposition
In spite of meaningful achievements of the democratic opposition and the civil society, it has made some considerable mistakes and omissions. These failures are 1) to create wide scale observation network; 2) to ensure objective vote count on the day of elections; 3) to protect the elections and referendum victory after the day of elections. 4) to protect representatives of the civil society from the persecution. 5) to put pressure on members of election commission to show them their responsibility for law violation.
Opposition political parties were deeply involved in campaigning. They helped their candidates and had neither resources nor human potential to arrange observation. The organizations that dealt with independent observation turned (as before) to be weak, fragmented and inefficient. In many cases candidates had to organize their own observation. The observers were not well organized. They were not ready to act decisively to prevent violations on the stage of counting votes. They were inert and passive the days after the elections too.
There were a few organizations that claimed they could mobilize people to come and defend the victory of the opposition in a series of public rallies and demonstration. They have failed to deliver (as before). As a result, the demonstrations after the elections were small and could not threaten the authorities. Though many people felt cheated and depressed their hearts were not addressed and their energy was not claimed by the democratic opposition.
After the elections and the referendum, more than 30 demonstrators were jailed including Chairman of the Social democratic party Nikolai Statkevich. Chairman of the United Civil Party Anatoly Lebedko was severely beaten and taken to hospital. A group of opposition members is expected to be accused of creating disorder in the center of Minsk. Journalists from Russia also were beaten. The authorities threatened to open the criminal investigation against the leader of Belarusian communist party Sergei Kalyakin. If we take into account that another important figure of the opposition movement Mikhail Marinich has been in jail for about 6 months we can state that the authorities began a massive campaign against the democratic opposition structures and its leaders.
In such circumstances activities of human rights organizations that can provide legal and material support for the persecuted is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, the existing structures have failed to provide this kind of support for members of the opposition. People who join opposition or just vote differently (even those who refuse to take part in early voting) feel vulnerable. However, the existing organizations either tend to concentrate their efforts on representatives of a single political party or some small political groups.
To add to that, we should state that the national campaign against referendum was rather poor. Lack of information materials, high quality influential publications, drawbacks of the information materials distribution system and poor coordination of information efforts of independent papers and radio mass media weakened the efforts of the civil society to challenge the authorities.
Challenges of the future
The democratic opposition has shown that it can win the elections. It also demonstrated that it can not defend its victory. People are ready for change. The opposition should be ready to deliver it. Therefore, the remaining 20 – 24 months before the presidential elections the democratic opposition should concentrate its efforts on a few key areas. First, the People’s Coalition “Five Plus” will keep its activities as a coordinating body. Efforts should be made to urge the Social democratic party headed by N. Statkevich to join the Coalition. It should become a political platform to coordinate activities of the democratic opposition.
In 2005, wide scale national discussion on who should become president after Lukashenko should be arranged. Only the well organized democratic opposition can manage the process to come with a single democratic candidate to challenge Lukashenko in 2006. Holding primaries (present circumstances should be taken into account) can be an important part of the process of nominating the presidential candidate from the opposition. Headquarters of the presidential campaign should be set up to unite the best minds in the country. Those opposition and civil society leaders who want to get support of the Coalition should also take part in working out the Rules of Engagement. There are two tentative dates for coming out with the single candidate – late spring or October – November 2005. Planning the campaign and exercising it is the biggest challenge for the opposition in the year to come. It is the people’s Coalition “Five Plus” that should become the center for this campaign. All potential candidates for presidential elections should be created equal grounds. They in their own turn should seek for the public support during this campaign.
Among other priorities are:
- creating the network of candidates for election commissions (at least in all major cities). We should make the best use of people’s energy right now and prepare 10 persons for each ballot station (about 8000 for Minsk) who will be able to take an active part in presidential election process as either members of the election commission or observers. These people should not necessarily be members of political parties but representatives of the public;
- strengthening the information distribution network. It should be able to handle up to 1 mln. Leaflets or newspapers;
- support of the analytical center that will generate the program of the democratic opposition for the elections and provide articles and “intellectual ammunition” to counteract the authorities;
- support of the radio station that can broadcast on AM waves in all Belarus;
- support party structures build-up and NGO expansion in the areas that are important to winning presidential elections in 2006.
European procedures should enhance EU’s impact on Belarus not justify passivity. Coordinated efforts of EU, its nation-states and parliaments, parliamentary organizations (OSCE, PACE) is extremely important to accelerate changes in Belarus. The WEST speaking with one voice is necessary to consolidate the Belarusian society and the democratic opposition.
Setting up European Endowment for Democracy can be an adequate response to solve the so called “Belarusian problem”. It could work closely with NED, NDI, IRI and other organizations that are actively involved in the political and civil process in Belarus. Some Europeans say that active engagement in Belarus can be a good means to better relations between the USA and EU. Out of three policy options towards Belarus – passive contemplation, active indifference and active engagement the democratic opposition needs the third. It is also important to adjust the contents of the assistance programs and projects to the real needs of the Belarusian civil society. Seminars, conferences and training abroad can not be a substitution to grass root work in Belarus. The lessons of the past should teach us whom to isolate, whom to support and whom to cooperate with. He realize the fact that Belarus hold 67th place in EU trade with less than 0.2% of EU trade turnover. Economic determinism should be substituted with value oriented policy.
As Belarusian authorities are heading full speed to restore a mini version of the Soviet Union it is extremely important to form the AXIS of GOOD for BELARUS consisting of USA, EU and Russia. We realize the position of Russia and its record in legitimizing mass scale violations of law in Belarus. We believe that at present there are common grounds for the three parties to form such Axis. Holding an international conference on Belarus under the auspices of EU with participation of top policy makers (presidents and/or ministers of foreign affairs) from the USA and EU countries will be an important contribution to solving the Belarusian problem and to raising awareness of ordinary Europeans about the situation in Belarus.