So the question is, do I or do I not like Lukashenka.
I have been working an essay about how I feel about President Alexander Lukashenka’s potential third term as president for the past several days. And it has not been an easy task, I must tell you. The reason that it is not so easy is that I am torn as to what specifically should be the criteria under which the question is asked. For example, should I only look at the question from an economic standpoint or should I consider potential damages to a cultural that had existed as sort of an anti-economy for 75 years? And along these lines, should I only think of the money in general and not consider the economic repercussions of having to acquire it? The question you see is not an easy one to answer.
But I said that I would try and so I will. But, in order to come to a fair conclusion, I have decided to include as many arguments as I could and to try and deal with each one individually. And, without trying to sway my results one way or another because of emotion, I have decided to assign a point total to each argument so that the absolute results can be seen clearly in the end. The points will be awarded for each argument as follows:
2 points: I strongly agree with Lukashenka
1 point: I mildly agree with him.
0 points: I see no benefit either way.
-1 point: I mildly disagree with the president’s policy
-2 points: I strongly disagree.
So, as you can see, in the end, if we are in positive numbers, I like him. If we are in negatives, I think it is time for him to go. So the next question is: What are the criteria? Here is the best list of questions I can think of:
1. Has he done what was expected of him as president?
2. Has he had his countries best interests at heart?
3. Has he been a fair leader?
4. Can he be trusted?
5. Who among his constituency does he favor?
6. Who does he neglect?
7. Does he seem to be in tune with the will of his people?
8. Does his work show a positive result?
9. Are people under his leadership happy?
10. As the leader of a country, does he interact well with other countries?
11. Does he play the game of international politics well?
12. Does he genuinely address the issues, or does he try and gloss things over?
13. Does he have the respect of his constituents?
14. Is he a legitimate representation of the people?
15. How does he handle adversity?
So, let me go ahead and get into this and let’s see how it all comes out in the end.
1. Has Lukashenka done what was expected of him as president?
I think that this is one of the most important questions that needs to be asked and especially by those who would be obligatorily opposed to him because the answer is much different than anyone in the west might want to hear. But the fact is that Mr. Lukashenka’s policies have been exactly what was asked of him and he is exactly who Belarus wanted as their President.
Why? Because the truth is that during the period of time following the referendum that ended the USSR, Belarus was unilaterally in favor of retaining the vestments of the old communist culture. I do not care what the western media had to say on the subject, the majority of the people here had not been closet capitalists waiting to be free. This is simply not the truth. What is the truth is that the people here had been living a very specific life, one that they had been trained for and one that was near universally accepted and practiced here. People loved their world, understood what it was, knew their role in it and what it took for it to continue and simply went about the business of doing just that. And, they very, very much wanted it to continue. And if you do not believe me, all you have to do is look at the voting record to see that they continued to live this life for more than a decade after the economic chaos that was all around them after the fall of the Soviet Union. They did it for free, in poverty and if you have been reading me lately, they still in a lot of ways do to this day. That, my friends is real.
Alexander Lukashenka offered a program to the people of Belarus that simply offered to keep things as they were. His was an idea of remaking a socialist state from scratch and without selling off material that could not be afforded. He was against the west’s intrusions because almost universally any deal made would have been made from a point of weakness that would have had no other effect than economic slavery and the disenfranchisement of the people of Belarus. Everyone understood this and made the choice to try and do something different. This was what the people of Belarus wanted, this is what Lukashenka agreed to do, the people voted for him in ridiculous numbers and re-elected him without very much diminishment in those numbers five years later. And, and this is in the face of unbelievable public and private sentiment against. And, it is a fact that they also agreed to allow him to run for a third term as president in a referendum last year. This all did happen, it all was real and it is the truth. Alexander Lukashenka has absolutely done what was asked of him.
Point total: +2.
2. Has he had his countries best interests at heart?
This question is a little more difficult to answer than the first. And the reason is that when speaking of socialism, you have to remember that you are thinking in terms not of groups but of ‘the group’. During the time of the Soviet Union, it was easy enough to do this because there was but one employer and everyone was employed. But this is simply not the case here, regardless of how much the group think might have wanted otherwise. There has been a huge percentage of the private sector who have tried to find way to be economically self-sufficient over the years and unfortunately, they have not been able to do so because the state has stood in their way. In many cases, the obvious nature of the opposition has been to prevent competition to state run enterprises. The state could have very easily promoted independent business and, as a way of leveling the playing field, simply made for a very restrictive tax code a la Sweden or any of the other semi-socialistic states. In this way, people would have been able to keep their vested interest in their world, and their ownership stakes in their communities but would have had to share the wealth more than we would have in the west. But this is not what happened, and instead, were left to wither on the vive and the resulting perpetual poverty is evidence of this. And to add to this, even though currently there seems to be now a bit more money flowing through Belarus, small timers and local would be entrepreneurs have been shut out of potential ventures by large outside investors, very much as small business in the west has been swept aside by Wall mart, K-mart and corporate America. And this has been especially true over the last few years as the wall that had been built around Belarus has slowly begun to open.
So my answer: I think he missed the point of the overall situation and caused more harm than good on the general population by denying them chances to grow. But, as he did maintain product distribution through the crisis time, I will not offer a -2.
Point total: -1
3. Has he been a fair leader?
This one is easy: No, he is not. This is not a fair country. There is no even break for anybody. There is corruption, there is crime. There is a division of wealth that has not come about due to skill or talent. The taxes these days are random and more in line with greed rather than social necessity. Did he really look after the pensioners? No, he didn’t. He just left them alone in their poverty. Did he look after the students? No he didn’t because they have such a limited future that the schools are filled with despair. Did he look after the workers? No he didn’t because the money has never been enough, theft and corruption are still the norm and a feeling of paranoia exists for people every day in the work place. The availability of Belarus is limited to outsiders, no effort seems to be made for anyone’s comfort and getting shafted is the rule rather than the exception. From a political point of view, there is no second voice, no system of checks and balances, and no backtalk; there is no public disagreement and no alternative media. What the man says goes, everybody knows this. He is a Tsar and that is the end of the story. But things are not as smooth as he might like you to hear, and what good there may be these days from an esthetic or superficial point of view does not really mask the heaviness of hand that is behind it. And, the people in Belarus have become under their leader exactly as hard as you might expect.
The answer is no, he is not. Point total: -2
4. Can he be trusted?
Great question for any leader. If one would be asking that question about George Bush, I would assign a point total of -72. And unfortunately, though the man is on TV every day, in good health and appears to be going about his business, I would not trust him as far as I could throw him. He controls the media, he controls what is said and done, he does what he wants when he wants to. This is not someone with whom you can make a deal with, he is someone who tells you your deal, tells you your percentage and expects you to thank him for the privilege. How many political adversaries simply disappeared? How many went to jail, lost their abilities to do business or even be in the public debate? Would he actually- and this is no joke; would he actually start a war, say with Poland, just to arrange a situation where it would not be fortuitous to have him leave office? You bet he would and is making noises about such a thing right here and right now. Am I sympathetic as to how little support he has received from the outside world, yes I am. Do I trust the man? No, I do not.
Point total: -2
5. Whom among his constituency does he favor?
It has been always thought of that Lukashenka favors agriculture. It is his personal history that he is from the villages, that he came up through the soviet political system through the ranks of agriculture and that this is where his heart lies. But in my mind, agriculture here, at least from a person to person basis is an absolute dead end. His deals with Russia for buying potatoes have caused huge changes in the value of that commodity that, while making it available cheaply in the cities, have taken a huge percentage of peoples extra money away from them. And agricultural workers receive far less money than workers in other trades as well. He did seem to make a huge fuss over the pensioners who fought in the great patriotic war over the last year or so and there was a lot of money spent on them. But, in general I am not sure that dealing with the pensioners was his real first priority, though I think he does offer adequate services in terms of medicine and health care. But he doesn’t favor the working class. No, he does not and this is as ironic as it is expected. No, the truth is that about the only group that is receiving the presidents favor these days seems to be, yes, outside business ventures. And compared to what one must go through to be in business here, it would appear that the people of Belarus in general seem to have become rather dirty and incapable when seen next to the dazzling elegance of European corporate millionaires. Yes folks, it is happening now. It was not wanted, but it is happening, but other then some improvements in the roads and a new coat of paint, as everything seems to be going through the president’s office, we are not really seeing such a great improvement in the general good. Or at least Belarus still does not seem to be keeping up with the inflation even with being pegged to the dollar. Yes, it is nice to se that the streets are becoming clean, that the potholes are finally being leveled out. But any fool can see where the money is coming from. And in a country where people still only receive $100 a month, being forgotten is death.
And I might add that it might have not been necessary to do business with the west, as was originally wanted; though doing so was all anybody seemed to be able to see. And I think such independence could have spurred on a new and individual national culture. But this is not what happened and in the end, we are starting to do business with the west this now anyway. And though this has produced the image that there is some more money in the country, I do not see that the distribution is including a vested interest for the general trust. He is favoring anyone with money, leaning toward outsiders rather than his own people and that, though possibly necessary is not what was asked for. Some results, but not in the right places.
Point total: -1
6. Whom does he neglect?
Who does Lukashenka neglect? Everyone. I mean, there has not been any money and everything fell into disrepair over the last decade and a half. The only answer to any question was discipline, discipline, discipline. And though it may be the Belarusian way to simply demand the hardest road possible, there doesn’t seem to be anything for anyone that they can’t steal for themselves. Everyone is tired all of the time. And you can’t even get piece of paper that isn’t charged to you. And if you do get something complimentary, it is accustomed with a look you will never forget. He takes a good picture, but there is nothing coming your way.
However, and again, this is a cultural thing as much as anything. This is the way it is here, chicken and egg argument or not. And so because of this, because life is and has been so tough in general, I am not going to give negative points. This sort of attitude is simply too normal here for me to say the man is out of line. In fact, this also might even fit back in the “is he fair” argument.
Point total: 0
7. Does he seem to be in tune with the will of his people?
This is the biggest question insofar as concerns the issue of re-election. As I stated in the fist question, Lukashenka was very much who was wanted by Belarus throughout his first years in office because he against western intervention. That he was antagonized and slandered by the west throughout those years as a result of this stance did nothing but make his job and the life of Belarusians harder. But currently, he seems to be making inroads with German, Polish and other European business people. This is a fact. But is he actually flowing with the true demographic of Belarus? Is this change or is it simply end-of-the-career opportunism?
Lukashenka predicted years ago that he would be the president for the full measure of his term. It was a statement intended as a representation of the strength of his position and an act of defiance to his adversaries. He has done so. But if he is now allowing for a more open policy for the purposes of allowing for economic growth, why didn’t he allow for local small business to flourish when times were hard? And, why isn’t he offering incentives or opportunities in the local market place?
No, in general, I do not think as a politician Alexander Lukashenka gives a damn what people think of him or his policies. This is simply not the way the man does business. But because that demographic has been shifting as the old timers die off and the percentage of Belarusians who need to feed themselves and their families grows larger, he has begun to change his policy. And this is an obvious choice because things simply have no way of continuing as they were. But is it too little too late?
I am pretty sure the paint and the smoother roads and the little extras that are appearing all over are his way of showing that things might be better. But are there really new choices available? I do not see this. Not really. In fact, what I am seeing that things are getting even harder to b independent, and this is not good. This is a poor country. Not wanting to be overrun by the west had been the choice. But during that closed period, did Belarus maximize its opportunities? I
But in answer to the question, I think that these changes of late are absolutely an indication that Lukashenka is hearing from Belarus and therefore, at least superficially representing its will. And he certainly does want the job. I am quite firm in my belief that he deserves a positive total here. I would probably have awarded him 2 points if there had been some real debate, but as Belarus is what it is I will award a point to the plus. .
Point total: +1
8. Does his work show a positive result?
Is the place shaping up or is it just wearing a little makeup? And, is this all there is to it anyway? This answer to this question is as muddy as the last question. Yes, Belarus is cleaner right now then it has been for the last few years and possibly as clean as it was the first time I was here in 1997. But there is a difference in how that cleanliness was achieved. Earlier, the cleanliness of the streets and parks would have had to be attributed to the general population's actions and attitudes towards their home. Public upkeep was seen as everybody's job and a matter for the public trust. The attitude was that 'This is our home, we need to keep it clean' and this idea was practiced like a religion by all people. But once you take someone’s home away from them, once you take away their vested interest, their ownership stake, they start not to care about it any more. This has been exactly what has happened here over the last half decade and this feeling of disenfranchisement has shifted people’s willingness to give a damn. And of course, the results were that the place, even as of last year, had become kind of slummy.
But as I said, this last year as far as this goes, things are looking better. There have been a ton of landscaping projects, public beautification, house painting and restoration of the parks and the public access areas. The place is looking much better. But, this job is now being maintained strictly through city government and no longer has the feel of being part of the lifestyle of the people of the cities. In fact, it all seems to go on despite the fact that the ‘new’ manner of life of the young people seems to be actual distain for the world around them. We now have a lot of graffiti, something you never saw before, and people around the river are horrible polluters.
And so we have an interesting dynamic: Before, there was no money for public upkeep per se but the individuals took up the slack out of sense of pride of place. Now, there is some money to keep things up but the average citizen doesn’t give a dam any more or would like to tear it all down. So, are these positive results? I don’t think so. But could there have been another way? This I do not know.
I would be thinking that a draw might be applicable, but I am inclined to stray downward. Yes, you can see a bit of uplift in the year before an election, but there is a downturn in general and that for me makes for negative points. But then again, as an American, I can see the way things are going and as a realist, I know that no one is going to stop what is going to happen anyway. So, let’s say that as far as that goes, we need to call it a wash.
Point total: 0
9. Are people under his leadership happy?
No. But is this natural Belarusian aloofness? I don't know but for sure people here are not happy. They have nothing and need to do whatever is necessary to get by up to and including selling any morals, scruples and dignity they might even have ever dreamed of to get it. People here these days are as wrapped up in tension as anyone anywhere in the world which is too bad when you throw in to the mix an absolute tunnel vision when it comes to things monetary. Though I do see, especially on a fine warm and sunny summer day, something that has nothing to do with Lukashenka and something we needed more of this year, that people here can relax and enjoy the moment. But overall the tension has changed things so that Belarusians are not as graceful socially as they once were. They do have their provincial style, but no, in general people are not happy and the reason for this is because simply life here eventually, no matter how you look at it seems hopeless. And this is terrible but it is the feeling here and thought of as fact.
I have often thought, as have everyone here, that this is the de facto chicken and egg argument concerning the president; which came first the depression or the causes?
I know that people everywhere have problems and there does seem to be, at least in my memory's eye, places in the world which functioned a bit better and carried a healthier attitude than Belarus does. I know that most westerners would want me to automatically make this answer a negative 2, but again, that chicken and egg thing….
Point total:-1
10. As the leader of a country, does he interact well with other countries?
Well, he is bating the USA, has closed the borders to European dignitaries, is planning a potential war with Poland, charges way too much money for visas into and out of the country, takes a really high tax on any products trying to come in from other countries, may or may not have invited terrorists to live here and pulled the visas from a bunch of school kids trying to hang out in America for a year. He has inspired an economic bounty on his head that goes to anybody who might stand up to him and is perhaps one of the most universally despised men in the world from the perspectives of other countries. And so as far as this question is concerned, as his name is to anyone who has ever heard of him or Belarus as hated as Bush’s, logically, I would have to say, you know, no.
Point total: -2
11. Does he play the game of international politics well?
This is not the same question as I have listed above. As I have said, there is new foreign involvement in Belarus, and there is some money flowing around. And one positive thing that has always been true of Lukashenka is that he does drive a hard bargain when it comes to allowing foreign investment. So, just by calling it all a game, which is very much what it is, I would have to think that Lukashenka is one hell of a player. Sometimes I think that he oversimplifies things, as he did during the time of the referendum last year when he simply attacked the USA, in general and offered distain on the whole idea of term limits by calling it an American invention. He is in there itching still and as far as I can see, we have not been overrun and this was what was wanted. We may not have any friends, but we are still showing up to the games. And, if you throw in the old adage that all press is good press, sorry folks; the guy is a great player.
Point total: +2
12. Does he genuinely address the issues, or does he try and gloss things over?
During he time of the Soviet Union, one of the staples of life insofar as concerned the dispersal of information from the top to the people was that you got all of the information. All of it. Or, at least something that seemed to be kind of rich in text. Marx loved the details, Belarusians loved the details. But folks here no longer have those obligatory long attention spans and therefore it is no longer possible for people to make a long winded presentation. In Lukashenka's place, and this is as far as his daily spot on the news is concerned, he makes a very interesting presentation that gives the illusion of being from the old school. He speaks on many subjects, you get several full sentences and an argument or two from each point, but what is missing is the basis for why the argument is being presented. And of course, no one is free to bring up oppositional ideas that have not been officially agreed upon.
On the other side of the coin, we really are a poor country and no one needs to hear about this every day. Or do they? This transition from one culture to the other has been very, very hard because of the change over from the truth to what’s hot. I am not sure I blame Lukashenka for the way he portrays himself in the press. I just wonder what he is hiding.
It is all gloss, and this is no good. If reality here was a plant, it would not have enough light to live. Well, and of course that is exactly what happened. .
Point total: -2
13. Does he have the respect of his constituents?
Does Belarus respect Lukashenka? Yes they do. Do they like him? Oh, they may say that they hate him, but yes, they do. And, people are scared to death of the man. But I think in some way, and again this is purely cultural, that the man really speaks the language and people kind of get off on how hard he is and how hard of a time the man is having. I mean, he is from here and he works in the local fashion. Political disappearances? What did the usurpers expect? Did they think they were just going to walk into the man’s office and dictate policy? They got what they had coming.
Maybe a good way to say it is that Belarusians see the whole thing as some big sick joke. 15 years of starvation and not a damned thing to look forward to. But no matter how corrupt, no matter how crazy he seems to have become, the people of Belarus know exactly who their leader is.
The man’s a tough guy. And I think people kind of like this. Life is hard in Belarus. Life is really hard in Belarus. You think it is for wimps? You think you could do it? No folks, people here love him in the same way that they loved Stalin. Is he respected? Yes, they respect him. They have to because they are afraid of him and yes, they respect that too. I am sorry, I am not a propagandist. I just say what see. Yes, he is absolutely respected here and yes, I think they are going to vote for the man again because of it.
Point total: +2
14. Is he a legitimate representation of the people?
I would have to go back into the true demographic of Belarus for this answer. The pensioners like him because they feel that he has allowed them to live their lives without too much interference from the outside world. The students and businesspeople do not want him because they feel that puts too many difficult restrictions on their lives. The state workers like him because he keeps things running without too much competition which translates to personal job security. The military likes him because he supports them. Mid-level bureaucrats do not like him because his fingers are everywhere and there is no real power allowed on-site insofar as real decisions are concerned. Most workers though do not like him simply because they cannot receive any real money and blame him for this.
But is Lukashenka Belarus? I am not so sure that he is. Belarus, at least in the cities likes to dress well, and Lukashenka is a shiny suit and a businessman. But he is not really Belarus because Belarusians are under the man’s heel and unable to speak as he does. Let me explain this: I think looking back, that Clinton was very much an American icon. I mean, his way of making decisions, his familial situation: The man was living an American life, spoke the language and could be seen by outsiders as a reasonable representation of who we were at our best and brightest. This was the man's image. I know that this was probably all pre-thought-out image making as much as anything but it was out there and people could identify with the man. And while I am at it. Bush just can’t do it and he has spent probably a billion dollars trying to. And Lukashenka can't do it either. Yes, Lukashenka speaks the language when he has to, but he does not reflect the fatigue and the strain of the people of Belarus. And, as far as the sloganism, and the half-time pep talks go, I think he is speaking in echoes form a long lost culture that simply no longer is. And even if he is simply trying to make an image to aspire to, I do not think that such an image is really what modern Belarus is all about. There is simply nothing to back up his words.
The totality of the USSR was so huge that it was rather foolish to oppose the notion of acceptance, and as there were very real benefits to doing so, so people did. And happily I might add. But Belarus has no such strength, regardless of how the president represents himself and I am not sure that a more flexible and open face would not be more to the point and might be a better role model as well.
I do not see the people of Belarus as a great hand. They are much smaller, prideful to be certain, but never, ever overbearing. And they are hungry, they are listening, and they are open to opportunities. And most of all, they want to know that there is a chance, some hope. This is especially true for people in the 18 to 45 demographic. They are all out there and trying to do what they can to get by. And it is so hard here. So, no Lukashenka is not Belarus because Belarus knows damn well that that you cannot dictate policy without the backing.
Point total: -1
15. How does he handle adversity?
How does he handle it? Well, he loves the stress. He is from here and what I see from him is exactly what I see from my neighbors, both in the village and here in town. He likes to have a rough sea and probably feels he is at his best when there are some problems confronting him. I think he is like an egg in that he gets harder the more you cook him. He likes to smile and brush things aside and to show the world that he is still as strong as is possible for a man to be. Fact.
But on the other hand, I think he is cracking up. I am not saying this from the point of view of a provocateur, it is just that I have seen and heard some things on the news that have me thinking that the pressure is getting to him. And that pressure is real. I think he is under far, far more pressure than any man should ever have to endure. In fact, I think the amount of pressure he is under is even more than me, if that is possible.
But then again, the man started out as being adversarial to the west and this is what was wanted and this was why he was there in the first place. But I am not necessarily convinced that at the moment Lukashenka isn’t making things harder than they need to be. and I think he might be doing this (a la Bush) just to create a situation in which it would be more frightening than normal, so people will have to think twice about letting him go. Is he starting up with Poland now just to create a situation where it would be difficult to let him go? Is he, as with Bush, keeping things hot simply because he does not wish to lose his position?
If this is the case, and I think that I am, I am positive that it is time for him to step aside. I am a father here, and my thinking is that so much of what needs to be done is rather selfless. You simply can’t put your ego in front of your family all the time because they need to live as well. And this is hard as hell to do but if you love them, you do it. I simply do not see the difference just because we are speaking about a political title. Amazing tensile strength or no, thriving on pressure does not the best long term decision maker make and no matter how great you are, it is always easier working from strength than it is on the run. If your judgment is skewed, or if you are making decisions not for the good of your constituency but for yourself, you have to go.
But it is also right to point out that any extra pressure that exists has to come from somewhere. And I think it fair to say that before we condemn Lukashenka completely, we should remember that lot of that pressure was put there by the west and has been there and making life so ridiculously difficult for the last 15 years. And again, his resistance to that pressure was exactly what Belarus wanted and was why they voted for him.
However, in the end, the question that was posed was: Can he handle pressure? And the answer to that is that he really, really can. In fact, it is amazing how much pressure he can take. Give credit where credit is due, the man can take it.
Point total: +2
Conclusions
My point total came to -3. Not a blowout by any stretch but still to my mind, something that smacks of the truth. Alexander Lukashenka has been simply and exactly who and what Belarus wanted. He has done the job that was asked of him as well as any man on the planet could have done. He has stood up to more pressure than perhaps any other leader in the world and has maintained a great composure and strength day in and day out. But all things considered, I do not think he should continue on. I am not in froth over this decision, because in my mind, I actually do appreciate what he has done to some extent. But I think logically that the choice for him to go is the right one. I think having term limits in general means that things must change if they are to grow. I think Lukashenka very much did what was asked of him but I also think that the times have changed and that the best thing that could happen would be for Lukashenka to step back and allow the debate over who will be the next leader (and how Belarus would really like to be led) to take place.
But what would the country be like without him? The real answer to this question is simple: Without Lukashenka, Belarus would lose 90 percent of its independence, real or imagined and any shreds of what once was, even if it is all for the old folks now, will simply go away. This is a fact. This does not necessarily mean that Belarus will be absorbed by Russia, or the European Union, though I believe it will, but it does mean that the last shreds of whatever this country was for the better part of the last century will be pushed aside. And as far as that goes, I have spent a lot of time in Poland and in Lithuania and I have seen what the European influence has been there. It is impossible for me to say that life is absolutely better, but it certainly seems to me that people have more money and are a bit more ambitious than they are here. And I do not see that what we have to call 'the life' here, is so damned great any more.
Whether or not this change is a good thing though is a legitimate question. With freedom comes problems and I am not completely convinced, as I have stated many, many times in these pages, that there isn’t yet a lot to be said about the culture of the former Soviet Union. I do not see where the idea living together well should be removed completely from collective human consciousness and replaced by the great shark hunt. I absolutely appreciate the ideas of what were and have written about the beauty and subtly of that long gone lifestyle. But starvation is a horrible way to go and frankly, regardless of how strong the man likes to show us he is, there are no longer the sorts of social structures to support the idea.
And I am not the only one who knows or believes this. I have spoken to college classrooms about the pressure of doing business in the west. I have tried to impart the idea that the world outside of Belarus is not as forgiving as they might believe and that people will expect their best at all times and will not always pay for it whether or not they get it. As an American I know that whatever people might be thinking of as that panacea known as ‘freedom’, it will not be the answer to the question. There is no utopia, you work for what you receive and it is getting harder and harder all the time. But no matter how hard a picture I paint, I have yet to see more than one or two of them that believe it would be better to stay. There is, they feel, simply nothing here for them. Life inside Belarus has become very, very hard. Maybe too hard.
So in the end, though I may actually be moved by the thought of keeping it going I honestly do not see the legitimacy of doing so. I do see that there is currently some changes taking place, and that there is at least the illusion of some prosperity, a better life beginning here. But I also see that it all is passing first through the hands of the president, that it could have happened a long time ago, that almost none of it is going to the general good and that the whole of this sort of smacks as a cop out or a re-election year campaign promise. And if there are going to be such sorts of changes and of acceptance of western money and opportunities, if there is going to be this sort of life that people here are going to be leading, than I am not convinced that Alexander Lukashenka is the man for that job. Or, if he is going to be, and there is a great chance that he will be anyway, I at least would like to hear a lot of other arguments for a change about how things are going to transpire rather than just listening to his.
But like I say, this is not an easy issue for me. I have a long memory for what was but to my great chagrin, I simply do not see that most beautiful thing, which was precious enough to be willing to suffer for, in existence here any longer. It just isn’t. It may have lasted a long, long time, maybe longer than anyone thought that it would, but I simply do not see it any longer. And, as the old Russian phrase says: You must live. And so as far as that great defender of the old times is concerned, I think it is very much time to go.
Contact me at: beinghad_mail@yahoo.com
To navigate to the HOMEPAGE, please click HERE.
More soon…
I have been working an essay about how I feel about President Alexander Lukashenka’s potential third term as president for the past several days. And it has not been an easy task, I must tell you. The reason that it is not so easy is that I am torn as to what specifically should be the criteria under which the question is asked. For example, should I only look at the question from an economic standpoint or should I consider potential damages to a cultural that had existed as sort of an anti-economy for 75 years? And along these lines, should I only think of the money in general and not consider the economic repercussions of having to acquire it? The question you see is not an easy one to answer.
But I said that I would try and so I will. But, in order to come to a fair conclusion, I have decided to include as many arguments as I could and to try and deal with each one individually. And, without trying to sway my results one way or another because of emotion, I have decided to assign a point total to each argument so that the absolute results can be seen clearly in the end. The points will be awarded for each argument as follows:
2 points: I strongly agree with Lukashenka
1 point: I mildly agree with him.
0 points: I see no benefit either way.
-1 point: I mildly disagree with the president’s policy
-2 points: I strongly disagree.
So, as you can see, in the end, if we are in positive numbers, I like him. If we are in negatives, I think it is time for him to go. So the next question is: What are the criteria? Here is the best list of questions I can think of:
1. Has he done what was expected of him as president?
2. Has he had his countries best interests at heart?
3. Has he been a fair leader?
4. Can he be trusted?
5. Who among his constituency does he favor?
6. Who does he neglect?
7. Does he seem to be in tune with the will of his people?
8. Does his work show a positive result?
9. Are people under his leadership happy?
10. As the leader of a country, does he interact well with other countries?
11. Does he play the game of international politics well?
12. Does he genuinely address the issues, or does he try and gloss things over?
13. Does he have the respect of his constituents?
14. Is he a legitimate representation of the people?
15. How does he handle adversity?
So, let me go ahead and get into this and let’s see how it all comes out in the end.
1. Has Lukashenka done what was expected of him as president?
I think that this is one of the most important questions that needs to be asked and especially by those who would be obligatorily opposed to him because the answer is much different than anyone in the west might want to hear. But the fact is that Mr. Lukashenka’s policies have been exactly what was asked of him and he is exactly who Belarus wanted as their President.
Why? Because the truth is that during the period of time following the referendum that ended the USSR, Belarus was unilaterally in favor of retaining the vestments of the old communist culture. I do not care what the western media had to say on the subject, the majority of the people here had not been closet capitalists waiting to be free. This is simply not the truth. What is the truth is that the people here had been living a very specific life, one that they had been trained for and one that was near universally accepted and practiced here. People loved their world, understood what it was, knew their role in it and what it took for it to continue and simply went about the business of doing just that. And, they very, very much wanted it to continue. And if you do not believe me, all you have to do is look at the voting record to see that they continued to live this life for more than a decade after the economic chaos that was all around them after the fall of the Soviet Union. They did it for free, in poverty and if you have been reading me lately, they still in a lot of ways do to this day. That, my friends is real.
Alexander Lukashenka offered a program to the people of Belarus that simply offered to keep things as they were. His was an idea of remaking a socialist state from scratch and without selling off material that could not be afforded. He was against the west’s intrusions because almost universally any deal made would have been made from a point of weakness that would have had no other effect than economic slavery and the disenfranchisement of the people of Belarus. Everyone understood this and made the choice to try and do something different. This was what the people of Belarus wanted, this is what Lukashenka agreed to do, the people voted for him in ridiculous numbers and re-elected him without very much diminishment in those numbers five years later. And, and this is in the face of unbelievable public and private sentiment against. And, it is a fact that they also agreed to allow him to run for a third term as president in a referendum last year. This all did happen, it all was real and it is the truth. Alexander Lukashenka has absolutely done what was asked of him.
Point total: +2.
2. Has he had his countries best interests at heart?
This question is a little more difficult to answer than the first. And the reason is that when speaking of socialism, you have to remember that you are thinking in terms not of groups but of ‘the group’. During the time of the Soviet Union, it was easy enough to do this because there was but one employer and everyone was employed. But this is simply not the case here, regardless of how much the group think might have wanted otherwise. There has been a huge percentage of the private sector who have tried to find way to be economically self-sufficient over the years and unfortunately, they have not been able to do so because the state has stood in their way. In many cases, the obvious nature of the opposition has been to prevent competition to state run enterprises. The state could have very easily promoted independent business and, as a way of leveling the playing field, simply made for a very restrictive tax code a la Sweden or any of the other semi-socialistic states. In this way, people would have been able to keep their vested interest in their world, and their ownership stakes in their communities but would have had to share the wealth more than we would have in the west. But this is not what happened, and instead, were left to wither on the vive and the resulting perpetual poverty is evidence of this. And to add to this, even though currently there seems to be now a bit more money flowing through Belarus, small timers and local would be entrepreneurs have been shut out of potential ventures by large outside investors, very much as small business in the west has been swept aside by Wall mart, K-mart and corporate America. And this has been especially true over the last few years as the wall that had been built around Belarus has slowly begun to open.
So my answer: I think he missed the point of the overall situation and caused more harm than good on the general population by denying them chances to grow. But, as he did maintain product distribution through the crisis time, I will not offer a -2.
Point total: -1
3. Has he been a fair leader?
This one is easy: No, he is not. This is not a fair country. There is no even break for anybody. There is corruption, there is crime. There is a division of wealth that has not come about due to skill or talent. The taxes these days are random and more in line with greed rather than social necessity. Did he really look after the pensioners? No, he didn’t. He just left them alone in their poverty. Did he look after the students? No he didn’t because they have such a limited future that the schools are filled with despair. Did he look after the workers? No he didn’t because the money has never been enough, theft and corruption are still the norm and a feeling of paranoia exists for people every day in the work place. The availability of Belarus is limited to outsiders, no effort seems to be made for anyone’s comfort and getting shafted is the rule rather than the exception. From a political point of view, there is no second voice, no system of checks and balances, and no backtalk; there is no public disagreement and no alternative media. What the man says goes, everybody knows this. He is a Tsar and that is the end of the story. But things are not as smooth as he might like you to hear, and what good there may be these days from an esthetic or superficial point of view does not really mask the heaviness of hand that is behind it. And, the people in Belarus have become under their leader exactly as hard as you might expect.
The answer is no, he is not. Point total: -2
4. Can he be trusted?
Great question for any leader. If one would be asking that question about George Bush, I would assign a point total of -72. And unfortunately, though the man is on TV every day, in good health and appears to be going about his business, I would not trust him as far as I could throw him. He controls the media, he controls what is said and done, he does what he wants when he wants to. This is not someone with whom you can make a deal with, he is someone who tells you your deal, tells you your percentage and expects you to thank him for the privilege. How many political adversaries simply disappeared? How many went to jail, lost their abilities to do business or even be in the public debate? Would he actually- and this is no joke; would he actually start a war, say with Poland, just to arrange a situation where it would not be fortuitous to have him leave office? You bet he would and is making noises about such a thing right here and right now. Am I sympathetic as to how little support he has received from the outside world, yes I am. Do I trust the man? No, I do not.
Point total: -2
5. Whom among his constituency does he favor?
It has been always thought of that Lukashenka favors agriculture. It is his personal history that he is from the villages, that he came up through the soviet political system through the ranks of agriculture and that this is where his heart lies. But in my mind, agriculture here, at least from a person to person basis is an absolute dead end. His deals with Russia for buying potatoes have caused huge changes in the value of that commodity that, while making it available cheaply in the cities, have taken a huge percentage of peoples extra money away from them. And agricultural workers receive far less money than workers in other trades as well. He did seem to make a huge fuss over the pensioners who fought in the great patriotic war over the last year or so and there was a lot of money spent on them. But, in general I am not sure that dealing with the pensioners was his real first priority, though I think he does offer adequate services in terms of medicine and health care. But he doesn’t favor the working class. No, he does not and this is as ironic as it is expected. No, the truth is that about the only group that is receiving the presidents favor these days seems to be, yes, outside business ventures. And compared to what one must go through to be in business here, it would appear that the people of Belarus in general seem to have become rather dirty and incapable when seen next to the dazzling elegance of European corporate millionaires. Yes folks, it is happening now. It was not wanted, but it is happening, but other then some improvements in the roads and a new coat of paint, as everything seems to be going through the president’s office, we are not really seeing such a great improvement in the general good. Or at least Belarus still does not seem to be keeping up with the inflation even with being pegged to the dollar. Yes, it is nice to se that the streets are becoming clean, that the potholes are finally being leveled out. But any fool can see where the money is coming from. And in a country where people still only receive $100 a month, being forgotten is death.
And I might add that it might have not been necessary to do business with the west, as was originally wanted; though doing so was all anybody seemed to be able to see. And I think such independence could have spurred on a new and individual national culture. But this is not what happened and in the end, we are starting to do business with the west this now anyway. And though this has produced the image that there is some more money in the country, I do not see that the distribution is including a vested interest for the general trust. He is favoring anyone with money, leaning toward outsiders rather than his own people and that, though possibly necessary is not what was asked for. Some results, but not in the right places.
Point total: -1
6. Whom does he neglect?
Who does Lukashenka neglect? Everyone. I mean, there has not been any money and everything fell into disrepair over the last decade and a half. The only answer to any question was discipline, discipline, discipline. And though it may be the Belarusian way to simply demand the hardest road possible, there doesn’t seem to be anything for anyone that they can’t steal for themselves. Everyone is tired all of the time. And you can’t even get piece of paper that isn’t charged to you. And if you do get something complimentary, it is accustomed with a look you will never forget. He takes a good picture, but there is nothing coming your way.
However, and again, this is a cultural thing as much as anything. This is the way it is here, chicken and egg argument or not. And so because of this, because life is and has been so tough in general, I am not going to give negative points. This sort of attitude is simply too normal here for me to say the man is out of line. In fact, this also might even fit back in the “is he fair” argument.
Point total: 0
7. Does he seem to be in tune with the will of his people?
This is the biggest question insofar as concerns the issue of re-election. As I stated in the fist question, Lukashenka was very much who was wanted by Belarus throughout his first years in office because he against western intervention. That he was antagonized and slandered by the west throughout those years as a result of this stance did nothing but make his job and the life of Belarusians harder. But currently, he seems to be making inroads with German, Polish and other European business people. This is a fact. But is he actually flowing with the true demographic of Belarus? Is this change or is it simply end-of-the-career opportunism?
Lukashenka predicted years ago that he would be the president for the full measure of his term. It was a statement intended as a representation of the strength of his position and an act of defiance to his adversaries. He has done so. But if he is now allowing for a more open policy for the purposes of allowing for economic growth, why didn’t he allow for local small business to flourish when times were hard? And, why isn’t he offering incentives or opportunities in the local market place?
No, in general, I do not think as a politician Alexander Lukashenka gives a damn what people think of him or his policies. This is simply not the way the man does business. But because that demographic has been shifting as the old timers die off and the percentage of Belarusians who need to feed themselves and their families grows larger, he has begun to change his policy. And this is an obvious choice because things simply have no way of continuing as they were. But is it too little too late?
I am pretty sure the paint and the smoother roads and the little extras that are appearing all over are his way of showing that things might be better. But are there really new choices available? I do not see this. Not really. In fact, what I am seeing that things are getting even harder to b independent, and this is not good. This is a poor country. Not wanting to be overrun by the west had been the choice. But during that closed period, did Belarus maximize its opportunities? I
But in answer to the question, I think that these changes of late are absolutely an indication that Lukashenka is hearing from Belarus and therefore, at least superficially representing its will. And he certainly does want the job. I am quite firm in my belief that he deserves a positive total here. I would probably have awarded him 2 points if there had been some real debate, but as Belarus is what it is I will award a point to the plus. .
Point total: +1
8. Does his work show a positive result?
Is the place shaping up or is it just wearing a little makeup? And, is this all there is to it anyway? This answer to this question is as muddy as the last question. Yes, Belarus is cleaner right now then it has been for the last few years and possibly as clean as it was the first time I was here in 1997. But there is a difference in how that cleanliness was achieved. Earlier, the cleanliness of the streets and parks would have had to be attributed to the general population's actions and attitudes towards their home. Public upkeep was seen as everybody's job and a matter for the public trust. The attitude was that 'This is our home, we need to keep it clean' and this idea was practiced like a religion by all people. But once you take someone’s home away from them, once you take away their vested interest, their ownership stake, they start not to care about it any more. This has been exactly what has happened here over the last half decade and this feeling of disenfranchisement has shifted people’s willingness to give a damn. And of course, the results were that the place, even as of last year, had become kind of slummy.
But as I said, this last year as far as this goes, things are looking better. There have been a ton of landscaping projects, public beautification, house painting and restoration of the parks and the public access areas. The place is looking much better. But, this job is now being maintained strictly through city government and no longer has the feel of being part of the lifestyle of the people of the cities. In fact, it all seems to go on despite the fact that the ‘new’ manner of life of the young people seems to be actual distain for the world around them. We now have a lot of graffiti, something you never saw before, and people around the river are horrible polluters.
And so we have an interesting dynamic: Before, there was no money for public upkeep per se but the individuals took up the slack out of sense of pride of place. Now, there is some money to keep things up but the average citizen doesn’t give a dam any more or would like to tear it all down. So, are these positive results? I don’t think so. But could there have been another way? This I do not know.
I would be thinking that a draw might be applicable, but I am inclined to stray downward. Yes, you can see a bit of uplift in the year before an election, but there is a downturn in general and that for me makes for negative points. But then again, as an American, I can see the way things are going and as a realist, I know that no one is going to stop what is going to happen anyway. So, let’s say that as far as that goes, we need to call it a wash.
Point total: 0
9. Are people under his leadership happy?
No. But is this natural Belarusian aloofness? I don't know but for sure people here are not happy. They have nothing and need to do whatever is necessary to get by up to and including selling any morals, scruples and dignity they might even have ever dreamed of to get it. People here these days are as wrapped up in tension as anyone anywhere in the world which is too bad when you throw in to the mix an absolute tunnel vision when it comes to things monetary. Though I do see, especially on a fine warm and sunny summer day, something that has nothing to do with Lukashenka and something we needed more of this year, that people here can relax and enjoy the moment. But overall the tension has changed things so that Belarusians are not as graceful socially as they once were. They do have their provincial style, but no, in general people are not happy and the reason for this is because simply life here eventually, no matter how you look at it seems hopeless. And this is terrible but it is the feeling here and thought of as fact.
I have often thought, as have everyone here, that this is the de facto chicken and egg argument concerning the president; which came first the depression or the causes?
I know that people everywhere have problems and there does seem to be, at least in my memory's eye, places in the world which functioned a bit better and carried a healthier attitude than Belarus does. I know that most westerners would want me to automatically make this answer a negative 2, but again, that chicken and egg thing….
Point total:-1
10. As the leader of a country, does he interact well with other countries?
Well, he is bating the USA, has closed the borders to European dignitaries, is planning a potential war with Poland, charges way too much money for visas into and out of the country, takes a really high tax on any products trying to come in from other countries, may or may not have invited terrorists to live here and pulled the visas from a bunch of school kids trying to hang out in America for a year. He has inspired an economic bounty on his head that goes to anybody who might stand up to him and is perhaps one of the most universally despised men in the world from the perspectives of other countries. And so as far as this question is concerned, as his name is to anyone who has ever heard of him or Belarus as hated as Bush’s, logically, I would have to say, you know, no.
Point total: -2
11. Does he play the game of international politics well?
This is not the same question as I have listed above. As I have said, there is new foreign involvement in Belarus, and there is some money flowing around. And one positive thing that has always been true of Lukashenka is that he does drive a hard bargain when it comes to allowing foreign investment. So, just by calling it all a game, which is very much what it is, I would have to think that Lukashenka is one hell of a player. Sometimes I think that he oversimplifies things, as he did during the time of the referendum last year when he simply attacked the USA, in general and offered distain on the whole idea of term limits by calling it an American invention. He is in there itching still and as far as I can see, we have not been overrun and this was what was wanted. We may not have any friends, but we are still showing up to the games. And, if you throw in the old adage that all press is good press, sorry folks; the guy is a great player.
Point total: +2
12. Does he genuinely address the issues, or does he try and gloss things over?
During he time of the Soviet Union, one of the staples of life insofar as concerned the dispersal of information from the top to the people was that you got all of the information. All of it. Or, at least something that seemed to be kind of rich in text. Marx loved the details, Belarusians loved the details. But folks here no longer have those obligatory long attention spans and therefore it is no longer possible for people to make a long winded presentation. In Lukashenka's place, and this is as far as his daily spot on the news is concerned, he makes a very interesting presentation that gives the illusion of being from the old school. He speaks on many subjects, you get several full sentences and an argument or two from each point, but what is missing is the basis for why the argument is being presented. And of course, no one is free to bring up oppositional ideas that have not been officially agreed upon.
On the other side of the coin, we really are a poor country and no one needs to hear about this every day. Or do they? This transition from one culture to the other has been very, very hard because of the change over from the truth to what’s hot. I am not sure I blame Lukashenka for the way he portrays himself in the press. I just wonder what he is hiding.
It is all gloss, and this is no good. If reality here was a plant, it would not have enough light to live. Well, and of course that is exactly what happened. .
Point total: -2
13. Does he have the respect of his constituents?
Does Belarus respect Lukashenka? Yes they do. Do they like him? Oh, they may say that they hate him, but yes, they do. And, people are scared to death of the man. But I think in some way, and again this is purely cultural, that the man really speaks the language and people kind of get off on how hard he is and how hard of a time the man is having. I mean, he is from here and he works in the local fashion. Political disappearances? What did the usurpers expect? Did they think they were just going to walk into the man’s office and dictate policy? They got what they had coming.
Maybe a good way to say it is that Belarusians see the whole thing as some big sick joke. 15 years of starvation and not a damned thing to look forward to. But no matter how corrupt, no matter how crazy he seems to have become, the people of Belarus know exactly who their leader is.
The man’s a tough guy. And I think people kind of like this. Life is hard in Belarus. Life is really hard in Belarus. You think it is for wimps? You think you could do it? No folks, people here love him in the same way that they loved Stalin. Is he respected? Yes, they respect him. They have to because they are afraid of him and yes, they respect that too. I am sorry, I am not a propagandist. I just say what see. Yes, he is absolutely respected here and yes, I think they are going to vote for the man again because of it.
Point total: +2
14. Is he a legitimate representation of the people?
I would have to go back into the true demographic of Belarus for this answer. The pensioners like him because they feel that he has allowed them to live their lives without too much interference from the outside world. The students and businesspeople do not want him because they feel that puts too many difficult restrictions on their lives. The state workers like him because he keeps things running without too much competition which translates to personal job security. The military likes him because he supports them. Mid-level bureaucrats do not like him because his fingers are everywhere and there is no real power allowed on-site insofar as real decisions are concerned. Most workers though do not like him simply because they cannot receive any real money and blame him for this.
But is Lukashenka Belarus? I am not so sure that he is. Belarus, at least in the cities likes to dress well, and Lukashenka is a shiny suit and a businessman. But he is not really Belarus because Belarusians are under the man’s heel and unable to speak as he does. Let me explain this: I think looking back, that Clinton was very much an American icon. I mean, his way of making decisions, his familial situation: The man was living an American life, spoke the language and could be seen by outsiders as a reasonable representation of who we were at our best and brightest. This was the man's image. I know that this was probably all pre-thought-out image making as much as anything but it was out there and people could identify with the man. And while I am at it. Bush just can’t do it and he has spent probably a billion dollars trying to. And Lukashenka can't do it either. Yes, Lukashenka speaks the language when he has to, but he does not reflect the fatigue and the strain of the people of Belarus. And, as far as the sloganism, and the half-time pep talks go, I think he is speaking in echoes form a long lost culture that simply no longer is. And even if he is simply trying to make an image to aspire to, I do not think that such an image is really what modern Belarus is all about. There is simply nothing to back up his words.
The totality of the USSR was so huge that it was rather foolish to oppose the notion of acceptance, and as there were very real benefits to doing so, so people did. And happily I might add. But Belarus has no such strength, regardless of how the president represents himself and I am not sure that a more flexible and open face would not be more to the point and might be a better role model as well.
I do not see the people of Belarus as a great hand. They are much smaller, prideful to be certain, but never, ever overbearing. And they are hungry, they are listening, and they are open to opportunities. And most of all, they want to know that there is a chance, some hope. This is especially true for people in the 18 to 45 demographic. They are all out there and trying to do what they can to get by. And it is so hard here. So, no Lukashenka is not Belarus because Belarus knows damn well that that you cannot dictate policy without the backing.
Point total: -1
15. How does he handle adversity?
How does he handle it? Well, he loves the stress. He is from here and what I see from him is exactly what I see from my neighbors, both in the village and here in town. He likes to have a rough sea and probably feels he is at his best when there are some problems confronting him. I think he is like an egg in that he gets harder the more you cook him. He likes to smile and brush things aside and to show the world that he is still as strong as is possible for a man to be. Fact.
But on the other hand, I think he is cracking up. I am not saying this from the point of view of a provocateur, it is just that I have seen and heard some things on the news that have me thinking that the pressure is getting to him. And that pressure is real. I think he is under far, far more pressure than any man should ever have to endure. In fact, I think the amount of pressure he is under is even more than me, if that is possible.
But then again, the man started out as being adversarial to the west and this is what was wanted and this was why he was there in the first place. But I am not necessarily convinced that at the moment Lukashenka isn’t making things harder than they need to be. and I think he might be doing this (a la Bush) just to create a situation in which it would be more frightening than normal, so people will have to think twice about letting him go. Is he starting up with Poland now just to create a situation where it would be difficult to let him go? Is he, as with Bush, keeping things hot simply because he does not wish to lose his position?
If this is the case, and I think that I am, I am positive that it is time for him to step aside. I am a father here, and my thinking is that so much of what needs to be done is rather selfless. You simply can’t put your ego in front of your family all the time because they need to live as well. And this is hard as hell to do but if you love them, you do it. I simply do not see the difference just because we are speaking about a political title. Amazing tensile strength or no, thriving on pressure does not the best long term decision maker make and no matter how great you are, it is always easier working from strength than it is on the run. If your judgment is skewed, or if you are making decisions not for the good of your constituency but for yourself, you have to go.
But it is also right to point out that any extra pressure that exists has to come from somewhere. And I think it fair to say that before we condemn Lukashenka completely, we should remember that lot of that pressure was put there by the west and has been there and making life so ridiculously difficult for the last 15 years. And again, his resistance to that pressure was exactly what Belarus wanted and was why they voted for him.
However, in the end, the question that was posed was: Can he handle pressure? And the answer to that is that he really, really can. In fact, it is amazing how much pressure he can take. Give credit where credit is due, the man can take it.
Point total: +2
Conclusions
My point total came to -3. Not a blowout by any stretch but still to my mind, something that smacks of the truth. Alexander Lukashenka has been simply and exactly who and what Belarus wanted. He has done the job that was asked of him as well as any man on the planet could have done. He has stood up to more pressure than perhaps any other leader in the world and has maintained a great composure and strength day in and day out. But all things considered, I do not think he should continue on. I am not in froth over this decision, because in my mind, I actually do appreciate what he has done to some extent. But I think logically that the choice for him to go is the right one. I think having term limits in general means that things must change if they are to grow. I think Lukashenka very much did what was asked of him but I also think that the times have changed and that the best thing that could happen would be for Lukashenka to step back and allow the debate over who will be the next leader (and how Belarus would really like to be led) to take place.
But what would the country be like without him? The real answer to this question is simple: Without Lukashenka, Belarus would lose 90 percent of its independence, real or imagined and any shreds of what once was, even if it is all for the old folks now, will simply go away. This is a fact. This does not necessarily mean that Belarus will be absorbed by Russia, or the European Union, though I believe it will, but it does mean that the last shreds of whatever this country was for the better part of the last century will be pushed aside. And as far as that goes, I have spent a lot of time in Poland and in Lithuania and I have seen what the European influence has been there. It is impossible for me to say that life is absolutely better, but it certainly seems to me that people have more money and are a bit more ambitious than they are here. And I do not see that what we have to call 'the life' here, is so damned great any more.
Whether or not this change is a good thing though is a legitimate question. With freedom comes problems and I am not completely convinced, as I have stated many, many times in these pages, that there isn’t yet a lot to be said about the culture of the former Soviet Union. I do not see where the idea living together well should be removed completely from collective human consciousness and replaced by the great shark hunt. I absolutely appreciate the ideas of what were and have written about the beauty and subtly of that long gone lifestyle. But starvation is a horrible way to go and frankly, regardless of how strong the man likes to show us he is, there are no longer the sorts of social structures to support the idea.
And I am not the only one who knows or believes this. I have spoken to college classrooms about the pressure of doing business in the west. I have tried to impart the idea that the world outside of Belarus is not as forgiving as they might believe and that people will expect their best at all times and will not always pay for it whether or not they get it. As an American I know that whatever people might be thinking of as that panacea known as ‘freedom’, it will not be the answer to the question. There is no utopia, you work for what you receive and it is getting harder and harder all the time. But no matter how hard a picture I paint, I have yet to see more than one or two of them that believe it would be better to stay. There is, they feel, simply nothing here for them. Life inside Belarus has become very, very hard. Maybe too hard.
So in the end, though I may actually be moved by the thought of keeping it going I honestly do not see the legitimacy of doing so. I do see that there is currently some changes taking place, and that there is at least the illusion of some prosperity, a better life beginning here. But I also see that it all is passing first through the hands of the president, that it could have happened a long time ago, that almost none of it is going to the general good and that the whole of this sort of smacks as a cop out or a re-election year campaign promise. And if there are going to be such sorts of changes and of acceptance of western money and opportunities, if there is going to be this sort of life that people here are going to be leading, than I am not convinced that Alexander Lukashenka is the man for that job. Or, if he is going to be, and there is a great chance that he will be anyway, I at least would like to hear a lot of other arguments for a change about how things are going to transpire rather than just listening to his.
But like I say, this is not an easy issue for me. I have a long memory for what was but to my great chagrin, I simply do not see that most beautiful thing, which was precious enough to be willing to suffer for, in existence here any longer. It just isn’t. It may have lasted a long, long time, maybe longer than anyone thought that it would, but I simply do not see it any longer. And, as the old Russian phrase says: You must live. And so as far as that great defender of the old times is concerned, I think it is very much time to go.
Contact me at: beinghad_mail@yahoo.com
To navigate to the HOMEPAGE, please click HERE.
More soon…
posted by BEING HAD at
5:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home