No matter what anyone says about the current state of opposition parties and movements, it was they, democratic nationally oriented activists, who constantly resisted the establishment and strengthening of Lukashenka's one-man rule, fought against unification with Russia and sought to preserve national values.

And they have the right to be heard.

Briefly:

  • The West has identified Tsikhanovskaya as a representative of the Belarusian opposition, and this opinion is unlikely to change in the short term.

  • Unlike the previous leaders of the united opposition, the party did not choose Tsikhanovskaya as the "leader of the democratic forces".

  • Most of the opposition parties, which have been fighting for the democratization of Belarus for decades, are not represented in the structures of Tsikhanovskaya's office.

  • If Tsikhanovskaya wants to join the "old guard" to her structures, her current associates will have to take comfort.

  • Tsikhanovskaya's office can expect the classic fate of organizations in exile: the minimization of authority in the metropolis.

In the blog "First a defeat, then a quarrel between one's own.

Why the opposition is again looking for the guilty" Vital Tsygankov raises the topic of the struggle for leadership in the opposition and notes that the number of critical statements against Svetlana Tsikhanovskaya has increased significantly recently.

And even from those who used to be her fans or refrained from criticism.

The problem, however, lies deeper than the "quarrel between the people", which the author defines as "the main matrix of the Belarusian opposition", appealing to eloquent examples from recent history.

Because, as it seems, the situation with Tikhonovsk is fundamentally different from those that arose before.

Vitaly Tsygankov

rightly named the causes of dissatisfaction, which personally seem to me to be the main ones - this is the defeat of the protests in 2020 and a decrease in faith in a quick victory.

However, I will clarify the meanings: we are talking about a

political defeat

and a belief in a

quick victory

.

In recent history, to which the author refers, something similar happened: after 1994-1995, when the BNF did not win first in the presidential and then in the parliamentary elections, the leaders of the Front declared that, despite the political defeat, they won a moral victory: hundreds of thousands people remained loyal to democratic and national ideals.

However, the direction of the country's development was determined by those who won politically.

Time passed and (of course, not without the influence of other factors, including incessant government propaganda) the influence of the People's Front, like the opposition in general, fell to a minimum.

In this sense, the situation with the "new leaders" is even more dramatic, because, unlike 1994-1995, when the political activity of society was low compared to the very beginning of the nineties, the year 2020 brought an unprecedented number of people to the streets for Belarus.

It is believed that the figure of 600-700 thousand on August 16 across the country will not be an exaggeration.

This is what the theorists of the revolution called "people's forces".

Why these forces did not win is a separate question (and not really analyzed yet).

Of course, a significant part of those who left, despite the repression, did not change their position in relation to Lukashenka.

But faith really faded.

Here it is also worth remembering that for almost a year, people from Tikhanovskaya's closest circle claimed that the regime was "about to fall", even mentioning specific dates (November 2020, May 2021), and urged people not to reduce pressure.

People believed, went to rallies - and went to prison.

The disappointment was all the more bitter.

But there is also a group of people (and quite a large one) for whom a political defeat is not the "end of history", because they showed political and civil activity long before 2020.

The West has decided with whom to talk about Belarus

I don't know if Svetlana Tsikhanovskaya managed to meet

Henry Kissinger

, this almost 100-year-old patriarch of world politics, at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

They say that in the 70s, when he was the US Secretary of State, he liked to repeat the phrase: "Who should I call in Europe?".

It was implied that when there was a need to find out the position of the "socialist camp", it was enough to look at Moscow.

Democratic Europe consisted of two dozen countries, which often had different approaches to this or that problem (after the formation of the EU, the answer to such a question became simpler: you should call Brussels).

In its relations with the opposition forces in such authoritarian countries as Belarus, the West defines one entity and conducts business with it.

It is usually a person or a political force that received more votes than others in elections (presidential or parliamentary).

The reasons are various: it is believed that such a person or party has a better chance than others to win the next election;

she, as a rule, enjoys the greatest authority in society.

Finally, purely technically: it's simpler, you don't need to spray (perhaps this reason is even the main one).

In relation to Lukashenka's opponents, whether anyone likes it or not, the West has decided even more than two years ago: you should call Svetlana Tsikhanovskaya.

And, as is usually the case, he focused exclusively on her and her structures.

Let's not give an estimate now, let's record it as a reality.

Vitaly Tsygankov recalls the episode when, soon after the 2006 elections, the Congress of Democratic Forces deprived Alexander Milinkevich of the status of the leader of the united opposition, which it had given him half a year before, nominating him as the only presidential candidate.

As is known, representatives of the absolute majority of the democratic parties active at the time (with the exception of the KHP-BNF, which boycotted the elections) voted for the nomination (and later for the "dissolution").

However, the "debunking" did not affect Milinkevich's political weight in the international aspect: his participation in the presidential elections and the events that accompanied them (Ploscha-2006 and others) gave him authority and weight in the eyes of Western leaders.

He continued to be received in Brussels, and in Washington, and in the parliaments of European countries, he was awarded the European Union prize "For Freedom of Thought" named after Andrei Sakharov.

Milinkevich's opinion was also important for those who are called "donors".

In other words, the "delegitimization" of the parties was not taken into account by the international community in the matter of "who to talk to in democratic Belarus" - the West was talking to Milinkevich for almost the entire term until the next presidential elections in 2010.

Not only with him, of course, but primarily with him.

"President-elect" or "leader of democratic forces"?

A similar situation seems to have developed around Tikhonovskaya.

It was she who was perceived (and accepted) by the West in 2020 as a representative of the Belarusian people, and this status will be preserved until the next presidential elections.

And taking into account the fact that the opposition, most likely, will not be able to register their candidates for the upcoming so-called

elections, even if he wishes to participate in the campaign at all, the term can be extended further.

And neither her real rating in Belarus (which is impossible to determine, because independent sociological services have long been destroyed), nor the degree of support or lack of support by civil society structures or the remnants of democratic parties, will have any meaning (as it already does).

Especially since, unlike Milinkevich, these parties did not nominate her for president (as you know, in the spring of 2020 they held their own "primaries" with modest results).

Considering the latter, Tsikhanovskaya has an absolutely complete political and moral right not to take into account the opinion of the parties (as Lukashenka did and is doing since 1994).

But only under one condition: if she was not called "the leader of democratic forces".

It is different from the status of "president-elect", which, although it is controversial (personally, the author of these lines is inclined to believe that Tsikhanovskaya collected the majority of votes during the voting, but opponents will easily raise counterarguments: where are the numbers for all precincts and what is the total number?) , but is based on the vote in August 2020, it is problematic to say what the status of the "leader of democratic forces" is based on.

From a formal point of view, no democratic parties and organizations nominated Tsikhanovskaya for the presidency, which was already mentioned above.

No parties have made unequivocal statements in which they would recognize her as such a leader - neither after August 9, 2020, nor until today.

There was no general assembly of representatives of democratic parties and organizations that would confirm the status of Tsikhanovskaya as a general democratic leader.

They can recall the congress last year in August in Vilnius, but its participants, as far as is known, were determined with Tsikhanovskaya's Office itself, there was no party representation there.

Party field after the battle

"But which parties can we talk about when their activities are practically paralyzed and they, in the legal sense, are living out the last days before re-registration, which is unlikely to pass?"

- a question may be asked, the answer to which is obvious.

Indeed, the parties have been defeated, their activity on the territory of Belarus has actually been stopped - many leaders have been sentenced to long prison terms (including the leader of the UGP

Mykola Kozlov

, the chairman of Narodnaya Hromada

Mykola Statkevich

, the chairman of the BHD

Paval Sevarynets

, the chairman of the BNF Party

Ryhor Kastusiov

).

As for activities abroad, the situation looks a little better.

Some representatives of the parties (literally, units) were included in the Tikhonovskaya Office, the structures of the United Transitional Cabinet and the Coordination Council.

The UGP has the strongest representation in the new structures — the founder of the party Aleksandar Dobravolski

, its former chairman

Anatol Lyabedzka

, and the deputy chairman of the party

Anna Krasulina

work in the Tikhanovskaya office

.

Was there any delegation by the parties of these persons in the structure of Tikhonovskaya?

Information about this could not be found.

As far as is known, the BNF Party, the People's Party, the Belarusian Social Democratic Party, the Belarusian Left Party "Just World", the Solidarity Movement "Together", and the public campaign "Speak the Truth" are not represented in the "headquarters" in any way.

Judging by the statements of the leader of the KHP-BNF

Zyanon Pazniak

, the cooperation of the "Free Belarus" party, created mainly from the members of his party "Free Belarus", with the Office of Tsikhanovskaya is excluded for a number of reasons, including ideological ones (the draft Constitution prepared by the Office leaves the status of the state language to the Russian language, for a long time Tsikhanovskaya did not questioned the expediency of the existence of the "union state", etc.).

Whether proposals were made to the leaders of other parties, whether they could participate in the structures of Tsikhanovskaya - the questions are open.

Parties are almost destroyed, but people remain

Again, the suspension of the activities of most parties does not mean that the members of these parties have disappeared - thousands of activists who were forced to leave Belarus, unlike those who remained in the Motherland, have much more freedom to express their beliefs, including in social networks .

We have to think that they are exactly what Vitaly Tsygankov has in mind when he writes about dissatisfaction with the activities of the Tsikhanovskaya Office.

Among the claims that had to be read are the almost complete lack of transparency in the adoption of certain decisions (including personnel ones), the use of rank-and-file activists only when it is necessary to make a "picture" for the press.

They also write that "staff members" do not invite representatives of the diaspora to their meetings with local politicians of certain countries, and so on.

The extent to which such claims are valid is debatable - what matters is that they are expressed.

There is one more point related to the perception of the "old guard" of the personnel policy of the Office.

For decades, in the so-called titular (or classic) opposition, a tradition has developed, when leaders did not emerge from nowhere: they went through the path of activism in parties and movements, were nominated to the governing bodies of organizations, elected to the positions of chairmen or their deputies by voting.

Yes, sometimes these processes were accompanied by scandals, and it happened, even splits, but the process was open, it was covered by the independent press.

Nothing like that happened with Tikhonovskaya's office and could not happen, because it is not a party, and it was formed in extreme conditions.

However, more and more often you can hear: "Okay, Tikhonovskaya was voted for, even the government recognized hundreds of thousands of voters for her, but who chose ...?".

Instead of an ellipsis, different nicknames are used.

Or they mean all together.

(In parentheses, we note that there are politicians who had not only party authority, but also a mandate of public trust in the office: Aleksandar Dobravolski was elected in a fierce competitive struggle as a People's Deputy of the USSR and a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of Belarus of the 12th convocation; a deputy of the Supreme Council of the 12th and 13 convocations, Anatoly Lyabedzka was elected; Yury Gubarevich defeated the representative of the authorities in the elections to the Minsk City Council. But such people are rare).

Of course, one can cite the example of the model of presidential republics, where, having received the mandate of popular trust, the leaders have the right to appoint persons to their offices without consultation with anyone and even to completely form the apparatus.

True, the head and key members of the government are usually approved by the parliament.

Such a model of "separation of powers" can hardly be suitable for an emigration structure.

And yet, if such questions are asked two and a half years after its formation, the problem exists.

One can understand those who fought for democratic changes for decades and suffered from repression.

He remained faithful to his convictions - and now he sees that someone not only from his former circle, but also from the very institutions that carried out repressions, is speaking on behalf of the "democratic forces".

All this can be attributed to the category of personal ambitions and personal grievances, but: politics is made by people, society consists of people, and people, as you know, are not angels.

And in politics, if you want to have support, you have to take this into account.

The right to be heard

And finally, the most important thing.

The majority of democratic activists (including those who ended up abroad) participated in the democratic movement not since 2020, but much earlier, some since the 90s.

And no matter what anyone says about the current state of opposition parties and movements, it was they, the democratic nationally oriented activists, who constantly resisted the establishment and strengthening of Lukashenka's one-man power, fought against unification with Russia and sought to preserve national values ​​(it is worth remembering at least the struggle for Belarusian school age).

In fact, they spent years preparing the ground on which the 2020 protest arose, which elevated Svetlana Tsikhanovskaya to the top of opposition politics.

The reorganization of the Coordination Council was announced recently.

It is quite possible that it will include representatives of the "old opposition", but for now these are only predictions.

And I will allow myself to express my opinion that the mere co-optation of representatives of parties (or former parties) will not satisfy the activists - perhaps, if a couple is released, it will not be for a long time at all.

Activists of "democratic forces" believe that they have the right to be heard.

And their representatives, if they are invited to cooperate, have the right to be not on the fourth or fifth roles, but on an equal footing with those who make decisions.

But in such a case, the latter will have to take a little comfort.

Will they want to do it?

Of course, if Lukashenka's regime lasts a year and a half, all this has only an abstract, theoretical meaning: a significant part of political emigrants will return to Belarus, democratic elections will be held and, quite possibly, we will see representatives of the Tsikhanovskaya Office at the head of the state.

And perhaps, completely different people (as in 1994, when it was not the opposition that came to power).

However, if the current situation is fixed for years, Tsikhanovskaya's Office has every chance to share the fate of all organizations in exile: minimizing the impact on the situation in the metropolis and limiting the problems of the diaspora exclusively.

However, this is also important, taking into account the current number of emigrants from Belarus.

Opinions

expressed in blogs represent the views of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position.

Secure communication


with our editors.

HERE

  • Siarhei Naumchyk

    Journalist of Radio Svaboda

    navumchyks@rferl.org

    Subscribe