Yuri Drakakhrust

writes about this in a column on the "Zerkalo" portal .

On February 7, the public association "Belaya Rus" held a meeting of the organizing committee in Minsk regarding the creation of a political party.

This public association, which has existed since 2007, has been trying to transform into a party for many years.

However, every time

Alexander Lukashenko

's answer was a categorical "no".

The reason that Lukashenka did not allow "Belarus" to become a party was his political philosophy, within which he is a leader, leader, "father" and his people, his "children".

In this simple scheme, there was simply no place for any mediators, other subjects of politics, no matter how loyal they may be.

As Lukashenko said at the beginning of his presidency, there is only one politician in the country.

What has changed now?

Time.

Russian political scientist

Aleksandar Baunov

in his book "The End of the Regime.

How three European dictatorships ended" is a dialogue between the Spanish dictator

Francisco Franco

and his appointed successor, Prince

Juan Carlos

.

The prince asked the caudillo how to act in a political situation.

Franko replied that his advice to the interlocutor was useless: "You will not be able to manage like me.

Besides, if you rule, Spain will be completely different."

Juan Carlos and Francisco Franco, 1969

The young Lukashenko also understands this.

And the problem arises - how to ensure continuity, how to make sure that the system and regime created by him do not collapse like a house of cards.

And how it can happen - 2020 showed.

By the way, he showed a lot.

He showed that the bureaucratic, Chinovan "vertical" is an effective thing, but in a situation of acute political confrontation, it works only if there is a strong will-power impulse from above.

The independent political motivation to defend oneself in the "vertical" is not too strong.

Hence the conclusion - as much as it is a pity to change the scheme of unearthly beauty with "father" and "children", there should be more than one politician in order to preserve the regime in the future.

And the search goes through institutional construction.

The decree on the transfer of power to the Security Council in the event of the violent death of the head of state, the granting of broad powers to the All-Belarusian People's Assembly, the current permission for "Belarus" to transform into a party - all these are elements of the creation of such an "insurance network" of institutions that will ensure the survival of the system after the departure of its architect. .

It is worth noting the fallacy of many assessments that equate the future party "White Russia" with the CPSU.

In order to scold Lukashenka together with "Bela Russia", this is not a bad comparison.

But, generally speaking, the comparison is incorrect.

The CPSU was the real governing mechanism in the USSR, it was actually the state.

"United Russia" in the Russian Federation, pro-presidential parties in, say, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are not mechanisms of governance.

Neither will the "White Russia" party.

Apart from everything else - and because there is nothing in "White Russia" even close to the communist ideology, which in its best times inspired people all over the world - from British lords to wild tribes.

Regimes with an important role of the dominant party are not only analogues of the Soviet, Nazi or fascist regimes.

The experience of the mentioned post-Soviet countries, the experience of Mexico, where the Institutional Revolutionary Party ruled for dozens of years in the 20th century, is basically not the CPSU.

These are the mechanisms of recruitment of the ruling elite, political mobilization, transfer of power, the same "insurance network" that keeps the regime even after the departure of the "father of the people".

Such is the function of these parties, at least ideally.

Apparently, approximately the same role has been prepared for the "Belaya Rus" party.

Again, ideally.

And even ideally, Lukashenka would hardly want (and would be able to, even if he wanted to) transform his personalistic dictatorship into a party one.

"White Russia" party as another institutional "insurance net" - yes, the CPSU - no.

Whether "Belaya Rus" will be able to fulfill the role prepared for it is a difficult question.

In the aforementioned Azerbaijan, the transfer of power from

Heydar Aliyev

to

Ilham

went quite smoothly, in Kazakhstan, the transition of power took place quite violently and unexpectedly.

However, pro-presidential parties did not play any special role in these processes.

In the same Spain, after Franco, the successor of the dictator - King Juan Carlos - and the functionary of the Francoist party "Falang"

Adolfo Suarez

worked together and very effectively carried out the dismantling of the Francoist regime and the peaceful transition of the country to democracy.

This is not a rule, but it happens.

Lukashenka's experiments with the Security Council, the All-Belarusian People's Assembly and the "White Russia" party are all the result of understanding that the successors will not be able to rule as he did.

And how they will be able to - neither he nor they really know.

There are no guarantees, but the search for a political "elixir of immortality" will continue.

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

  • Yuri Drakakhrust

    Radio Svaboda journalist


    drakakhrusty@rferl.org

    FACEBOOKSubscribe