The protests in Belarus, which began in the aftermath of the rigged presidential election in August 2020, where President Alexander Lukashenko claimed victory for a sixth term, continue. They have shrunk in size, not least because of the onset of winter, but they remain defiant.
The protesters are strategic and increasingly counter the security forces with a series of decentralized local protests. Nevertheless, several hundred people are arrested each week during the protests that have taken place since August 9 in favor of new elections and a transition of power.
The international research project MOBILISE, in which Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS) is a partner, has been running an online survey among Belarusian protesters since mid-August.
One of the most memorable figures of the interim results from early November, which are based on the responses of about 11,000 Belarusians, show that 70 percent of those surveyed remain optimistic that the protests will succeed in ousting Lukashenko, who has been in power since 1994. 80 percent reported that they were actively protesting for the first time. This bottom-up politicization of the whole of Belarusian society is the most important effect of the protests so far.
But any crisis that lasts for a long time, be it a war like in Ukraine or a mass mobilization like in Belarus, stops being news after a while.
With regard to the developments in Belarus, attention levels have definitely dropped across Europe. There is media coverage, but not nearly as much as in the first two months after the presidential election. And although the EU as a whole is moving toward a third round of sanctions against the Belarusian regime that will include Belarusian companies and further senior officials, it seems to be settling into accepting the stalemate in Belarus as the new normal for some time to come.
Many EU governments are in direct contact with the de facto leader of the opposition, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who is based in Lithuania. There are initiatives in place to help Belarusian individuals seeking asylum or scholarships, and financial aid packages for when the crisis ends are being discussed. However, the EU’s direct impact on the developments on the ground remains limited.
Initially, the leadership of the opposition Coordination Council had emphasized that the crisis had to be resolved in Belarus by Belarusians, warning against the involvement of Russia and the EU.
The message in the early weeks of the protests was that a geopolitical reorientation away from Russia and toward the EU was not on the agenda. Over time, this rhetoric has been toned down. In particular Tikhanovskaya has explicitly been calling for further sanctions and mediation by the EU, especially by Germany.
With regard to foreign policy orientations, there is already a clear sign of polarization in society: according to the MOBILISE survey data from early November, just under 40 percent of the surveyed protesters would like closer relations with the EU, while just over 40 percent oppose this idea.
The union state with Russia is only a preference for 8 percent of the respondents. By comparison, on the question of whether Russia constitutes the main threat to Belarus today, the surveyed protesters remain divided: about 38 percent agreed with the statement, about 37 percent did not.
The polarization of views, already visible in the survey, is likely to increase. This is not an attempt to talk up polarization, but rather take seriously the fact that the Belarusian protesters’ demands have evolved from a call for repeat elections to one for comprehensive democratic reforms.
As democratic values are associated with the EU—or at least with most of its member states—and not with Russia, the internal logic of the protests points to a new Belarusian foreign policy orientation in due course.
On November 26, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a visit to Minsk. He was sent by Russian President Vladimir Putin to remind Lukashenko of his promise to bring the situation under control and initiate a transition process based on constitutional reforms.
Whether Lukashenko will heed the “advice” is an open question, but the EU should be careful not to overlook the critical moment when the Kremlin moves toward pushing Lukashenko into a reform process.
Given Lukashenko’s apparent intention to cling to power for as long as possible and Russia’s invested interests in close relations with Belarus, this is bound to be a slow process. Media images of Lavrov reminding Lukashenko that he should start implementing the political changes agreed with Putin are the clearest sign yet that Moscow prefers a peaceful transition based on reforms.
How long Lukashenko can be part of this transition process remains unclear, and Putin is obviously not known for democratic constitutional reforms.
However, the EU as a whole should start watching the developments in Belarus more closely again. It needs to be prepared to clear a path toward negotiations between the Belarusian regime and representatives of the opposition Coordination Council.
Once these negotiations have started, their remit or outcome cannot be controlled entirely by any side—but the EU will need to be ready with a coherent position. It is time to formulate this position now.
Gwendolyn Sasse is a nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe and director of the Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS) in Berlin.
Comments(2)
Democracy is the crucial element in the morality of self-determination, sovereignty and nationalism. The problem is that there is no morality in the history of geopolitics. If there was; peace would reign. Europe is a divided continent. NATO expansion has paralyzed the potential for democratic outcomes throughout the entirety of Eastern Europe. Whereas once the US could claim its presence saved France and England, held all forms of totalitarianism at bay and promised hope to those unable to exercise self-determination; those days belong to another century -- a century where power politics ruled supreme. Today the world is beset with even greater problems than power politics -- problems of an existential nature. Just yesterday, the Secretary-General of the UN declared that humanity is on a suicidal course in its war against the natural world. But in order to make peace with Mother Nature, we first need to change the ugly historical trajectory of our own human nature. For democracy to flourish, global geopolitics must change. I submit that without peace nothing is possible. Not for Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, the Ukraine or any nation in Europe. Russia straddles two continents and has been attacked from three sides. Now, in this existential age of climate change, Moscow must also be concerned about the possibility of naval attack from the Arctic north. In other words, the great irony is that as humanity destroys its own ability to survive; it still seeks geopolitical advantage from the very consequences of that suicidal quest. Simply put: Such behavior is inimical not only to natural survival, but to any form of democratic political outcome. The threats to national survival must end if humanity is to overcome the dire threats that we all face as biological humans. Europe could begin to lead the way. But only if it could envision a new and balanced security architecture for its own neighborhood. Minsk needs a more appropriate response from the EU than reflexive Russia bashing as exampled by NATO expansion and color revolutions. First and foremost, Belarus democracy requires European peace, not continued "alliance hegemony" and nuclear gamesmanship. Time is running out, as we are less than three minutes to midnight on the Union of Concerned Scientists' timepiece to a nuclear weapons apocalypse. Our suicidal war against Nature is the ultimate irony in our "advancement of knowledge". It seems the more we know, the less judgement we have.
Factual, and it is indeed likely that the aspiration to democracy may push the protesters towards Europe. The example of the evolution of the ukrainian economy should however be a reminder of what should be avoided. The cost of the brutal breakdown of all relations with Russia , on the initiative of Ukraine, was (and still is) very high. Europe cannot substitute easily to Russia as a client, the production just does not fit.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.