Belarusian Totalitarianism is a Reality
By Andrei Sannikov International Coordinator of Charter'97 civil initiative Member of the council of the democratic bloc "Free Belarus" http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2003/07/28/sannikov Posted on July 28, 2003 For a number of years the situation in Belarus has been described by different words that demonstrate the nature of the Belarusian regime. Journalists describe it as "Lukashism", "kolkhoz dictatorship", "last dictatorship in Europe" or even "velvet dictatorship" which is incomprehensible. International organizations in their documents prefer not to define the regime and note "the lack of democratic values", "transitional period of development" sometimes calling the political system in Belarus "a defective democracy" which also has little sense. Nevertheless the variety of definitions of the Belarusian regime has a common denominator: its non-democratic nature. In political science of the twentieth century non-democratic forms government had two definitions: authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Under the influence of Francis Fukuyama who summarized the political history of the last century political scientists began searching for a definition that could substitute the term "totalitarianism". It is widely believed that the term has gone together with the Soviet system and that liberal democracy has no real opposing system, which makes it possible to speak about the world progress towards democracy with some deviations. It is quite possible although the Belarusian situation seems to prove the opposite. The initial period of Lukashenko's rule was indeed characterized by weakening of those minimum principles of democracy that emerged in the political life of the country despite the omnipotent nomenclature. However after the unlawful adoption of the new constitution in 1996 the regime developed quite fast and today there are grounds to call it totalitarian. The authoritarian regime in Europe existed in Slovakia till 1998. Comparison of Lukashenko's and Meciar's regimes shows that political system in Belarus is much tougher. Lukashenko used quite effectively "the gray zone" of the post soviet area that was created after the collapse of the Soviet Union to bring back to Belarus the totalitarian system. He managed on one hand to put Belarus in a "time capsule", on the other � to take into account the new realities, first of all the information revolution, and to adapt appropriately his totalitarian system. It is not possible to say with certainty whether the Belarusian situation is an anachronism or an emerging neo-totalitarianism of the twenty first century. 1. Brief excursion into the history of emergence and development of totalitarian regimes demonstrates the resemblance of Lukashenko's politics in Belarus to those regimes even when roughly compared. Quite often the behavior of the Belarusian leader seem comical but it doesn't affect the essence of the developments in Belarus. Totalitarianism as a rule begins with a declaration of a policy aimed at abolition of inequality through the solution of social and economic problems in a special way known only to the leader. In the beginning of the last century totalitarianism was built on the basis of communist ideology. Today authoritarian or emerging totalitarian regimes build their doctrines on denial of both capitalism and socialism. In our case it's a Belarusian model of "market socialism", i.e. the special way, which is common to totalitarian systems. The people are told that the model includes "what was good in the USSR and what is good in the West", however only the authorities have the right to decide what is good. Thus this concept serves as a controlling and ideological tool. Initially totalitarian leaders do not declare that their goal is to build a totalitarian system. Mussolini who liked the term that was used by his opposition (G.Amedola and P.Gobetti) was probably the only exception. Usually the goal that is declared is to ensure prosperity for all through justice which is performed by the leader. Lukashenko owes his support at the first presidential election, most democratic of all elections held so far in Belarus, to the so-called "fight with corruption" that was to lead to prosperity. The support of the society was used to create the regime of personal power, i.e. authoritarian one, that was a basis for establishing a totalitarian system. All this happened quite fast in Belarus within a short historical period since the well-established methods of totalitarian regimes, both of soviet and fascist types, were used. The grounds for creation or recreation of a totalitarian system in Belarus were laid as a result of the 1996 referendum which was used by Lukashenko to impose the new constitution that gave him an unlimited power. In 1999 the authoritarian power in Belarus has crossed the moral barrier that kept it from further degeneration. That year has become the most tragic one for the Belarusian democracy: the mysterious death of Guennadi Karpenko, the uncontested leader of the opposition, the disappearances of Yuri Zaharenko and Victor Gonchar, the leading opposition politicians, as well as Anatoly Krassovsky, the businessman who supported the democratic forces meant that the power had begun physical elimination of its opponents. The final stage of building a totalitarian system has started after the 2001 presidential election, when Lukashenko, having secured yet another five years in power for himself began thinking of an unlimited extension of his presidential term. For this he needed a totalitarian system since the authoritarian model has exhausted itself and couldn't cover up the failures, especially in economy. When analyzed from the point of the form of government the Belarusian situation reveals practically all recognized features totalitarianism except a single mass party (this feature was pointed out in the works of C.Fridrich and Z.Brzezinski). However there is certain logic in this, which is present not only in Belarus but also in Ukraine and Russia where the leadership prefer to stay non-partisan. To a large extent it could be explained by quite a strong rejection of the former soviet mono-party system at the time when this leadership was coming to power. In Belarus Lukashenko did it somewhat differently. He practically declared himself a successor of the former communist leadership of the USSR, he uses the CPSU methods but he didn't create his own party even though he could have controlled it completely. To some extent this model is more effective since it does not require any formal procedures for decision-making. One person and his loyal group, which controls the executive power in the country, decide everything. Besides, in Belarus at the time when the first president was elected there existed minimal political pluralism and several parties. In order to avoid competition and to diminish the role of the parties Lukashenko declared himself "elected by all people" and excluded the parties from real political life. The totalitarian scheme was turned upside down � non-partisan group took the place of a mass party and the role of unreliable non-party members was ascribed to the parties. 2. The definition of totalitarianism given by Juan Linz, one the most reputable authors in this area, is more appropriate for the Belarusian situation. He speaks of centralization and creation of monistic power structure in which the ruling group is not responsible before the elected body and cannot be deprived of the power by institutional means. It was J.Linz who suggested that party form of power is not necessarily required for a totalitarian rule. All other features of totalitarianism are present in the Belarusian regime. First of all it's a permanent objective of totally control the society, all forms of social life. In Belarus this process is of absolute nature. Lukashenko takes practically all decisions in politics and economy personally. He also decides which areas of cultural life should have priority. Besides public control the Belarusian regime uses the well-known methods of secretly following the citizens. The cases of unauthorized tapping of personal phones, discovery of bugs in apartments and offices of political organizations are well known. The next feature of totalitarianism is the absence of the division of power. The unlawful introduction in 1996 of the new constitution eliminated the independence of the legislature and the judiciary and made the president of Belarus virtually the owner of the country. In today's Belarus Lukashenko and his group in the administration and security council staff control all the power in the country. The rule of law does not exist. The laws are prepared in the administration and serve as tools of totalitarianism. The leader stands above the law and the law is in fact a formalization of repression. The constitution with all its flaws is not enough for the totalitarian system and the functioning of the state and social life are regulated by presidential decrees that have the status of instruments of direct action. One of the most typical features of totalitarianism is monopoly for mass media, strict censorship and mass propaganda of the "advantages" of the totalitarian system. Today it is not necessary to control mass media completely. For propagandistic control of the society it is sufficient to exercise monopoly for electronic media and official press. Since the USSR the situation in information area has undergone revolutionary changes. At first it looked that transparency of information will no longer allow to control the production and dissemination of information. It proved to be different. Quite soon it became obvious that there is no need to control all the information. Pictures of "a beautiful western life" that scared the Soviet ideologists proved to be not so dangerous. Moreover, it is western films and TV shows that help to compensate the absence of objective political and economic information. The public opinion in Belarus has gone back to the Soviet stereotype: "their life is different, it's not for us". This phenomenon of public apathy is also a feature of a totalitarian society. As for the non-state political press, in the beginning it was allowed to exist, however under close control of state bodies. Later those papers that to different extents maintained their opposing views came under heavy economic, political and propagandistic pressure. Most of them were closed � "Svaboda", "Naviny", "Day", "Pahohya", "Rabochy", "Belorusskaya delovaya gazeta" and its supplement "Dlya sluzhebnogo polzovaniya" were suspended and so on. Those papers that are left with their limited circulation present no danger to the authorities. Thus the monopoly for electronic media and printed press with large circulation, strict control over the non-state and proliferation of TV and radio entertainment provides for a necessary control of information. The fact that over the last year and a half the majority of the independent media had to stop circulating also proves that the totalitarian system in Belarus has been established. Internet is the next in line. Fast growing popularity of internet and critical number of users that can influence the public opinion will inevitably lead to the attempts to block the access to political web-sites for Belarusian users. Totalitarian system usually is based on a detailed ideology. Belarus lacks what could be called ideology, nevertheless it has "ideological vertical" (the system of control bodies), the posts of political workers are introduced, and there is a course of "Fundamentals of the ideology of the Belarusian state". In fact the ideology is nothing but a compilation of phrases, symbols and slogans of the soviet times, quite often illiterate and irrational, for example Lukashenko's coat of arms and flag that contradict the heraldic rules. At the first stage of authoritarian rule one of the obstacles to the introduction of ideology was the absence of a ruling party, which usually serves as the carrier of ideology. For the totalitarianism it became irrelevant that there was no system of values that could be called a proper ideology or absence of a ruling party as a vehicle for this ideology. It was sufficient to declare that ideology exists and compliance with it will be controlled whereas non-compliance will be punished. It is obvious that the subject, the source and the implementer of "the ideology" is Lukashenko himself, sort of an Aryan, "a new type of man". Yet another feature of totalitarianism closely connected with ideology is the selective attitude towards history. Since the Belarusian model is based on the remnants of the soviet ideology, those periods of history that precede the soviet epoch are neglected with few exceptions. The soviet past on the contrary is declared the only history of the Belarusian state and is proliferated in its most primitive forms: war movies, kolkhozes and the USSR as a whole as an example to be followed and recreated. In Belarus, at the level of mass conscience the soviet history is absorbed easier since the proper history of Belarus has not become a regular subject in schools and universities. The favorite occupation of a totalitarian power and one of its most visible features is search for internal and external enemies. Usually they are dissidents, foreign states, and former leadership. Here Lukashenko also follows the totalitarian rules. Enemy number one is opposition, independent press. External enemies are democratic states, mostly from the West, international organizations, human rights defenders, and foreign media. The difference with Belarusian system is that it does not use national basis as against other known totalitarian systems. That's why in Belarusian situation the enemies are the national intelligentsia, national culture. Any entrepreneur, big or small, whether he is successful or not is also the enemy. When internal business is not enough the enemies are found amongst Russian businessmen. It is necessary to support negative attitude towards prosperity, to prevent the emergence of the middle class. >From time to time when economic failures are impossible to explain by the usual set of enemies Lukashenko finds enemies among his own people: saboteurs, corrupt officials etc. He then organizes public shows blaming the government, the "vertical administration", his aides, firing them and ordering criminal prosecution. A totalitarian system has to keep its fight with enemies at a high level of tension. A totalitarian regime needs a system of terror, mass intimidation, strengthening of repressive function of special services. In Belarus the repression is directed not only at the opposition, but also against businessmen, directors of enterprises. Special targets are politicians, journalists and the youth. The Belarusian regime keeps the society in the state of fear using the fact that soviet type fear is still present in the mass conscience. For example, the authorities seem not to prevent the dissemination of the information on the disappeared politicians; don't stop street actions organized to commemorate these tragic events. The authorities need this information to be disseminated to strengthen the fear in the society. The totalitarian regime denies the existence of a recognized or "system" opposition. Despite the existence in Belarus of opposition groups and parties, that is constitutionally legal, the authorities do not recognize their right for existence or even for alternative point of view. According to totalitarianism any opposition is the enemy of the people and not representatives of a large part of the society. The recognition of the opposition as an equal partner, moreover as a side in negotiations, would mean the recognition of the defeat of the totalitarian regime. The above features seem to be enough to state that Belarus has all the features of a totalitarian system. Besides the tendencies of the recent years that led to the strengthening of control over the society demonstrate that authoritarian system in Belarus has developed into a totalitarian one. J.Linz, mentioned above, considers that totalitarian system differs from an authoritarian one by elimination of political plurality and measures to eliminate plurality in the society. Political pluralism in Belarus is practically eliminated since none independent political group participates in the government and cannot influence the process of governing itself. Among the factors that led to the establishment of totalitarian system, besides the initial Lukashenko's wish to obtain an absolute power, are the following: � Spectacular decrease in Lukashenko's popularity in the society and weakening support in the official circles which required tougher system of power � The necessity to extend Lukashenko's term in power using unlawful methods that is possible only within a totalitarian system � The necessity to strengthen control of information to cover the real economic situation 3. One country is usually not enough for a totalitarian regime. Totalitarian leaders are seriously infected with messianic ideas. Lukashenko is no exception. Having gotten the power thanks to his populist image he has expanded the sphere of his interests. Not measuring Belarus' international weight and his own ambitions Lukashenko in his statements called to recreate the USSR, to build "a Slavic union" with Russia and Yugoslavia, to establish a strategic axis Beijing-Delhi-Moscow-Minsk-Teheran etc. Those statements were not as harmless as they appeared to be. In all those cases the Belarusian regime contributed to the destabilization of the situation in the neighboring countries and in the region. It continues to openly support the revanchist forces in Russia. Despite signature with Boris Yeltsin of the agreements on the union state Lukashenko publicly blamed policy of the former Russian president and spoke against him personally. Even today, when there is a more sober attitude to the Belarusian leader in Kremlin Lukashenko manages to impose his political intrigue on Russia, doesn't comply with his obligations, disavows the agreements that have been signed. The whole scenario with the so-called "union state" was invented to allow Lukashenko to occupy key positions in Russian politics and wait till he gets a chance to become president of Russia or of a union state. This scenario is still valid. The ties of the Belarusian regime with other totalitarian or authoritarian regimes are common knowledge. One of the most dangerous manifestations of a totalitarian system is an obsession to have weapons of mass destruction. It is common for all totalitarian states irrespective of their size, geography and influence. The Belarusian leader regularly speaks of "super weapon" in his public addresses. Several years ago when visiting the center of nuclear research he said that the scientists should carry out all kinds of research, clearly hinting on military technologies. Recently he spoke of special conventional weapon that Belarus possesses. Taking into account the fact that Belarus was part of the Soviet nuclear power that actively developed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, these statements shouldn't be taken easily. 4. A totalitarian system as against an authoritarian one intends to control all spheres of public life and succeeds in it. Public and state institutions formally exist but are not able to function independently. The government is an appendix of a ruling group and has no right to take independent decisions. After the presidential election of 2001 the ruling group in Belarus has taken radical steps to strengthen its control of the society, which makes it possible to argue that the totalitarian system in Belarus has been established. � The system of ideological control designed to ensure loyalty of the population to authorities is almost set � The control of the Federation of Trade Unions � the largest labour organization � was ensured. V.Goncharik, the single candidate of the opposition at 2001 presidential election was changed for a more obedient F.Vitko and then for L.Kozik, the official of the presidential administration, who today initiated an indefinite extension of Lukashenko's term in office. The official trade unions have lost even their seemingly autonomous status. � The mass youth organization � Belarusian Republican Youth Union (BRSM) � was created that is completely controlled by the regime. School and university students are under pressure to join BRSM. � Simultaneously with destruction of the independent press new TV and FM stations designed to intensify propaganda, were created � There is an ongoing campaign of intimidation against directors; hundreds of criminal cases were instituted against economic managers that proved their ability to be more or less independent in their activities. � There is a true war against entrepreneurs that could form a middle class in Belarus � Belarusian language magazines that were the source of not only Belarusian history and culture but of an alternative view on the situation in the country virtually have been destroyed � The amendments to the law on demonstrations were introduced according to which a party could be banned in case of a single violation of this law. The recognition of the completion of the totalitarianism in Belarus would allow to put the activities of the opposition inside the country and policy of democratic states on Belarus into a new perspective. Totalitarian system does not allow the existence of democratic institutions, such as parliament, or organized structures of democratic forces. The USSR also had a parliament � the Supreme Soviet � but it didn't play any role in the system of power. In Belarus formally there are such organized forms of democratic community as parties, NGOs, independent press, parliament. However their functions are either made completely void � the parliament, or there are kept within strict boundaries � independent press, or they are gradually being eliminated � parties. Partisan organization of the opposition under totalitarian system is hardly possible. Totalitarianism cannot allow the existence of an organized entity of dissidents and to recognize its legality. Unfortunately, the Belarusian experience proves it despite the fact that the parties have constitutional possibility to exist. The authorities do not treat parties as lawful entities. They don't have access to the government, neither to the official mass media; they cannot influence the laws and practice of the government. Having practically no rights the parties have many obligations that they must comply with or face their banning. One of such obligations is quite devious: the parties, when registered or re-registered are obliged to submit to the authorities the lists of their members with detailed data, including place of work, home address, telephones etc. Thus the authorities can control every individual party member. Fragmentation, emergence of new parties more loyal to the authorities, splitting and division of the parties into different groups are hardly occurring without involvement of special services. This proves also that under a totalitarian system the partisan opposition is easier to control. The same applies to NGOs, the difference being that unlike parties the registered NGOs have to limit their activities in order not to draw too much attention of the authorities and to preserve some kind of capacity for the future. The Belarusian situation provides an example of how, alongside with transformation of an authoritarian regime into totalitarian one, legal framework for political parties and the organized structures of the civil society has been destroyed. Since the authoritarian regime striving to project its democratic image couldn't ban the existing parties, NGOs and independent press immediately, they were allowed for some time to exist "as usual". The totalitarian system has less need in such disguise, that's why today the possibilities of the registered structures are limited to a minimum and the authorities have created a system of laws and decrees that would allow closing these organizations at any moment. It must be stressed that the argument on the impossibility for the registered political and civic structures to exist in no way puts in any doubt the sincerity of the civic position of party or NGO members. On the contrary the sacrifices of the oppositional minded people must be highly respected. The question is how and in what forms real opposition to the regime could be organized that would lead to its change. It seems that the key principle in a totalitarian system, as well as an authoritarian one, is resistance. In other words any opposition activity aimed at changing the regime must take shape of resistance. There is an ample experience of resistance in the world that must be used in Belarus � from the non-violent resistance (which is quite fully described in the works of Gene Sharp), gandhist activities, to the mass activities of Polish "Solidarity" or Yugoslavian "Otpor", also non-violent but having the element of readiness to resist the use of force by the authorities. The principle of resistance as a basis for opposition activities will help to organize the activities of the registered structures in a different way. The functional task will be clearly defined: organization of actions and campaigns of resistance. Political and civic organizations that have no access to decision making in the country but nevertheless try to enter in some kind of dialogue with the totalitarian power are doomed to be in a weak position of a beggar, will have to compromise ideologically in order to preserve their flimsy lawfulness in the circumstances when there is no rule of law in the country. On the contrary, organization of resistance actions and campaigns helps strengthening and broadening of the opposition base which at the end makes it possible to put forward demands and even ultimatums to the authorities. It is demonstrated by "round table" in Poland, "velvet revolution" in Czechoslovakia, campaigns in Chile and Peru. The wrongly set goal of preserving and increasing the number of members of registered organizations distracts from the real goal of changing the totalitarian power. While the principle of resistance helps to preserve the structures and creates conditions for uniting the efforts of real opposition. The recognition that namely resistance and not the desire to act as a party when there is no such recognized institution under the Belarusian totalitarian system will enable parties to find their raison d'etre and will preserve them for the future. The world experience of changing totalitarian systems proves that the driving force for the changes was a center of resistance which gave birth to main parties in a country but only after the victory of democracy. The recent Belarusian history demonstrates the effectiveness of resistance and non-effectiveness of a partisan approach. Whenever it was possible to organize a non-partisan resistance (with full participation of the parties), for example the campaign to boycott the parliamentary election in 2000, Freedom Marches (New Wave) of 1999-2000, youth actions in 2001-2002, youth campaign during 2001 presidential campaign, they all were successful. Whenever a party tried to single out itself it led to failures and split the parties. There was a split in Belarusian Popular Front when in 1999 the leader of the Front took a separate position different from other democratic groups; in Belarusian Social Democratic Party when the leadership took a partisan position during 2000 parliamentary election, in other smaller parties. Today in Belarus none of the existing parties can boast the increase of its membership, whereas resistance activities attract even the activists who no longer take part in party life. Yet another principle seems to be important for the success of the democratic forces: fighting totalitarianism as a system. In other words any attempt to change separate elements of the totalitarian regime are doomed to fail. The Belarusian experience proves it. The efforts of the parties and NGOs to change the election code, the law on demonstrations, the laws on mass media, the attempts to seek justice in the dependent judicial system for the sake of which the political and civic organizations were ready to recognize the lawfulness of the unlawful authorities and thus to legitimize the whole system, led only to the worsening of the situation of the democratic forces, more repression from the authorities and splits in the opposition centers. All activities of the democratic forces must be based on the non-recognition of the totalitarian system and organized resistance to this system. Only this would lead to the desirable result. On the contrary, efforts to change separate elements of the system might lead to the legitimation of the system as a whole. For example, today the authorities could claim that the opposition recognized the legality of their unlawful activities and the existence of the unconstitutional bodies since some political organizations which stated their non-recognition of 1996 coup d'etat, address their documents to these bodies. 5. Of utmost importance for the understanding of the possibilities of the democratic forces in Belarus is the understanding of the importance of external factor. The nature of totalitarianism, sophisticated methods of remaining in power are so strong that without a serious external pressure the democratic forces inside the country stand practically no chance to change the power. Without referring to the examples of an extreme pressure � Yugoslavia and Iraq � although they also follow the model of democratization, it is sufficient to recall the recent democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe. They all happened because of the external factors. The pressure from the West, primarily from the US, has led to the collapse of the Soviet totalitarian state and the whole totalitarian camp in the Eastern Europe. Boris Yeltsin in the USSR, Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia, Lech Valensa in Poland would stand no chance without the influence of the processes that started in the USSR under the western pressure. Neither Hungarian events of 1956, nor the uprisings of students and workers in the 60s and 70s in Poland, nor the Prague Spring of 1968 has led to the fall of totalitarianism because the Soviet system resisted the external influence even using the force. Belarus hasn't completed its revolution of the early 90s and today has found itself outside the democratic process, which started then. The democratization wave of those times has passed bringing the democratic changes in all neighboring countries. The Belarusian nomenclature has withstood that wave and produced an authoritarian leader who succeeded in building a totalitarian system in Belarus. Today those circumstances when Belarus was in the center of democratic process are long gone. Despite the commitment of the immediate western neighbors of Belarus to the principles of democracy their interests do not include the assistance to the neighbor who is lagging behind. They are busy strengthening and developing their democracies, joining democratic alliances, participating in the international relations of democratic states. These states can help with their experience, support international position but they by themselves are unable to organize the pressure on the totalitarian system that would lead to its change. Thus the responsibility for changing the totalitarian system in Belarus lies to a great extent on "the old democracies" of the West if they would be able to understand what is going on in Belarus and would prefer to stand for democracy and not for immediate economic benefits. Inconsistency of the West in defending its own principles in Belarus is a separate issue. Here are but several examples. � There are continuous attempts to persuade the totalitarian regime "to behave properly". Most cynical are the efforts to exchange softening of the punishment for some political prisoners for the recognition of the regime, which will inevitably lead to more prisoners of conscience � Council of Europe seems to be ready to exchange a moratorium on death penalty (and who would control it under the totalitarian system?) or introduction of an ombudsman (fully controlled by the authorities) for the recognition of the totalitarian regime � Some international documents state that "isolation of Belarus is not in the interest of its people", which seems to be used to justify the expansion of trade and economic ties with the totalitarian regime � In order to accommodate Russia western democracies sometimes close their eyes on the situation in Belarus � Inside Belarus western democracies have accepted the "game of parties" that the totalitarian regime started, and began to take many parties that has no relation with democratic forces as their partners. As the result, the consistently democratic parties, like Belarusian Popular front and United Civil Party, became equal with the parties with unclear position and became minority faction among them. This leads to a delusion of the democratic forces, creates senseless competition between democrats and "loyalists" and distracts attention from the principle goals of respect of human rights: alternative information, right of life, and end of politically motivated persecution. The totalitarian regime on its part shows no intention to listen to the "soft" advice to change its behavior and demonstrates its readiness to take strong measures against the West. There were practically no consequences for the regime after the shooting down of two American aeronauts in hot air balloons in 1996, kicking out of western ambassadors from their residences in 1998, constant accusation of western diplomats of spying, expelling from Belarus of all western foundations beginning with the Soros Foundation in 1997, squeezing out of the OSCE mission in 2002 (moreover, the OSCE yielded to the totalitarian regime by adopting a practically empty mandate). All this combined with indirect or even direct economic assistance helps strengthening the totalitarian regime in Belarus. * * * As mentioned above not all classical features of a totalitarian system are present in Belarusian situation, which doesn't affect its real meaning. The absence of a single mass ruling party doesn't change the nature of the monistic system of power and to some extent makes easier the performance of power functions and allows to ignore completely the existing parties. Relatively easy access to information through Internet or foreign TV channels for economic and technical reasons doesn't mean access to the alternative information. The possibility to leave and to return to the country relatively easily doesn't mean the existence of freedom. First, the political games with Russia make it impossible to close Belarusian-Russian border, which makes it senseless to limit free exit and entry. Second, it seems that free exit doesn't threaten the totalitarian system inside the country and to some extent helps to get rid of the opponents of the regime who emigrate to the west. The fact that Lukashenko unlike the majority of totalitarian rulers denies nationalism is not new. It should be noted that Stalin, a Georgian, also built totalitarian state on the basis of Russian patriotism. Perhaps this new interpretation of the elements of totalitarianism by the Belarusian regime is its contribution to the theory of neo-totalitarianism. It should be noted that political scientists and intellectuals in the West argued all the time whether the Soviet system was a totalitarian one or it opened the way to social equality. Only after the demise of the USSR it was unequivocally recognized that the system was a totalitarian one. In Belarus the totalitarian system is at its initial stage which means that it can be dealt with relatively simple. It also means, however that it could enter the next stage quite quickly: mass terror, state of emergency, military rule in the country. There is a "legal" basis for that, the repression machine is ready. In Belarus today the police and secret services are almost twice as big as the army. All the key positions in power ministries are occupied by former Lukashenko's bodyguards � prosecutor general, minister of interior, secretary of the security council � people most loyal to the leader. Here usually come conclusions and recommendations, answers to the question "what to do?" However this time they will not follow. First, it would contradict the argument that there is a system of totalitarian power in Belarus, since it's impossible to have open discussion under totalitarianism of how to change the system. Second, this piece is an invitation to a practical analysis of the situation as a result of which the conclusions become obvious. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers. At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/S.QlOD/3MnJAA/Zx0JAA/uTGrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -- This is ZESTGlobal. Post articles on international affairs to [email protected] If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTGlobal by sending a blank mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/join/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
