Though there are a few exceptions, reporting on the elections in Belarus have been awful. Granted, this is a statement that demands qualification. There has been a lot of articles on Belarus, the elections, Lukashenko’s authoritarian grip, the arrests, beatings, and general harassment of the Opposition, the closing of newspapers and independent media, and of course the modest protests in Minsk. All of these are worthy stories and they all should be reported. Still, in my opinion, something has been lacking. Amid the deluge of news, few have actually told me anything explaining why Lukashenko is genuinely popular and why even without rigging the elections, which was certainly done, he would have won anyway. The answer that most have given is a standard and reductive one: Lukashenko’s rule by fear. Sure fear is a factor, but frankly I don’t completely buy it.
This is why I think that Mark Almond’s comment in the Guardian is so interesting. Bucking all conventional reporting, Almond not only points out the blatant hypocrisy of the United States and to a certain extent the EU on Belarus, he notes that the root of this might have something to do with capitalism.
On American hypocrisy, he writes:
Our media have a split personality when it comes to these two guardians of democracy. On Belarus they are quoted like Old Testament prophets, but mention them in connection with Iraq and people recall that they were the only US officials with President Bush and Tony Blair on January 30 2003 when Bush suggested provoking an incident with Iraq to get the war with Saddam going.
Of course if you believed them about Iraq then you won’t choke swallowing their story about Belarus. But let’s avoid the slick argument that just because veterans of the US’s Central American policy under Reagan allege that Lukashenko has “disappeared” some vocal critics that cannot be true either.
Almond then goes on to point out that while no one in the West batted an eye at when Rose Revolutionary Saakashvili received 97% of the vote, Lukashenko has gotten threats of sanctions from the EU.
But charges of hypocrisy are easy in this complex world. Of course the US isn’t going to give the same rhetoric to the fledgling government in Iraq or Afghanistan as it is to Belarus. We should remember that platitudes to democracy are doled out in relation to geopolitical interests.
As to why Belorussians support Lukashenko, the reason is again found in Bill Clinton’s adage: It’s the economy, stupid! Almond argues that the reason why the Milinkevich’s opposition has no support is because it has “offered no economic platform [and] just echoes of these western allegations against Lukashenko.” One wonders who is Milinkevich’s audience: Western governments and international civil society foundations that start salivating when you speak of looking west rather than east or a Belarussian constituency that has daily bread and butter concerns.
The basis of Lukashenko’s power is that he has prevented Belarus from descending into the “shock therapy” madness that so many other post-Soviet states have experienced. On this, Almond writes:
No communist-era throwback, Belarus has an evolving market economy. But the market is orientated towards serving the needs of the bulk of the population, not a tiny class of nouveaux riches and their western advisers and money launderers. Unlike in Georgia or Ukraine, officials are not getting richer as ordinary folk get poorer. The absence of endemic corruption among civil servants and police is one reason why the wave of so-called “coloured revolutions” stopped before Minsk.
Lukashenko is far from an egalitarian, nor is he a champion of human rights in any way. But few heads of state are, and I certainly wish all of them would be put on trial at some point. Though I’m sure some readers will call me an apologist, I have no intention of apologizing for Lukashenko’s obvious dictatorship. What I’m calling for is some clarity when looking at these states. We need to understand that the narrative of “Orange Revolution” is not a formula. And different states have their own particular social, economic and political calculations. I think when that is understood perhaps a political opposition will win by addressing the real issues that concern its citizens, rather than a flawed and hypocritical Western consensus.
I could fill up my tank today. That’s a good thing. Could you imagine if people couldn’t fill their tank? I live in Michigan as you know we here in Michigan build cars. Here in Flint where I live we make gas guzzlers in the form of BIG TRUCKS BUSES and SUVs. If people couldn’t get enough gas people here would lose jobs. If they lost their job then the cascade effect kicks in. I guess at some point I wouldn’t be able to sit my ass here reading your whining commentary and pay my taxes. So I guess all things are relatively good. I wish our soldiers didn’t have to die to support our life styles but they do. So why don’t you quit bitching about it and just say thank you!
Um . . . . right. I have no idea where to start on your comment Jason, so I’ll refrain. But perhaps you should stick to your campaigns against Cox Communications and the “new media” (whatever the hell that is). You’ll get more response from them than you will from me.
I didn’t hear you over the sound of your whining. Make your point or quit wasting our time. At least you know where I stand.
I’m glad we have a democracy, so that wing nuts like Jason (Blogger profile tidbit – “Favorite Books: Tom Clancy novels”) can spout off without fear of a knock on the door in the middle of the night.
Sean, I saw those Guardian pieces and thought they were very provocative and right on target in many ways. It’s important to look at Belarus and why Lukashenka could have won even without rigging the vote, because the reasons are similar to why Putin would win an election tomorrow in Russia even without vote-rigging. In my mind, the main reason (and a factor which makes it impossible to get an honest read on people’s opinions) is state control of the broadcast media.
State-run media have played a huge role in making and preserving Putin’s positive image, and I have to imagine the same has been true for Bat’ka in Belarus. Anyway, I wasn’t able to do more than a link roundup on what’s just happened in Minsk, so thanks for putting some thought into the underlying issues.
And oh, yeah, stop whining. Whatever. “You know where I stand.” Sure do, Jason – coupla fries short of a happy meal.
Thanks for the kind words Lyndon.
I agree with you on the power of state run media and I would extend this to corporate media too. When I was in Russia I was struck by how their state run media had many similar qualities to American corporate media.
And this is a problem for sure when it comes to democracy or dictatorship. Since most people’s view of the world is mediated by television, how news creates the way we are to understand people and events are so effective. The media in the US played such a huge role in getting the public to go along with the war in Iraq, so I’m not surprised how useful it is for someone like Lukashenko or Putin.
Yesterday I saw a clip of from Fox News in the US that had a heading “Are we Already at War with Iran?”. A few weeks ago the posed the question of whether civil war in a Iraq was acutally a good thing. In my view such reporting is simply irresponsible.
I personally can’t tell the difference from showing George Bush in a flight suit or a cowboy hat differs from showing Putin in his judo get up.
Would you like to power your blog with Nuclear Power or Oil that is provided with the blood sweat and tears of our soldiers? I would love it if life our choice was simple. Our representatives in congress for the last 20 years have allowed us to become in this difficult situation. Please place the blame where it belongs. Does my arguing for a realistic position make me a nut?
Jason, I fail to see what all this has to do with Belarus and Lukashenko, but whatever.
What is your so-called realistic position again?
Is it fighting oil wars? I agree that part of the Iraq war is about oil. But if war is the answer to energy shortage, then I think it is a miserably failed strategy. Look at all the reports about how Iraqi oil production has dropped since the war. Or consider the fact that to fight oil wars takes oil. Who do you think the energy coporations are going to pass the extra costs costs to? Who do you think will have to deal with the higher prices as a result of higher demand but lower supply? Us. Plus fighting wars in regions that have oil will only cripple the means to extract said oil. So yes soliders and many, many civilians are dying for our SUVs computers, etc. But I don’t see why I should sit back passivly and thank the lunitic dreams of American lebensraum.
And if you want to know what I’m really doing about all this see: Studies for Global Justice, of which I’m a member of the organizing collective.
Give me some time I am sure I can come up with a link something to link it. How about this …
Could it be ever more sinister? The war is about the control of oil. Not for oil! But could it really be the war against Russia? How about some simple history! U.S.S.R. was before its dismemberment was allied with Iran in its war against Iraq. Iraq at the time had the support of the State Department of the United States. You remember the Axiom the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So when the U.S.S.R. dissolved some in the state department that were thinking that they no longer had to keep supporting Iraq. So Saddam stopped getting the due he was felt so he tried to conquer Kuwait. This pissed off to many in the world so the U.S.A. and the rest of the world stepped in and sent his soldiers packing back to Iraq. Now when Iraq became has become further destabilized the U.S. had to go in and insure the safety of our worlds needed oil supply. Flash forward till now and what is happening Iran wants to control its nuclear destiny and who is supporting them Russia a former member of the U.S.S.R. club. So the real question is Russia attempting a come back? Could this be right?
Did that work? If not let me know!
Sean, totally agree with your main point about Belarus. The reporting has been appalling, and a lot of it written to a pre-ordained script. The NYT stuff has been particularly disappointing.
I think Mark Almond (a friend and someone I know well) overeggs his pudding a bit, though. And the organisation (British Helsinki organisation) that he does these reporting/electoral analysis trips for could be a little more open about their own motives…. (check them out on Google, or Wikipedia, etc).
One problem for the “opposition” (which I suspect contains at least one straw-man candidate put up by Lukashenka) is that the so-called Orange Revolution has been less than satisfactory for a lot of Ukrainians. If people in Belarus can’t easily get access to German newspapers, the BBC, or whatever, they DO have easy access to their relatives and friends in Ukraine, Russia, etc. And by comparison, their stability is attractive.
Better the devil you know…
As for reporting, btw, Kommersant.ru has been by far the best, in my opinion. Some of Paniushkin’s stuff from Minsk was to the point and very instructive. By comparison, most of the western coverage was dross.
Sasha, thanks for the heads up about the British Helsinki organization. I looked them up and I agree that they should be much more upfront about their motives. Now I see why Almond’s column, while interesting, painted a glowing picture of Lukashenko.
Agree, Sean. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean what they are saying isn’t true. Re Belarus, I think Almond got it more right than wrong.
Btw, Sasha is the wife! I’m just Browler.