Thread: Elections in Belarus

Originally Posted by Ramil

Ну какая "до наоборот".

Потому, что это как раз Сталин подготовил заговор против Троцкого и сверг его. Троцкий с самого начала революции был по своему положению в партии и правительстве выше Сталина. В политике всегда так ...

Officially - there was no cheating and no violations. But you just need to see how it was

There are a lot of interest things to say but I'll try to show how it was in couple of words.
First interest thing - it's a "early voting" (досрочное голосование) - it's a several days before main elections when people votes voluntary-compulsory (добровольно-принудительно) i.e. you may not vote but if you are student, soldier, state employee or anybody other who depend governance - they'll tell you "you'll have a problems if you'll not vote early". For example, if you are student and you are living in hostel - you could be excluded (I've lived in hostel and I know this authentically). I don't say, what could be if you are soldier.
But it's not important for who you'll vote, they need only your sign. During this several days ballot boxes protected only by one policeman and observers have access to them only in day. In the night they stay only with the policeman. Сontinuation think of by self.
So, for election day ~30% electorate already have voted (easy to guess for who). But it's not all. The election day begins.


It's an observers, they are using binoculars because they are really far from election process


and it's an election commission

and...

Votes counting! (Something like this observer sees)

After this simple manipulations he have >= 80% votes. No cheating, no violations.

BTW, people protested exactly against this "percents" (according to alternative exit-polls Lukashenko has only ~35%), but somebody have broken the door in the government house

Very interesting information! Thanks for explaining.
Who (or what party) would you have preferred win, and why?

35% is still a lot though! They probably would win whether they cheat or not... It depends on whether there is one opposing party (like in the USA) or many (like in most Western European countries).

For example, while I was growing up in Sweden, the Social democrats always won the elections because 35-50% voted for them (approximately) in every election. And if they didn't get a large enough majority on their own, then they invited the communists to form government with them... Which was exactly what their opponents did not want. They were almost unbeatable and many people got very fed up with them. But the opposition could not agree enough to defeat them, and despite what some people thought, it was what they majority preferred.

It seems like if Lukashenko was to be beaten, then everybody who doesn't like him have to vote for just one other party... otherwise he'll just keep winning!

Is there one party that could challenge him in the future? If so what is that party and what do they stand for?

According our laws, if nobody got >= 50%+1vote, elections going into second round with only two candidates (1st and 2nd places). I don't think that he would win in second round.
We have a little bit strange situation with parties. We have several pro-government parties but nobody knows their names, their leaders or any other information about them (I mean that nobody talks about them in media. Media is totally filled by one person). Also we have several opposition parties but they haven't access to media at all (except BelSat (oppositional sat-channel, hosted in Poland, not translates through cable network)) => nearly nobody knows something about them (only who have affairs with politics or strongly interested). Also they haven't places in parliament. Sometimes they drops leaflets or organizes protest actions but rarely. So, only in election time people have ability to get some knowledge about political state. On this election out TV even showed every candidate twice (first time individual and second time on debates (without one of course)).
So. On elections we have only two parties: "Lukashenko" and "Other candidates". On previous elections opposition promoted a single candidate - he found him in prison after election. On this - there was 9 candidates (except L), 5 of them now in prison.
Most "famous" party - it's BPF (Belorussian Popular Front), also we have BCD (Belorussian Christian Democracy), BSDP (Bel. Social-Democracy Party) and some other.
On this elections second place taken by Sannikov, third - by Rymaschevsky.
I think on next elections will be somebody new but if he will be the similar to the previous (by political power) - Lukashenko will be elected for the next time again... and then Nikolay Alyaksandravich Lukashenko will grown up...

Originally Posted by bsod

It's not so true. You said that pensioners and agriculture workers votes for him. Major reason of this - it's a belarussian media: there are only 3 channel which people able to receive in countryside and of course all of them are government. So, of course pensioners think that Belarus is exactly such as it shown on TV (It shown really good ). They believe that Lukashenko - is a "Добрый Царь". But the distance between TV-Belarus and real Belarus increases more and more. And even most "закоренелые" pensioners begins to doubt.

I have to agree with that. My aunt who is rather old lady, but still works (she lives in Vitebsk and teaches students Latin and French at medical university) and always was a strong supporter of Lukashenko is started to doubt about him. She still voted for him at this elections, but just for the reason that "there is not any decent alternative", not because she is still great fan of him.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Very interesting information! Thanks for explaining.
Who (or what party) would you have preferred win, and why?

35% is still a lot though! They probably would win whether they cheat or not... It depends on whether there is one opposing party (like in the USA) or many (like in most Western European countries).

For example, while I was growing up in Sweden, the Social democrats always won the elections because 35-50% voted for them (approximately) in every election. And if they didn't get a large enough majority on their own, then they invited the communists to form government with them... Which was exactly what their opponents did not want. They were almost unbeatable and many people got very fed up with them. But the opposition could not agree enough to defeat them, and despite what some people thought, it was what they majority preferred.

It seems like if Lukashenko was to be beaten, then everybody who doesn't like him have to vote for just one other party... otherwise he'll just keep winning!

Is there one party that could challenge him in the future? If so what is that party and what do they stand for?

35% would simply have meant they would have to hold the second voting, and the other candidates (or at least some of them) could have united and created a coalition that would have beaten the dictator.

I think anyone with common sense could challenge him. If you don't think so, you might not have seen all his brilliant speeches, and might not be completely realizing what his regime looks like.

Originally Posted by Basil77

I have to agree with that. My aunt who is rather old lady, but still works (she lives in Vitebsk and teaches students Latin and French at medical university) and always was a strong supporter of Lukashenko is started to doubt about him. She still voted for him at this elections, but just for the reason that "there is not any decent alternative", not because she is still great fan of him.

By the way, if "there is not any decent alternative", the choice is usually made in favor of "none of the above", or is not made at all - the election is just ignored.

On this elections second place taken by Sannikov, third - by Rymaschevsky.

And your one in charge declared that according to some official investigation no one of the asked had recognized Sannikov, and only 0.3% had recognized Nekliaev.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

By the way, if "there is not any decent alternative", the choice is usually made in favor of "none of the above", or is not made at all - the election is just ignored.

Oh, rly? How smart. And who do you think will be a president if people vote for "none of the above"? Nobody? Or maybe the one who is now?
Voting for "nobody" or ignoring elections may seem like a good choice, but in fact it's just a lack of ability to use your vote wisely. And in the worst case scenario an "ignored" ballot may be used in falsification.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Oh, rly? How smart. And who do you think will be a president if people vote for "none of the above"? Nobody? Or maybe the one who is now?
Voting for "nobody" or ignoring elections may seem like a good choice, but in fact it's just a lack of ability to use your vote wisely. And in the worst case scenario an "ignored" ballot may be used in falsification.

But votes for him are one hundred percent going to become his votes.

I'm not sure what exactly is going to happen in case of voting for "none of the above", but I thought ignoring the "election" was the best choice, as they need your signature or something anyway. And they just wouldn't have gotten material for falsification.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

But votes for him are one hundred percent going to become his votes.

True.
But if some people, like Basil's aunt, believe that there are no better options it's their right to vote for the best available (Lukashenko). They choose him with their eyes open, so to speak.

Very interesting to hear bsod's insights into the political situation in Belarus.

The reason I seem like I "defended" Lukashenko was simply because I thought he was managing to protect people in Belarus from all the really terrible things that went on in Russia in the 1990s... For example when regular people were so desperate that they turned to prostitution, selling their personal property and memorabilia, gangster criminality... That is just so tragic and undignfied! And for what... so that a few people can cruise around in luxury cars and stuff away money in Switzerland and the IMF can say that "conditions conducive to a good investment climate have been created" (at the cost of human dignity)...

I understand that there is a "middle class" in the large cities of Russia now... but there is still so much poverty and destitution in rural Russia, isn't that right? Same in Ukraine. I just can't support any politician who wants that to happen and I got the impression that Lukashenko's policies had prevented that, and that he was trying to introduce market reforms at a slower pace. That seemed sensible to me at least. But really, my understanding of all this is not that great...

Originally Posted by bsod

Lukashenko will be elected for the next time again... and then Nikolay Alyaksandravich Lukashenko will grown up...

Are you kidding?! Do people really think that would happen? Surely people would not put up with that?!! It's outrageous.

Originally Posted by Hanna

The reason I seem like I "defended" Lukashenko was simply because I thought he was managing to protect people in Belarus from all the really terrible things that went on in Russia in the 1990s... For example when regular people were so desperate that they turned to prostitution, selling their personal property and memorabilia, gangster criminality... That is just so tragic and undignfied! And for what... so that a few people can cruise around in luxury cars and stuff away money in Switzerland and the IMF can say that "conditions conducive to a good investment climate have been created" (at the cost of human dignity)...

I understand that there is a "middle class" in the large cities of Russia now... but there is still so much poverty and destitution in rural Russia, isn't that right? Same in Ukraine. I just can't support any politician who wants that to happen and I got the impression that Lukashenko's policies had prevented that, and that he was trying to introduce market reforms at a slower pace. That seemed sensible to me at least. But really, my understanding of all this is not that great....

That's funny but you've just repeated word-by-word what Alexander Prohanov said several hours ago at "Echo Moskvy" radio:

Радиостанция "Эхо Москвы" / Блоги / Видеорадио / "Особое мнение" Александра Проханова + кардиограмма эфира / Комментарии

And btw, I agree with most of this, although I don't like Lukashenko at all.

Originally Posted by Basil77

That's funny but you've just repeated word-by-word what Alexander Prohanov said several hours ago at "Echo Moskvy" radio. And btw, I agree with most of this, although I don't like Lukashenko at all.

I could only understand bits here and there of what Prohanov was saying and he's using a lot of "difficult" words...

But as a general observation, it seems to ME that many things that happened in the early 1990s in the ex USSR was not generally in the interest of most people. Seems that Lukashenko was the only CIS leader who realised that and put the brakes on.. Whether what he did after that was right or wrong.. is the question. Perhaps he allowed the country to stagnate.

I guess guess there WAS no easy solution, but the idea of "freedom" at the price of poverty, suffering and degradation for so many in society simply can't be what the majority would really have wanted! Doing the reforms slower might have prevented a lot of that.

And look at the ex Soviet republics how things have worked out there... In Central Asia they certainly don't have any more democracy now, than under the USSR, but now they are also much poorer also have less opportunities to improve their lives.

BBC makes pretty good and transparent surveys. Here is what they found in 2009, in the survey "Twenty Years after Fall of Berlin Wall" (full survey with questions and methodology)Twenty Years after Fall of Berlin Wall

Originally Posted by BBC World Services Survey

.....majorities would like their government to be more active in owning or directly controlling their country’s major industries in 15 of the 27 countries. This view is particularly widely held in countries of the former Soviet states of Russia (77%), and Ukraine (75%), but also Brazil (64%), Indonesia (65%), and France (57%).

Majorities support governments distributing wealth more evenly in 22 of the 27 countries —on average two out of three (67%) across all countries. In 17 of the 27 countries most want to see government doing more to regulate business—on average 56%.


The poll also asked about whether the breakup of the Soviet Union was a good thing or not. (.....)

Among former Warsaw Pact countries, most Russians (61%) and Ukrainians (54%) believe the breakup of the Soviet Union was a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Are you kidding?! Do people really think that would happen? Surely people would not put up with that?!! It's outrageous.

If you turn your face to commie hell, you should be ready for all its features, not only for those you'd prefer to take out of it.

And what makes you think there's no poverty or prostitution or criminal gangs there? When some people get paid around $80 - 100 a month, what is it called? I just don't wanna get myself disappointed finding out you're working for their official TV channels or so... tell me it's not true But then, I just fail to see what makes you see the things going on there through rose-colored spectacles...

What people are paid is quite irrelevant, it is what they get for their money and the general standard and quality of living that is relevant.

I am sure there is some prostitution and criminal gangs in the "commie hell" of Belarus... but as far as I understand there has been less of that in Belarus than in Russia and Ukraine. It is certainly not something Belarus is known for outside it's own borders anyway.

If Belarussians themselves think it's a good idea to go the same way as Russia, then that's their problem and none of my business. They are quite welcome to do it as far as I am concerned. But it seems like the majority still vote for Lukashenko; people like Basil77s aunt.

If there are problems with Lukeshenko, then frankly I think the Belarussians should sort that out themselves, without interference by the US, EU or Russia. They elected him, they should also get rid of him if they don't like him anymore. It's nobody else's responsibility or business. Belarus isn't doing anything that is causing any problems for any other country. The main reason the US and others have a problem is that the market was never wide-open for exploitation like it was elsewhere in the former CIS and Eastern Europe.

In case you didn't know (which seems likely...) power inherited within one family is certainly not what what any of the socialist or communist political philosophers supported. They would have been strongly against that.

Now you can throw around a few more phrases like "commie hell" if you like but if you want to play cold war, I doubt you'll have much success here.

Eric, have you ever been there, little hater? "Commie hell" is only in your wet dreams. "Socialist paradise" as say from my impressions .

I, pace moderators, would like to get the thread back to the subject.

People from Belarus, cast light on the issue, please. Are you really in ecstasies about your "socialist paradise"? Would you change anything about it? If so, what would you change?

European Parliament Panel Recommends Tougher EU Attitude Toward Minsk - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Белоруссию могут отлучить от Олимпийских игр и чемпионатов по футболу