NationStates Jolt Archive

Elections in Belarus.
Lukashenko won with 82.6% of all cast votes from last Sunday's election, say Belarussian official sources.
The US refuses to recognize the outcome of the election. Both the EU and the US are contemplating stricter sanctions on the country and members of the government. Russia accepts the outcome of the election.
Meanwhile, protesters on the October Square are holding out against freezing temperatures, waving white-red striped and EU flags.

What's your opinion on the issue?

Articles on it:
Belarus vote protesters defy leader (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/21/belarus.protest.reut/index.html)
Belarus protests enter fourth day (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/22/belarus.protest.ap/index.html)
Belarus poll rallies 'must go on' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4830830.stm)
Minsk protesters hope for change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4834572.stm)

Go protestors. I hope they get something accomplished.

Because that's bullshit, nobody ever gets 82% of the vote.

A thread on Belarus has been had before the election. It had four replies, including mine. Which is better, in a way: I fear that the new events and this new thread could draw those who thought, up until last week or even today, that Belarus is a country in Oceania, and who now want to propose a radical solution (such as "nuke the commies" or "go NATO") or blame Europe for not being there earlier or whatnot.

Won with 82.6%? Fuck..
As Callisdrun said, sounds pretty bullshit. However, I don't have enough time to read the articles right now, so I won't make a proper statement :)

Won with 82.6%? Fuck..
As Callisdrun said, sounds pretty bullshit. However, I don't have enough time to read the articles right now, so I won't make a proper statement :)The 82.6% is bullshit. Independent observers have been recording massive manipulation of the election process. The highest any oppositional party got was about 6%.
Prior to the election, party members of the opposition were arrested. Now that the election is over, any protesters leaving October Square are arrested or otherwise harassed by the police or security forces. Just yesterday, a major oppositional newspaper's office was raided and the editors arrested.

Lukashenko is arguably Europe's last dictator.

People underestimate Lukashenko's popularity. He would probably win a fair election comfortably, although obviously not with this share of the vote.

He's a terrible president but has proved adept at steering Belarus away from the post-communist turmoil that has afflicted many other nations in the region. His people's lives are generally miserable rather than desperate and the stability he appears to represent makes him quite popular in rural areas in particular.

He'll be around for a while yet.

People underestimate Lukashenko's popularity. He would probably win a fair election comfortably, although obviously not with this share of the vote.

He's a terrible president but has proved adept at steering Belarus away from the post-communist turmoil that has afflicted many other nations in the region. His people's lives are generally miserable rather than desperate and the stability he appears to represent makes him quite popular in rural areas in particular.

He'll be around for a while yet.
I agree.

Because that's bullshit, nobody ever gets 82% of the vote.

Jacques Chirac, France, 2002. Elected with 82%. ;)

And yes, from what I know of Belarus, it's entirely possible that he would have won a fair election. Doesn't mean this one wasn't a massive joke, though.

Jacques Chirac, France, 2002. Elected with 82%. ;)
First round?

Jacques Chirac, France, 2002. Elected with 82%. ;)

Don't remind us that ! :( And I had to vote for this thief... :( First time of my life I voted for a right-wing... and look at the consequences...

Lukashenko fucked with the votes, just like Bush did.
:D

First round?
First round? Good science, man, don't tell me runoffs are TYPICAL of European elections. That's ridiculous, and speaks of a flawed system. =/

First round? Good science, man, don't tell me runoffs are TYPICAL of European elections. That's ridiculous, and speaks of a flawed system. =/
Well, kindly look at the posts again,
Point raised by poster x: nobody wins with 82%
Point raised by poster y: Chirac did
Point raised by Argesia*: did he do it in the first round, like Mr. Lukashenka claims to have done? (i.e.: makes it very unlikely, or, indeed, unique in Europe)
Point raised by you: w00t


*Argesia still believes the answer to that question to be "no".

Well, kindly look at the posts again,
Point raised by poster x: nobody wins with 82%
Point raised by poster y: Chirac did
Point raised by Argesia: did he do it in the first round, like Mr. Lukashenka claims to have done? (i.e.: makes it very unlikely, or, indeed, unique in Europe)
Point raised by you: w00t
...

Err, no...I was only speaking on part of the fact that, according to Argesia's post, it appears that numerous runoffs are typical of elections in European countries. I was asking if this was actually the case, and saying that, if it was, then that is flawed. =/

Don't remind us that ! :( And I had to vote for this thief... :( First time of my life I voted for a right-wing... and look at the consequences...
And I was shouting from way over here: dudes, Jospin! At least, he promised to institute a four-year term - subsequent incompentence would have been milder.

First round?

No, was the second round; Chirac barely had 20% on the first round. Full results on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%2C_%C3%A9lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_2002

...

Err, no...I was only speaking on part of the fact that, according to Argesia's post, it appears that numerous runoffs are typical of elections in European countries. I was asking if this was actually the case, and saying that, if it was, then that is flawed. =/
Read all of Argesia's posts again, and see why you're not making sense.

Read all of Argesia's posts again, and see why you're not making sense.
I don't see how I'm failing to make sense. You said that there is typically more than one round in an election. Why? What possible sense does that make?

...

Err, no...I was only speaking on part of the fact that, according to Argesia's post, it appears that numerous runoffs are typical of elections in European countries. I was asking if this was actually the case, and saying that, if it was, then that is flawed. =/

In France, most elections are in two rounds. I don't like this system, it's not very fair, but it's still much much fair than a "first beyond the line" system like in USA.

What I would like is proportional elections on all assemblies, and an instant-runoff or condorcet voting for the elections with only one winner (and if it's too hard to implement, at least some "hacks" to make it closer to it). Else, it's too much in favor of having two big parties, leaving other parties outside the system, and that's the death of democracy.

No, was the second round; Chirac barely had 20% on the first round. Full results on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%2C_%C3%A9lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_2002
See? It's not the same.
Of course, this also means Lukashenka shits gold and toothpaste.

In France, most elections are in two rounds. I don't like this system, it's not very fair, but it's still much much fair than a "first beyond the line" system like in USA.

What I would like is proportional elections on all assemblies, and an instant-runoff or condorcet voting for the elections with only one winner (and if it's too hard to implement, at least some "hacks" to make it closer to it). Else, it's too much in favor of having two big parties, leaving other parties outside the system, and that's the death of democracy.
The system in the USA works well enough. While it's hardly perfect, we've rarely had any problems with votes being contested. Only recently has that become an issue, and only in the past two elections.

But then, I am just a biased, idiot American. What do I know?

I don't see how I'm failing to make sense. You said that there is typically more than one round in an election. Why? What possible sense does that make?

No, was the second round; Chirac barely had 20% on the first round. Full results on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%2C_%C3%A9lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_2002
...

The system in the USA works well enough. While it's hardly perfect, we've rarely had any problems with votes being contested. Only recently has that become an issue, and only in the past two elections.

But then, I am just a biased, idiot American. What do I know?
I don't think anyone said one is better than the other.
But thanks for the lecture: we'll make note of it.

the Ironic thing is, he would have still taken about 58% of the vote if he had let it be a free election. He has kept the economy and the country strong and stable all be it with somewhat oppressive means.

I don't think anyone said one is better than the other.
But thaks for the lecture: we'll make note of it.
The very fact that you need two rounds suggests your system is flawed, is all I'm saying.

Of course, I'm also bothered at this moment by nigh eight hours worth of pitched battle with a crapload of spyware. Please forgive me if I've been rude. I did not mean to cause offense.

the Ironic thing is, he would have still taken about 58% of the vote if he had let it be a free election. He has kept the economy and the country strong and stable all be it with somewhat oppressive means.I'm pretty sure him kissing Putin's ass and getting reduced rates for natural gas and oil has nothing to do with the economic stability of Belarus...

The very fact that you need two rounds suggests your system is flawed, is all I'm saying.

I don't see why.

Of course, I'm also bothered at this moment by nigh eight hours worth of pitched battle with a crapload of spyware. Please forgive me if I've been rude. I did not mean to cause offense.

No offense taken.

I'm pretty sure him kissing Putin's ass and getting reduced rates for natural gas and oil has nothing to do with the economic stability of Belarus...
I never said it didnt, my point was that he was going to win even if he hadnt rigged it.

As much as I would like to see the protestors achieve something, they don't have the numbers or the popular support behind them to do so. The dictator Lukashenko is going be around for a while longer.

Lukashenko fucked with the votes, just like Bush did.
:D
Well, I think Lukashenko fucked around quite a bit more than Bush did!

I don't see how I'm failing to make sense. You said that there is typically more than one round in an election. Why? What possible sense does that make?

It was merely hightlighted that the most recent French Presidential election did run over two rounds. We all remember it because Le Pen did so well.

Your original post doesn't make sense in view of the manner in which you are trying to explain it away.

I never said it didnt, my point was that he was going to win even if he hadnt rigged it.We'll never know. The question is, would he have won if Belarus had access to foreign media? One reason for him being "so popular" could well be that the Belarussians have trouble getting nongovernmental news.

It was merely hightlighted that the most recent French Presidential election did run over two rounds. We all remember it because Le Pen did so well.

Your original post doesn't make sense in view of the manner in which you are trying to explain it away.
...

Oh. Heh. Seems like my pitched battle has affected my thinking more than I thought. I think I'll duck out of this thread lest I make any other mistakes. =/

First round? Good science, man, don't tell me runoffs are TYPICAL of European elections. That's ridiculous, and speaks of a flawed system. =/
Not really. It just allows more candidates to run in the election.

Now, only two nearly identical choices on the ballot? That speaks of a flawed system.

The system in the USA works well enough. While it's hardly perfect, we've rarely had any problems with votes being contested. Only recently has that become an issue, and only in the past two elections.

Actually this has happened about 5 times before in America. At least. The vote in France in 2002 wasn't contested after the election took place.

Oh. Heh. Seems like my pitched battle has affected my thinking more than I thought. I think I'll duck out of this thread lest I make any other mistakes. =/
Just keep up the good fight! (against spyware, that is)

Great job these protesters are doing. I hope they'll reach something by this.

Lukashenko fucked with the votes, just like Bush did.
:D
Exactly, just Bush didn't cheat quite that obvious...

We'll never know. The question is, would he have won if Belarus had access to foreign media? One reason for him being "so popular" could well be that the Belarussians have trouble getting nongovernmental news.
Belarus as one of the stronger economies of the former satilites, so its very possible he would have been. There is a strong correlation between a good economy and political success.

I never said it didnt, my point was that he was going to win even if he hadnt rigged it.


There wasn't so much blatant vote-rigging going on; apart from the usual one-sided election officials and dodgy 'advance' voting practices.

It's the all-pervasive propaganda that gives him his support; primarily by appealing to the negative (i.e. look how much worse off Belarus could be?) and taking complete control of the economy. If practically everyone works for you it's a lot easier to 'persuade' them to vote for you.

His days are numbered; he lacks support in the captial Minsk and his ancient Soviet-era backers are starting to die off. Russia could dispense with him fairly quickly if they ever felt so inclined.

Belarus as one of the stronger economies of the former satilites, so its very possible he would have been. There is a strong correlation between a good economy and political success.Urm... that shows just how much you know about Belarus' history, doesn't it? It wasn't a satellite, it was part of the Soviet Union...

His days are numbered; he lacks support in the captial Minsk and his ancient Soviet-era backers are starting to die off. Russia could dispense with him fairly quickly if they ever felt so inclined.Pity that Russia is rather interested in keeping a pocket dictator around ever since the Ukraine turned its view westwards.

As much as I hate to agree with UN abassadorship...

There wasn't so much blatant vote-rigging going on; apart from the usual one-sided election officials and dodgy 'advance' voting practices.

Yes, to get him 80%and make this shiny (and prevent any chance for a second round). But he definately had over 50%.

It's the all-pervasive propaganda that gives him his support; primarily by appealing to the negative (i.e. look how much worse off Belarus could be?) and taking complete control of the economy.

The negative message is among what's expected in any campaign; the fact that he used "it's not paradise, but close" is weird - you'd expect him to say "it is paradise".
He didn't "take" control of the economy - he had it. Belarus has remained a Soviet state without a Union.

If practically everyone works for you it's a lot easier to 'persuade' them to vote for you.

The fact is that it is still lucrative to work for him (if they work for him indeed). Frankly, I see little but this sort of paternalism ever holding Belarus on its feet.

His days are numbered; he lacks support in the captial Minsk and his ancient Soviet-era backers are starting to die off.

Capital City vs. Country is the scenario of political battles throughout the world - as such, it is yet to mean something.
Russia=/=USSR. Which is to say: being a Soviet nostalgiac doesn't win you friends in Moscow (it sure as fuck didn't work for the Moldovans - they pay the highest price for gas in Europe, and have a communist gvt). No, rather Lukashenka learned what he's got that boys come back for. Also, check it out: many of Lukashenka's adversaries are Soviet officials (Gorbachevists and Brezhenivists alike); he is just a slick sovkhoz man.

Russia could dispense with him fairly quickly if they ever felt so inclined.

They are not.

Urm... that shows just how much you know about Belarus' history, doesn't it? It wasn't a satellite, it was part of the Soviet Union...
Yes, but that would make it technically a satellite of Russia (whereas Poland or Mongolia were satellites of the Soviet Union). And since it was Russia we were talking about...

Urm... that shows just how much you know about Belarus' history, doesn't it? It wasn't a satellite, it was part of the Soviet Union...
yeah, thats what I meant, it broke away just like the countries like Poland, the Ukriane, and Latvia. When I said satellite I just meant nation that was a part of the Soveit system.

yeah, thats what I meant, it broke away just like the countries like Poland, the Ukriane, and Latvia. When I said satellite I just meant nation that was a part of the Soveit system.
psst... Poland was not in the Soviet Union.

yeah, thats what I meant, it broke away just like the countries like Poland, the Ukriane, and Latvia. When I said satellite I just meant nation that was a part of the Soveit system.Poland wasn't part of the Soviet Union...

The very fact that you need two rounds suggests your system is flawed, is all I'm saying.

You only need two rounds if there isn't a clear majority.

Suppose in the US you got three contestants one year *GASP* and they each got a third of the vote, who gets to be president?

The system in the USA works well enough.

No, a system completly locked by two parties, without any hope for any other to ever gain any power is definitely not a system that "works well enough", it's the complete death of democracy. You can just chose between two parties who have very similar programs, both of them being bound to corporate interests. And a system which makes tactical voting, and not voting for the one you like the most, mandatory is not a system that "works well enough" either. The two-round system isn't free of tactical voting, but it's still much less an issue than with the US system.

While it's hardly perfect, we've rarely had any problems with votes being contested. Only recently has that become an issue, and only in the past two elections.

I didn't see any major contest of elections in Western Europe either. The only one I saw was in the city of Paris, where the ex-mayor Tiberi made some dead people to vote for him, but even that was not very large scale, and happened once in a very long while.

A two round system doesn't have anything to do with fraud or contest.

IThe only one I saw was in the city of Paris, where the ex-mayor Tiberi made some dead people to vote for him
Night of the Living-Dead: Zombies Do Paris.

waving EU flags.

That's just silly.

That's just silly.True though.

psst... Poland was not in the Soviet Union.
um, Im pretty sure they were

um, Im pretty sure they were
um, I'm pretty sure you're not educated.

um, Im pretty sure they were

Poland was not in the Soviet Union.

Poland was a satellite state.

There is a difference.

The negative message is among what's expected in any campaign; the fact that he used "it's not paradise, but close" is weird - you'd expect him to say "it is paradise".


A big part of his appeal is negative: as he and the media constantly reiterate, in Belarus there has been no post-Soviet war, no terrorism, no free-market chaos, etc. Belarussians are encouraged to compare their lots with warped portrayals of their neighbours and there is even some truth in the positive comparison; other ex-Soviet countries are still poorer than they were under communism; Belarus is richer



He didn't "take" control of the economy - he had it. Belarus has remained a Soviet state without a Union.


He 'inherited' control when he took the presidency and has steadfastly maintained the statist economy.



The fact is that it is still lucrative to work for him (if they work for him indeed). Frankly, I see little but this sort of paternalism ever holding Belarus on its feet.



The controlled economy is perhaps his greatest asset, it's certainly his main mechanism of political control. For example, state workers are usually on temporary contracts and are liable to find themselves unemployed if they fail to support government initiatives.


Capital City vs. Country is the scenario of political battles throughout the world - as such, it is yet to mean something.


Control of the largest cities is very important in finding ways around any government 'infromation blockade'



Russia=/=USSR. Which is to say: being a Soviet nostalgiac doesn't win you friends in Moscow (it sure as fuck didn't work for the Moldovans - they pay the highest price for gas in Europe, and have a communist gvt). No, rather Lukashenka learned what he's got that boys come back for. Also, check it out: many of Lukashenka's adversaries are Soviet officials (Gorbachevists and Brezhenivists alike); he is just a slick sovkhoz man.


His backers are from the Soviet-era and therefore elderly, they are not 'pro-Soviet'


They are not.

Well Putin doesn't like him, but then the saying goes that he likes revolutions even less.

Poland was not in the Soviet Union.

Poland was a satellite state.

There is a difference.
thats what I meant

thats what I meant

Nope

You said Poland was part of the Soviet Union.

The very fact that you need two rounds suggests your system is flawed, is all I'm saying.


Hardly. It's called democracy.

It may not be perfect, but it's much better than the American system. In the US, you effectively only have two parties (which are alike in more ways than not). If you vote for any other party, your vote is wasted. The huge problem with a single-round system is that you're left with a choice between voting for one of the "big two" even if you don't agree with them, or throwing away your vote on a small party.

Here in France, a two-round election is designed so that you can feel free to vote for any party in the first round. We have a multi-party system, which is far more democratic than a two-party one.

A big part of his appeal is negative: as he and the media constantly reiterate, in Belarus there has been no post-Soviet war, no terrorism, no free-markettchaos, etc. Belarussians are encouraged to compare their lots with warped portrayals of their neighbours and there is even some truth in the positive comparison; other ex-Soviet countries are still poorer than they were under communism; Belarus is richer

He's not fooling them with those things. I return to Moldova for backup: the communists (the name, as I have stated in some other threads, shouldn't be taken to mean revolutionary Marxism etc) have won elections in that country after two terms for the right which had turned into disaster.

He 'inherited' control when he took the presidency and has steadfastly maintained the statist economy.

But other countries in that area have voluntarily turned towards that system. Arguably, because those countries have no way of making it in any other way (at least for now).

The controlled economy is perhaps his greatest asset, it's certainly his main mechanism of political control. For example, state workers are usually on temporary contracts and are liable to find themselves unemployed if they fail to support government initiatives.

Yes, but they have lived enough in-between-ness to know that they wouldn't have anything guaranteed anyway...

Control of the largest cities is very important in finding ways around any government 'infromation blockade'

To what end? You assume that people will be convinced the moment that happens - but look at Moldova or Eastern Ukraine: they naturally and freely reject what others consider factual.

His backers are from the Soviet-era and therefore elderly, they are not 'pro-Soviet'

Then what are they? Former dissidents? I think that that all of his "backers" are actually conjectural supporters, and he knows how to maneuver with them. The pioneers-bring-me-flowers-wreaths-of-laurels-army-parades is a show he puts on for his people, not his personal beliefs. And it works.

Well Putin doesn't like him, but then the saying goes that he likes revolutions even less.

If I were Russian, I would tend to dislike a revolution in Belarus that would find its main support in Poland.
Apparently, Poland assumes that Prometheism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism ) rhymes with NATO, the same way it assumes that Catholicism rhymes with the EU.

thats what I meant
We have something else on record, abassadorship.

Nope

You said Poland was part of the Soviet Union.
I meant a part of them because they were influenced by them.Why must you focus on details?

I meant a part of them because they were influenced by them.Why must you focus on details?That's what they teach you to do in top notch public schools :D

I meant a part of them because they were influenced by them.Why must you focus on details?
So, part of Poland is now in the US, because "they" are now influenced by the US.
Is that a correct statement?

How informative, we hear very little about Belarus here. Ukraine only made headlines here because of the protests, I wonder if Belarus will be the same way.

Elections in Belarus.
Lukashenko won with 82.6% of all cast votes from last Sunday's election, say Belarussian official sources.
The US refuses to recognize the outcome of the election. Both the EU and the US are contemplating stricter sanctions on the country and members of the government. Russia accepts the outcome of the election.
Meanwhile, protesters on the October Square are holding out against freezing temperatures, waving white-red striped and EU flags.

What's your opinion on the issue?

Articles on it:
Belarus vote protesters defy leader (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/21/belarus.protest.reut/index.html)
Belarus protests enter fourth day (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/22/belarus.protest.ap/index.html)
Belarus poll rallies 'must go on' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4830830.stm)
Minsk protesters hope for change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4834572.stm)

Here we go protestors here we go! *stomps foot twice*

Here we go again. Down with Russia.

He's not fooling them with those things.


Not all of them, no, but enough of the population to currently take over 50% of the vote in a 'fair' election.



I return to Moldova for backup: the communists (the name, as I have stated in some other threads, shouldn't be taken to mean revolutionary Marxism etc) have won elections in that country after two terms for the right which had turned into disaster.


I don't really see the useful comparison between Moldova and Belarus in this context. Can you elaborate in case I am missing something?



But other countries in that area have voluntarily turned towards that system. Arguably, because those countries have no way of making it in any other way (at least for now).


I don't disagree.


Yes, but they have lived enough in-between-ness to know that they wouldn't have anything guaranteed anyway...


I think there is a strong belief that many Belarussians are quietly resigned to the way things are.



To what end? You assume that people will be convinced the moment that happens - but look at Moldova or Eastern Ukraine: they naturally and freely reject what others consider factual.


I don't assume anything of the sort. State propaganda is merely less effective in modern urban environments where the population have greater opportunity to participate in face-to-face conversation with a variety of different people. In a city like Minsk, with higher numbers of foreign visitors, the persuasiveness of such spin is even further degraded. It was no coincidence that internationally-connected Kiev and its environs became the focus of the protests in the Ukraine whilst less prominent, industrial cities in the east of the country remained steadfast in their support of the Russian-backed candidate.



Then what are they? Former dissidents? I think that that all of his "backers" are actually conjectural supporters, and he knows how to maneuver with them. The pioneers-bring-me-flowers-wreaths-of-laurels-army-parades is a show he puts on for his people, not his personal beliefs. And it works.


Presumably the power-brokers who supported his campaign in 1994 on a 'anti-corruption' ticket, i.e. old authoritarians who were not ideologically driven by anything other than the desire to remain in power once the Soviet Union had disintigrated. Given that the state assets of Belarus have not been subjected to a Russian-style garage sale and that a new breed of super-rich oligarchs (i.e the kind of people who tend to bankroll emerging political opposition movements) have therefore not yet appeared, we can assume that they have so far been fairly successful towards this end.



If I were Russian, I would tend to dislike a revolution in Belarus that would find its main support in Poland.
Apparently, Poland assumes that Prometheism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism ) rhymes with NATO, the same way it assumes that Catholicism rhymes with the EU.


Well obviously. Russia doesn't like anyone else meddling in it's own backyard.

Not all of them, no, but enough of the population to currently take over 50% of the vote in a 'fair' election.

Why would be obtaining vote through campaigning not be fair?

I don't really see the useful comparison between Moldova and Belarus in this context. Can you elaborate in case I am missing something?

People will go back to old choices. Especially since both Moldova and Belarus are especially poor, and could offer their citizens the best they've ever had under a rigid Soviet economy: Brezhnev brought a high standard of living, and these countries would not stand a chance on the present (and future) market.
Moldova is especially eloquent: despite the myth, non-Russian nationalism was not what got the USSR to dissolve. Russian nationalism did. As to the part nationalism played in other republics: it was only present in the Baltics and Moldova. Which means that, unlike the vast majority of non-Russians in the USSR, the Moldovans wanted to get away! A bit more than ten yers pass, and Moldova (who has had a chance to be on the free market, and was crushed) votes communist (a very anti-Russian but pro-Soviet sort of communism).

I think there is a strong belief that many Belarussians are quietly resigned to the way things are.

You have agreed with me that they wouldn't have more to hope for anyway.

I don't assume anything of the sort. State propaganda is merely less effective in modern urban environments where the population have greater opportunity to participate in face-to-face conversation with a variety of different people. In a city like Minsk, with higher numbers of foreign visitors, the persuasiveness of such spin is even further degraded. It was no coincidence that internationally-connected Kiev and its environs became the focus of the protests in the Ukraine whilst less prominent, industrial cities in the east of the country remained steadfast in their support of the Russian-backed candidate.

But what spin? He tells them Belarus couldn't be doing any better, and we have agreed that he is right. Inadvertendly, you are also justifying his view that having freer elections would allow some to promise the unsustainable, and beat him using lies (sure, I don't believe he's right when he says it, but it raises an issue).

Presumably the power-brokers who supported his campaign in 1994 on a 'anti-corruption' ticket, i.e. old authoritarians who were not ideologically driven by anything other than the desire to remain in power once the Soviet Union had disintigrated. Given that the state assets of Belarus have not been subjected to a Russian-style garage sale and that a new breed of super-rich oligarchs (i.e the kind of people who tend to bankroll emerging political opposition movements) have therefore not yet appeared, we can assume that they have so far been fairly successful towards this end.

So, then, you're against Lukashenka because he uses (used) old and harsh backers instead of the young and corrupt? Russia is only now getting rid of the disastruous effects of its garage sale... through Putin's authoritarian measures. A state like Belarus would feel thrice the effects: leaving the wheel to the Russian mob means you never can never get back all the control a state should have (it's what happened in Moldova - tight or non-tight society, communist or non-communist, the mobsters still kill several businessmen per month).

Well obviously. Russia doesn't like anyone else meddling in it's own backyard.

Especially since the plan for Belarus implies it becoming Poland's backyard.

Why would be obtaining vote through campaigning not be fair?


I didn't imply that it wasn't. I am just suggesting that in a fair ballot he would still probably win over half the vote



But what spin? He tells them Belarus couldn't be doing any better, and we have agreed that he is right. Inadvertendly, you are also justifying his view that having freer elections would allow some to promise the unsustainable, and beat him using lies (sure, I don't believe he's right when he says it, but it raises an issue).



I don't believe that Belarus 'couldn't be doing any better' than it does now. It could be doing a lot worse and the realistic analysis might conclude that, all things considered, it's not actually doing that badly at all. However, it's a mistake to suggest that the lives of its citizens couldn't be improved in a multitude of ways.

The assumption that someone could 'beat him using lies' is a dangerous one to make if it's the basis for allowing the restriction of political freedom. I'm sure it's something he believes; it doesn't follow that what I have written 'justifies' his authoritarian tendencies.



So, then, you're against Lukashenka because he uses (used) old and harsh backers instead of the young and corrupt?



No. Please stop attributing me with viewpoints I haven't expressed.