The power vertical we see now, the immense bureaucracy apparatus built and schooled by Alexander Lukashenko, is absolutely unable to turn to the West.

During his speech in front of House of Representatives and the Council of the Republic on October 7, Alexander Lukashenko made several important statements: on the need to change the Constitution, on revising relations with the Russian Federation and on Belarusization. Though a lot was said, is there anything new in it?

The EuroBelarus Information Service together with philosopher and methodologist Uladzimir Matskevich has tried to clear up the theses of the Belarusan leader:

— A lot of issues were brought up during the speech: referendum, death penalty, Belarusan language – it is very difficult to single out something important and honest of all the demagoguery. Take, for example, Lukashenko's statement that Belarusan army will defend Russian Federation to the last drop of blood... All the statements create such a context from which extraction of something important is absolutely impossible. He equivocated so that everyone can hear what they consider important.

— One of the main messages of Lukashenko is the possible amendments to the Constitution. What are the challenges — internal or external – that force official Minsk to change the Constitution?

— This statement is completely unofficial and there is no reason to believe that a change in the Constitution is settled whatsoever. Let's see if there is any ground — objective or subjective — to change the Constitution.

There is no reason to change the Constitution at least because it is not abided by anyway, it is not directly applied. Secondly, numerous provisions of the Constitution are not interpreted according to the Constitution or the letter of the law but according to the will of the authorities. It is completely unclear what Lukashenko wants to change in this Constitution; he should be quite satisfied with it as it is now.

Siarhei Skrabets (ex-deputy of the Belarusan parliament — note by EuroBelarus.Info) said that we are talking about transferring of the right to elect a president to the Parliament. There is no sense in such changes as such a rule weakens the legitimacy of the president. It is one thing when a president is elected by a hundred of deputies, and absolutely different when a president is elected by national vote. It sounds like a step towards a parliamentary republic.

Skrabets also suggests a Parliament’s right to elect a successor of the president so it turns out that we are talking about inheriting power in a certain way. When a son or another unknown person is elected by national vote under the conditions of two decades of dictatorship, even ballot rigging is not likely to help; they will have to implement the third generation of political techniques to the full capacity. Serious preventive training of the entire population is needed to elect a complete stranger or vote for an unpopular person.

But the third generation of political techniques allows doing so without changing the Constitution. Let’s recall how Yeltsin was re-elected for the second time with popularity rate 6% only after winning the first round of elections, and the way Putin was elected. No logic and rationality in such an amendment to the Constitution can be seen. So Skrabets’ version is highly questionable.

— “We often talk about multi-vector policy but in reality we admit being one-winged,” Lukashenko stated. Vladimir Makei confirmed in Warsaw that “We're not going to break away from Russia... but we want to get rid of this burdening dependence.” Is there an understanding that it’s high time official Minsk distanced from the Kremlin?

— Lukashenko understood this back in 1999-2000, when Putin became the president of Russia. The Kremlin made a claim that the regime is here to stay; therefore there is no prospect for Lukashenko but to remain president of a sovereign and independent state. But the question is not what hints and statements, which are not supported by any official decisions, the two main politicians of the country are making but in the presence of the political will. But we cannot see any political will to become fully independent in the actions of the government, Presidential Administration or Lukashenko.

— Is there no political will or possibilities?

— Indeed, the existence of a political will only is not enough — we need resources and support. The vertical we see now, the immense bureaucracy apparatus built and schooled by Alexander Lukashenko, is absolutely unable to turn to the West.

— In his speech in front of the deputies Lukashenko came across as a defender of the Belarusan language. Is official Minsk really turning in the direction of national values? Or everything mentioned was just idle words?

— I think yes. We need political will and preparations — the public and the bureaucracy — to feel the need to strengthen national identity, national symbols, Belarusan language. You need to keep track of what is going on in the media to detect emerging trends. There are some timid attempts to turn to the Belarusan language in the press, urge to become more tolerant of Belarusan history and everything that we call “svyadomy” part of the Belarusan opposition. But current efforts do not go beyond what was observed in the past: they are so insignificant that we cannot talk about any new trends. Such cosmetic innovations are meaningless and should not be perceived as a real change for Belarusization. Moreover, Alena Anisim’s becoming parliament deputy is not significant either, even if she speaks exclusively in the Belarusan language.