Results-2006

V for Victory

Distinctive quality of 2006 is its beginning in March. It began on March 19 to be more exactly. No matter how much effort am I trying to put to recall what was before, in Febuary and January, I can’t remember anything. In January and Febuary there was an anticipation of March; there were questions about how the presidential elections would go, and what they would mean for Belarusian society, and for me personally; a question whether Belarusian society along with me would handle a challenge, which most likely be thrown by March 2006.

March 2006 presented us with a trial, comprehension of which continued until the rest of that year. Although, I guess, it started late in March, and ended yearly in October, with heating up discussions over Russian oil and gas prices for Belarus. As it seems, political cycle of 2006 went into another phase, from which we will have to withdraw for a more then one year of 2007. However, perhaps this very year of 2007 and maybe its very beginning will show how radical these results can be.

So, a late beginning and early end of the year 2006 lets us evaluate March events – the beginning of new self awareness of Belarusian society. In other words, gas/oil challenges of the end of that year have sharpened position of those contestants (who range from famous politicians to young activists), those who have been forming political scene starting in March 2006. What can we say about that scene, after all?

The first thing that stands out is the emergence of new players. Though carefully, they can be identified as actors of Civic Society or “new opposition” (G Minienkov). Among them, first of all, it is worthy to select new generation of youth and its activists, and also Protestants and Roman-Catholics. It is fundamentally important, that these payers are not just active, but they engage a whole range of ways for political protests and attraction of new participants. Those are virtual, as well as real-life ones (flash mobs, pickets, strikes, creation of blogs and websites, efficient system of informing others, turning to public opinion with discussions of problems). Their little victories are evidence of Belarusian state being so unprepared for demands of civic society that participants of those events, which are rather few don’t hope for big resonance. The State’s tactic in this case, is doing everything it can for covering up existing social conflicts or their symptoms. For that purpose it invents more new techniques of control and suppression of independent initiatives.
From here we can deduce that rise of new civic initiatives and invention of new forms of manifestation of one’s interests, as well as solidarity, is one of the crucial factors of modern Belarusian society’s dynamics. As all kind of different analysts say, today it is essential to accentuate strategic media of efficient declaration of local needs, that would provoke new social sectors to find out about what is going on.

	citation

The year 2006 lets us evaluate March events – the beginning of new self awareness of Belarusian society.

No doubts that a second player of 2006 is “old opposition”, or the representatives of parties and movements known to everybody for many years. This player, unlike the first one, deserves to be criticized, rather then commended. Hopefully those criticisms reach their busy minds! The key problems of this player, as March events have shown, are stereotypical actions and low speed of reaction to what’s happening. If before this, contestant was falling behind the Government, then since March 2006, it has been falling behind the “new opposition”.

It's true, that such falling behind became an epilogue of 2006: if in March on the Square everyone realized that  the“old opposition” simply did not have any after-victory strategies, which let “new opposition” to become government’s easy target, then by fall, the absence of strategy cries out about itself as if “speaking in tongues”. It is uncomfortable to talk about absence of strategy, but it is impossible to keep silence either! As a result, analysts are more inclined to an opinion that belarusian society can be remodeled only by “new elite”, which will count on not as much on leaders as on civic network, those parties that represent specific groups of society and media. Such network diversity will make it possible to offer Belarusian society an attractive picture of its change, as well as realistic steps towards it.
In its essence, this is exactly what “development of strategy” is: defining in which direction (with what goal, and with what players in alliance, first of all – with EU, Russia, or with someone else?), how ( by what means, with what costs and gains?) and in what time period (how quickly?) we are going to transform our social establishment. Not more or less. Just like in a much talked about in Belarus movie “V for Vendetta”, in which the main character “V” embodied the very same idea of victorious stragety, symbolized by his mask, with no face behind. It took an entire year to act out his strategy, part of which was to make steps that responded to demands of different groups of society.

Substantiating the importance of network, it is necessary to divide activity in different in different levels according to different approaches that is required. Politicians and media alike must understand, that no virtual manipulations can substitute a concise package of programs and reforms (А. Pikulik). In order to create such pakage, they have to revise seriously the interpretational models of Belarusian reality (А. Atsipenka). We need approaches that are fresh and adequate to our situation, based on modern socio-humanitarian knowledge – philosophical, economic, and political. It would be useful to investigate transformation of other post-soviet and authoritarian regimes.

As a third player of Belarusian political scene, I would identify, no, not our government, but International Politics. What lessons can we learn in intereacting with it? One of the most important results of this year is an acute understanding that life is not standing still, and that it’s full of unexpected things. Castro, Hussain, Milosevic, Pinochet, partially Niazov – are authentic symbols of past year, or maybe of the Past. As paradoxical as it seems, they signified changes, the changes in a better direction. Together with them the whole establishments that were associated with desctructive an evil force came to an end.

At the same time, these figures became an acknowledgement of effectiveness in democratic societies of historical Memory which the tyranny in every way aspires to eradicate, altering and deforming history. In a modern world the role of its guard is played by international law. When one views these events in the light of Historical Memory, one can be confused by such new players as Hugo Chavez. They try to fight with globolization using its worse means. People like Chavez, Morales, Ahmadinidjad, or other friends of current Belarusian regime, they are all antagonists of today’s tendencies of liberal democracy. They are not the Past that goes away, they are fading future, or doomed future. Today we are looking for alternatives to it.

	citation

What we need is to become citizens who think independently, who act indepently.

And finally, I am going to talk briefly about the fourth actor, i.e. the government. This player aspires to be on its own, to play with itself. For that reason it constantly changes positions. If today the government speaks about the power of the law, that is only because on the next day it will breach it. Did the power programmers become more keen? At least, they have multiplied, first of all, on ideological and repressive frontiers: from one side filming new documentaries, creating new ideological TV programs and radio emissions (for example a scandalous project “Screen Play 2020”); on the other side they toughened attacks against dissidents, making it almost impossible for them to exist institutionally.

However, once we take a closer look at these new techniques, we instantly see their common logic, which holds a contradiction and consequently self-denial. The soverneigty, which was declared on ideological level, turns out to be a total economic and political dependence. Thus Belarusian Regime loses itself in its own illusion.

The main objective of the Authorities can be defined as creating of false picture of the world, where Belarusian stability is counterparted to the absolute chaos and threats from the outer worlds. A mechanism of haunting fear – the fear of being responsible for oneself for one’s own life, the other side of which is the fear of the Others – of those “hostile ones” and “dangerous” outer world (see. Vladimir Furs). An opportunity to verify the information presented was taken away as well, as the Belarusian State only, became the sole source of wisdom. In such situation, philosophically speaking, we realize the great importance of “care about sole” as Socrates taught us. Such care is also “care about oneself” (self awareness) and “care about truth” (awareness of the world). It is the intertwining of these elements that allows us to stand for our own deeds and be responsible for our choice. We need to base our decisions on many-sided and critical knowledge about ourselves and surrounding world.
***
Does it really mean, that in this new year we need to start working on ourselves? We are representatives of diverse groups of Belarusian society; therefore, we need to accumulate and to manifest them. In other words, what we need is to become citizens who think independently, who act indepently. We should stop connecting our fate exclusively with the will of Belarusian Authorities, Russia, Europe, or International Community. We need to take part in collective action, to interact on equal terms with other members. We need to believe in ourselves and in the openness of the future. For that purpose, we need to start believing in our Victory, while planning steps towards it, being aware that we make mistakes, and that we have to learn from them.

Only after that, we will understand, that we are only at the beginning, that our political and cultural life is only on its dawn, because today we are the convicts of the system that “denies us and the world”. It will happen unless we take a chance and do something. As march 2006 showed, only such a life can be really interesting and exciting. I wish that each of my readers develops a taste for such a life in the New Year of 2007.