The head of Belarus twice mentioned the capital of Belarus in a negative light. “Euroradio” listened to the address along with the ex-member of the House of Representatives, Olga Abramova.
In her opinion, in the current message of the head of Belarus there were many conflicts and contradictions.
“The very words of the speech are in conflict. In the policy statement a whole string of contradictions are presented, which do not agree with each other. Good wishes and intentions are often immediately rebutted by some antithesis.”
“The conflicting nature of the speech is on the surface,” Olga Abramova said.
“In the very beginning he refers to the special path of Belarus: the republic is surrounded by a ring of enemies, or if not enemies, then ill-wishers who are trying to force us to be like everyone else. And this, apparently, we very much do not want. And in his capacity as head of state he demands the separation of the branches of power.”
Here, he has in mind is that one branch of power must always be stronger.
“These ill-wishers would like to see a fight and scuffle in the Oval Office, and then there would be no winner in the fight. Also, by default this means that one branch of government truly must be stronger. And only this could be the basis of stability.”
Furthermore, instead of the bad example of democracy, the western model, he proposes a “good” one.
“Then it becomes clear that he is taking the Chinese model as a basis: a slow transition from economic liberalization to a very, very distant future of political democratization. This is not to happen now, but so that it should outside the rule of the current government.”
According to Abramova, Lukashenko does not overtly express this view, but it very correctly becomes clear from the context. And even the transition to the Russian version of managed democracy, a mixed system of elections, is put off for another 5 years.
Also, contradictions are noticeable at the beginning and the end of the speech.
“First comes the pressure – that this is all bad, that we do not accept it, that we are sovereign, all radically different from everyone else, in general unique. And at the end he says that we are Europeans by definition, and are situated in the centre of Europe geographically. Just do not push, and little by little, without revolutions ever developing, we reach the traditional European values.”
Also, several passages in a row the president repeats words such as “innovation”, “foreign investment”, “initiative”. He actually wants the heads of local authorities, ministers and governors to become active and, perhaps, the important demand will be from them.
“The President is delegating responsibility from himself, as chief executive in the hyper presidential republic, as the official and the chief clerk, who forms the political, social and economic order; so with such people to fulfil his will, he has delegated powers to them. I think that I was wrong, when I implied publicly that Myasnikovich was a potential successor. No, I think this is a potentially responsible person in the event of the failure of economic policy.”
And this responsibility will also be shared by mayors and governors, all the government and business leaders, reckons the ex-deputy.
“It is said I gave you the authority – act! But how will they act if in all these years the selection of managerial staff and, generally, all the political elite has passed by. It is selection by the worst principle: only loyal people have remained; basically he has not laid down the principle of professionalism.”
In the opinion of Olga Abramova, in the government there are no people who are able to pursue an independent line, with the exception of the Deputy Minister Rumas (who for the moment has not been burned for his work) and several people in the National Bank and its subsidiaries.
The words about the sanctity of private property were positive, but according to Abramova, it does not mean real changes. Also the reference struck on Eckhard.
There was nothing particularly new in his message, in the view of Olga Abramova. She thinks the idea of establishing a logistics centre in Belarus is a good one, which Europe could not do without.
Yet the mention of Minsk in a negative light is no coincidence, Abramova is sure.
“It is mentioned twice; in the first case it could be accidental, but the second time he is already talking about the trends of personal animosity towards Minsk, twice mentioned in a negative way. Perhaps this was connected with his evaluation of the behaviour of Minsk residents in the elections.”