They are looking for an ideology for Belarus

A meeting of the 68th session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union of Belarus and Russia was held in Brest on Monday. The participants adopted a statement on the protection of historical truth. The day before, opposition politicians gathered in Warsaw for a conference to find out if “democratic Belarus” has a future. Alexander Lukashenko also recently demanded that the staff of the presidential administration think about the future and finally come up with a common ideology that the people can understand.

The 68th session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union of Belarus and Russia also discussed major allied projects that would ensure even closer integration of the two countries, such as the construction of the Brest-Moscow high–speed railway and the reconstruction of the highway connecting Minsk and Moscow. But the participants of the meeting paid much more attention to strengthening ideological unity.

The session adopted a statement on the protection of historical truth and the preservation of historical memory of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. In addition, Chairman of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus Igor Sergeenko said that the international forum of the Union State “Great Heritage – Common Future”, held in April in Volgograd, is planned to become traditional and be held in 2026 in Belarus.

It is proposed to dedicate it to the 85th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. “The International Forum of the Union State has shown that traditional universal values are supported and shared by many foreign partners. Their number is growing, and we saw this in Volgograd. We have something to say to each other, something to share,” Igor Sergeenko said.

But ideological work should be carried out constantly and steadily, and not only during large-scale events. Sergeenko stressed: “I have no doubt that the upcoming work of the Parliamentary Assembly’s commission on the preservation of historical memory will be aimed at strengthening intergenerational relations, preventing stratification of society, and protecting spiritual values.”

It would seem that the course has been outlined, it remains only to bring it to life. However, Alexander Lukashenko’s recent statements suggest that, despite all the calls for increased ideological work, he still does not see the clear outlines of the ideology itself. No, of course, the memory of the Great Victory is a constant, but besides it, the president also needs something clearly formulated that he would like to present to the population.

Last week, at a meeting with the leadership of the presidential administration, Lukashenko stated the urgent need to develop a national idea.

“God grant that we finally tell the people clearly not only what ideology is, but how we always say: we would like to develop a national idea that could capture the souls and hearts and minds of people,” Alexander Lukashenko said. “Maybe she is.” Some people say “patriotism” or something else. But I don’t feel like there is such an idea. If we work it out – and this should be a very important goal for us, which will capture everything from the heart to the mind of a person – this is the peak.”

While Belarusian officials will strive to conquer this “peak,” opposition leaders are setting themselves and their colleagues a similar task. On Sunday in Warsaw, they held a conference for some reason not at all under the Belarusian name – Reshape, dedicated to discussions about the future of Belarus. And the discussion really turned out. According to opposition Internet resources, the leader of the Belarusians faction in the Coordinating Council, Andrei Egorov, frankly stated: “We have lost the mass support of society now and have turned into a rather marginal opposition circle.” And he developed his idea: “Focusing on the broad views of Belarusians in 2020, we slipped into the traditional opposition activist narrative that existed earlier: “Belarus to Europe, sanctions, street protests will save us, we will write another 28 thousand reform projects – and this will form an idea of what to do in the future.”

However, as Egorov rather pessimistically stated, “society is not interested in all this.” And, in fact, he even zeroed in on the meaning of the conference itself, in which he participated: “We can still harm the regime, but it is difficult, difficult, routine. The “Thousand Cuts Strategy” can still be carried out today. But for some reason, instead we are engaged in the “strategy of a thousand visits and two thousand conferences.”

The chief adviser to Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, Franak Vyachorka, tried to object to him. He noted that “there is a lot of talk that everything is bad,” but there are no real alternative proposals.

“And here in our situation there are two options: either to do something that solves practical issues, even if they are small – to save someone from Interpol, to get some visas, support from the Swedes for the media, it helps those who influence the situation inside the country.… 

The second option is to simply capitulate,” admitted Vyachorka. And I asked myself an alarming question: “Do you still have the strength to continue fighting, invest, and take risks?” And he summed it up rather vaguely: “To be honest, I have no idea what to do next year exactly to change the situation in Belarus. Lack. But it should be done by trial and error.”

To describe what would happen if we simply surrendered, the politician used a rather unexpected term: “If we just capitulate now and say: “Belarusians, that’s it, we have surrendered, Lukashenko has won, the political crisis is over” – expect the European Union to stop supporting civil society, the media, “business as usual”, political prisoners they will sit out their years and have no chance of change. Or maybe it will end with the extradition of “fugitives” to Belarus.”