The Belarusian opposition dreams of a “caring democracy”

A group of political analysts united in the Fifth Republic project has identified the basic narratives that define the mindset of the Belarusian opposition. There were four of them: about repression and its impact on the political community; about the crisis of legitimacy and political fragmentation; about the role of the diaspora and political exiles; about “caring democracy”. Each of them has both a mobilizing potential and a negative one. Analysts are not yet able to put them into a coherent image of the future.

The Fifth Republic, a Belarusian analytical project, conducted a study aimed at identifying the basic narratives of opposition-minded compatriots. In other words, the experts tried to understand how they describe the surrounding reality, in what terms, based on what values. First of all, they were interested, of course, in the period from 2020 – how the world picture has changed and continues to change after the mass protests five years ago.

Belarusian society is assessed by experts as a “broken mirror”. In a series of publications under the general slogan “After 2020: from the political field to the political community,” analysts from different perspectives offer their vision of the prospects and possibilities of such a movement.

The project participants rightly point out that any political community is constructed through stories, that is, the narratives that dominate it. Experts have identified four narratives that define the thinking of oppositional Belarusians: about repression and its impact on the political community; about the crisis of legitimacy and political fragmentation; about the role of the diaspora and political emigrants and about “caring democracy”.

According to Tony Lashden, a Belarusian from Sweden, the repression “affects not only the processes of political participation… but also the most basic forms of civic and social activity.” Political analyst Pavel Usov believes that “constant repression is evidence of weak support for the regime (its illegitimacy).” from the majority of the population.” Opposition politicians are trying to use this narrative to confirm the justification of their struggle.

However, Fifth Republic analysts point out that there is a downside to this narrative: “Focusing on violence and suffering can cause feelings of helplessness, despair, and demoralization. Understanding repression as total undermines faith in the effectiveness of any form of resistance. In the long run, the narrative of repression needs to be complemented by a positive program of change, otherwise it risks perpetuating the image of the victim as the dominant mode of political subjectivity.”

The narrative of the legitimacy crisis is no less ambivalent. By denying it to the current president, the opposition demands a different legitimacy based on democratic procedures that would inspire their trust. However, here they stumble upon the question of the legitimacy of their own political representation. The authors of the study note: “Pessimistic forecasts, such as Usov’s assessment that “Svetlana Tikhanovskaya’s legitimacy will be completely exhausted in 2025,” can undermine confidence in opposition structures. Discussions about legitimacy often lead away from procedural issues, distracting from the essential issues that concern citizens.”

The third narrative is related to the representation of members of the diaspora about their own role. And it is noted here that they see themselves as active political actors creating new forms of representation and solidarity. Expert Marina Sokolova emphasizes that there is no real gap between “exiles and those who remain in the country,” connections are maintained through “the use of a variety of digital tools.”

However, the sad side of the prospects and the role of the diaspora is that the organizations representing the opposition do not have the resources and opportunities to financially support people who are faced with the difficulties of life in exile. The overwhelming majority of representatives of the diaspora are more concerned with the problems of personal survival than with the development of new political forms for the abandoned homeland.

Nevertheless, it is precisely the fourth narrative, as it seems to some analysts, that offers such an alternative political model. It is conventionally called “caring democracy.” This narrative is most actively promoted by the philosopher Olga Shparaga. Experts of the Fifth Republic note that “Caring democracy” is contrasted with both state paternalism and the heroic narrative of resistance. She criticizes heroization, which “makes invisible a variety of collective efforts and stress, burnout and anxiety, as well as … justifies hierarchical decision-making.” Instead, she “proposes a model based on the redistribution of responsibility for care and the recognition of mutual vulnerability.”

Assessing the positive potential of this idea, experts state that “there is a phenomenon of “civil society on the move,” when organizations that are physically located outside the country continue to work for target groups inside Belarus.”

The more time passes, the further the political transformations inside Belarus go, the higher the risk of deepening the gap between the agenda of emigrant structures and the real problems that concern people inside the country. And no amount of positive attitude and “caring” can do anything about this objective reality.

Nevertheless, the project’s experts conclude that all is not lost, and see a way out in the gradual integration of the narratives described above and “building a mosaic of complementary approaches.” They do not say how, when, or how this mosaic may be in demand.