Belarus’s Next Five-Year Plan Sparks High-Stakes Power Struggle

Minsk finds itself embroiled in a high-stakes political drama as the deadline looms for the finalization of Belarus’s crucial socio-economic development program for 2026-2030. With less than two months remaining until November 1st, a newly formed working group, tasked by President Alexander Lukashenko, is scrambling to overhaul the ambitious blueprint. Adding a significant layer of intrigue, this critical revision effort is being spearheaded by Roman Golovchenko, the former Prime Minister and current head of the National Bank, raising eyebrows and fueling speculation of a brewing аппаратный конфликт (apparatus conflict) within the government.

The urgency stems from a new constitutional mandate: for the first time, this pivotal five-year plan will require approval by the All-Belarusian People’s Assembly (VNS) by year-end. This shift significantly elevates the VNS’s role, transforming it into a body with considerable authority over national strategic direction. President Lukashenko personally ordered the program’s review, signaling his dissatisfaction with the initial draft, which was largely developed under the leadership of current Prime Minister Alexander Turchin.

Golovchenko, chairing the high-profile working group comprised of VNS delegates, state officials, and economic leaders, wasted no time in articulating his critique. At the group’s inaugural meeting held at the National Bank, he declared that “some priorities look quite narrow” and advocated for a more “systematic approach” incorporating robust, innovative development projects. His thinly veiled criticism implied that the existing program lacked sufficient ambition and failed to establish concrete, measurable indicators, often describing processes rather than definable outcomes. Such remarks likely did not sit well with Prime Minister Turchin, whose administration crafted the original framework.

The National Bank chief elaborated on his concerns, suggesting the current version of the plan is fundamentally flawed. He emphasized the need for priorities that are both “concrete and at the same time voluminous,” designed to eliminate existing systemic imbalances and vulnerabilities. Golovchenko’s team has already outlined six broad priorities, including population welfare, human capital development, quality of life, economic competitiveness, digital transformation, and regional growth, signalling a shift towards more comprehensive and targeted objectives.

The catalyst for this executive-level intervention appears to have been Deputy Chairman of the VNS, Alexander Kosinets, who reportedly forwarded “conceptual proposals” to President Lukashenko following discussions at a Council of Ministers presidium meeting. This suggests dissent had been simmering even before Golovchenko’s formal appointment, further underscoring the deep-seated disagreements over the nation’s future economic trajectory. Golovchenko additionally lamented that many sectoral tasks were framed as processes rather than results, making their implementation and success difficult to evaluate. He called for a shift towards a few key, quantifiable objectives in critical areas.

Independent analyst Igor Lenkevich views the unfolding events as a clear power struggle. Traditionally, the Council of Ministers prepares such programs, with presidential adjustments. However, Lenkevich notes, “this time everything went completely off schedule.” He asserts that President Lukashenko’s dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Turchin is not new, pointing to an earlier presidential directive for Golovchenko’s National Bank to form a special group to analyze the economy and oversee the government’s work.

Lenkevich interprets the perceived “vagueness” of Turchin’s initial program as a pragmatic response to economic turbulence. In uncertain times, he suggests, governments might intentionally avoid overly specific, potentially unachievable commitments. This perceived caution, however, has been seized upon by a rival “tower of the state apparatus”—a faction likely represented by Golovchenko—to challenge Turchin’s more liberal economic leanings. Turchin has previously questioned pricing fairness and criticized relying on mere “quantity indicators,” advocating for reduced state support. Golovchenko, by contrast, a former security services member, is known for his staunch support of “assigned tasks in natural units,” underscoring a fundamental ideological divide in approaching Belarus’s economic future. The stage is set for a significant internal battle over the very definition of progress in Minsk.