Moldova could teach Lukashenko a democracy lesson

By Robert Cottrell

Date: 14/04/05

It is said that Aleksander Lukashenko, the moustachioed dictator of Belarus, has been studying the Moldovan Communist Party's election victory last month and wondering if it has anything to teach him.

The Moldovan Communists were as slavishly pro-Russian as Lukashenko when they took power in 2001. But then they fell out with the Kremlin, and this year they ran successfully as a pro-European party.

The West has welcomed the about-turn. If the Moldovan Communists change their name to something like the 'Democratic Left Alliance', in a decade or so they will be snoozing in the European Parliament.

It would be more difficult for Lukashenko to pull off that trick. Too many of his political opponents have been killed or gone missing since he took power in 1994. Too much of the state budget has disappeared into his slush funds. For Lukashenko, a successful transition would be less a matter of staying in office than of staying out of jail.

But still, his negotiating position is strong. It is equally difficult to see how Belarus can be changed for the better without his co-operation. He has destroyed the preconditions for democracy wherever they have started taking shape.

The revolutions in Tbilisi and Kiev have shown that the elements needed to overthrow an authoritarian post-communist government in Europe include a tier of civil society in which the opposition can organise and unite; campaign advice from foreign NGOs; at least one channel of independent broadcast media to get the message across; money from local business; and reasonable confidence that the police will not fire on the crowd.

Belarus has none of these things. Lukashenko has harassed and bankrupted foreign and local NGOs. He has shut down or cowed independent media. His goons do kill people. The economy is so small and so state-dominated that only businesses owned or protected by the central government can survive.

In this blighted political landscape, opposition has been limited to small fragmented camps whose bravery is admirable but whose political skills are necessarily slight.

But if Lukashenko has made himself difficult to dislodge in the near term, he has also got no closer to fixing a stable destiny for his country, and for himself with it.

Union with Russia has been the supposed goal of Belarussian foreign policy for most of Lukashenko's rule. But whenever Russia has pushed seriously in that direction, Lukashenko has backed off and vice versa.

The problem is that Lukashenko wants a merger of the two countries on equal terms, with himself as future president. Russia wants Belarus as one of its provinces, perhaps with Lukashenko as governor. Vladimir Putin and Lukashenko usually give every sign of loathing each other. But it was smiles all round, through gritted teeth, when they met last week. Putin has no choice. After losing so many countries lately, he is looking careless. Belarus, his last ally to the west, must be handled with respect.

But if I were Lukashenko now (a terrifying thought) I would do a bit of stock-taking. Do I want to be locked forever into this embrace with a ruthless Russia and a failing Putin? Or do I look west and see if I can indeed get away with the sort of thing Moldova has done?

The latter must have its charms. While Lukashenko and Putin were protesting their friendship last week, Belarus was quietly halving its visa fees for Americans and promising something similar for EU nationals. I doubt that you or I would want to visit Belarus any time soon. But it is a signal, I think, that even Lukashenko may some day want us as friends.

• Robert Cottrell is Central Europe correspondent for The Economist.

Commentary feature in which the author discusses the political situation of Belarus leader, Aleksander Lukashenko, and compares it to Moldova, where the Communist party recently turned towards the European Union rather than Russia as its main focus.

• Primary Source