A “Pseudoscience?”

Totalitarian regimes traditionally give sociology the cold shoulder: can public opinion exist when society marches in tight ranks? In the 1930s many sociologists emigrated from Nazi Germany. Sociologists also left Bolshevik Russia, some of them having been forced out. Later, the Communist Party’s Central Committee labeled sociology a “pseudoscience.” Similar rhetoric is being heard today in Belarus, which thus far has targeted one independent sociological center.

In a special statement the European Union recently expressed concern over the Belarusian authorities’ intention to close down the Independent Institute of Socioeconomic and Political Studies (IISEPS). Last Tuesday the Supreme Court of Belarus began considering the Ministry of Justice’s lawsuit regarding the closure of this organization. The sociological institute is being accused of violating its statute, rigging public opinion polls, and attempting to influence public opinion by publishing exit poll information. “The so-called nationwide polls were falsified. Instead of studying public opinion, the organization is influencing it,” the Minister of Justice claims.

President Alexander Lukashenko has his reasons for taking up arms against the sociologists. According to the official results of last October’s referendum, the present incumbent received more than 77% of the vote in support of his intention to run again for the presidency. After the referendum IISEPS published the results of a survey conducted jointly with the Gallup Institute’s Baltic branch, whereby only 48.4% of Belarusians cast a “yes” vote. Did the president lose the referendum? IISEPS decided to verify last year’s results this past March: they conducted a nationwide poll by interviewing 1,516 people aged 18 and over, with a maximum margin of error of 0.03. They claim today that 49% of respondents voted for Lukashenko’s right to run for a third term. Incidentally, only 34% of respondents are aware of the different results of the referendum. A smaller percentage of respondents, 29%, thinks that those results are more realistic. The percentage of those who trust the official results — 41% — is also relatively small.

Even among those who voted for constitutional amendments, more than a quarter would not like to see Lukashenko as president for life. Today, about 47% are ready to reelect him to a third term. Sixty-eight percent of respondents do not know of any politician who could successfully compete with the present incumbent, and nearly 33% would vote for such a politician if any existed. IISEPS analysts also note that the consolidated electorate of democratic candidates is three times as large each of them individually. (The most favorable options for the opposition in the so-called pair ratings — a choice between Lukashenko and another candidate — do not exceed 11%.) An alternative candidate who garnered one-third of the votes would lose in any case, but he would receive a powerful impetus for post-election political activity in Belarus and beyond its border. The problem is that oppositionists are not rushing to join forces to form a single team.

Incidentally, the Belarusians are almost evenly divided in their attitude to the recent events in Ukraine. Forty-seven percent believe that the Orange Revolution was “a subjective process caused by Western political interference and governmental weakness,’ while 45.6% are sure this was “an objective process caused by public discontent over the government’s policies.” Moreover, IISEPS points out that about 42% of Belarusians think that life in Ukraine is worse than in their country. It has not been ruled out that a comparatively low estimate of Ukrainian living standards prompted the opponents and many followers of Lukashenko to say that the Ukrainian events had an objective nature. Interestingly, 22.4% believe (compared to 61.2% who do not) in the likelihood of similar events taking place in Belarus.

How do Belarusians rate their own living standards? IISEPS notes a certain improvement in the way basic requirements are being met: people generally say they have enough food, clothing, and footwear. However, only 3% of respondents said that their incomes allow them to buy such things as furniture, a car, or an apartment.

Twenty-six percent of respondents said they had fallen victim to bureaucratic injustice in the past three years, with 41% putting the blame on the police and 34% on the local government. Every third injured party said his/her rights had been infringed, every fourth said that s/he had been insulted, and every fifth said that the authorities had either extorted money from him/her or failed to keep their promises. As few as 26.7% of those polled think that basic human rights are always observed in Belarus, while almost 60% noted that they were observed partially or were ignored altogether. According to respondents, among the most frequently violated rights are those to a decent life, equality before the law, freedom of assembly (meetings, rallies, demonstrations), and freedom of expression. Eighty- seven percent of respondents support the demands of private entrepreneurs, who recently staged a nationwide strike in protest against the new VAT rules.

The distribution of answers to the question, “How would you assess the performance of the Belarusian authorities on a five-point scale?” speaks volumes. The respondents awarded 2.7 points to local administrations, 2.9 to parliament, and 3.0 to the cabinet, while the president topped the list with 3.43 points, which makes him a mediocre pupil by Soviet school standards.