25 Lukashenko’s Belarus: Stability Amongst Corruption by Mason Hughes
Abstract:
This paper provides an government overview
and brief history of Belarus, specifically highlighting the current
President, Alexander Lukashenko. The history of which he takes
office, as well as the early constitutional changes he made to stay
in office will be evaluated. We will cover the soviet style social
contracts that create stability as well as the attitudes of the citizens
towards the president.
(Belarus Flag Map, n.d.)
Introduction: The last dictatorship in Europe
Belarusians in the past were often characterized as a stateless people. This is because
until the twentieth century, a state with a Belarusian name did not exist. Identifying themselves
on a state level was hard, especially for the secluded villages which have only known communist
rule. However, the emergence of strong federalist values can be attributed to the fact Belarusian
areas were always part of different states and empires (Sahm, 1999, p. 650). As a landlocked
country in Europe, Belarus has always been very dependent on its neighbors for resources and
trade, such as they are with Russia for energy.
Alexander Lukashenko is the current Belarusian president. His leadership style comes
from deep roots of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) regime, before the
independence of Belarus. Now, the country is a Unitary Presidential Republic under a
dictatorship. The only remaining dictatorship in Europe. The most significant neighboring
country to Belarus is Russia. Other former members of the USSR also border Belarus. Ukraine
among them, which is currently being invaded by Russia, Belarus has assisted in these efforts.
President Lukashenko has been steadfast in his support of his country’s ally Russia. Although
independent of Russia, Belarus is used as a proxy of Russia. The war between Russia and
Ukraine was staged and launched from Belarusian territory to the north of Ukraine. Belarus is
reliant on Russia for not only cheap energy but also monetary loans (Karmanau, 2024, p. 1).
Belarus started out its independence from the USSR facing an economic and political
crisis. Before their first presidential election, living standards dramatically dropped. Their
popular first president, Lukashenko, rescued the country and brought the stability they were
looking for since leaving the Soviet Union. Thus far, the president has continued to push a Soviet
culture of leadership, which has blocked modernization in the post-Soviet society. Thirty years in
Belarusians in the past were often characterized as a stateless people. This is because
until the twentieth century, a state with a Belarusian name did not exist. Identifying themselves
on a state level was hard, especially for the secluded villages which have only known communist
rule. However, the emergence of strong federalist values can be attributed to the fact Belarusian
areas were always part of different states and empires (Sahm, 1999, p. 650). As a landlocked
country in Europe, Belarus has always been very dependent on its neighbors for resources and
trade, such as they are with Russia for energy.
Alexander Lukashenko is the current Belarusian president. His leadership style comes
from deep roots of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) regime, before the
independence of Belarus. Now, the country is a Unitary Presidential Republic under a
dictatorship. The only remaining dictatorship in Europe. The most significant neighboring
country to Belarus is Russia. Other former members of the USSR also border Belarus. Ukraine
among them, which is currently being invaded by Russia, Belarus has assisted in these efforts.
President Lukashenko has been steadfast in his support of his country’s ally Russia. Although
independent of Russia, Belarus is used as a proxy of Russia. The war between Russia and
Ukraine was staged and launched from Belarusian territory to the north of Ukraine. Belarus is
reliant on Russia for not only cheap energy but also monetary loans (Karmanau, 2024, p. 1).
Belarus started out its independence from the USSR facing an economic and political
crisis. Before their first presidential election, living standards dramatically dropped. Their
popular first president, Lukashenko, rescued the country and brought the stability they were
looking for since leaving the Soviet Union. Thus far, the president has continued to push a Soviet
culture of leadership, which has blocked modernization in the post-Soviet society. Thirty years in
power as of this year and there is no end in sight as he plans on running again in the next
election. Belarus is lacking in local self-government. The local officials have extensive
responsibilities, including carrying out programs such as health administration and infrastructure.
At their own expense, they must fulfill obligations laid out to them by the central administration.
President Lukashenko gives the orders and the local budgets are depleted forcing them to heavily
rely on the government (Silitski & Pikulik, 2011, pp. 117-118).
First we will look at the history of Belarus discussing the era before the Soviet Union as
well as when the Soviet Union controlled Belarus. The Soviet Union’s institutions were vital to
keep Belarus functioning as a new country. We will also cover the President and how he runs his
country through the governmental structure. After we discuss the history and the corruption in
the government, we will discuss the social contracts that were created to create stability, how
they have started to erode, and how the President attempted to alter them from social to military
contracts. The attitude towards the government and the trust of the citizens towards the army will
also be analyzed. Finally we will discuss the future Belarus is heading towards with the current
administrations and leaders.
Historical Background: How Belarus came about
Belarusian history goes back further than the Soviet Union. The area has always been
very volatile and changes have taken place numerous times depending on the reforms the current
regime wished for. From Mongols, to Soviets, to Lukashenko, oppression is still oppression. The
independence of the country finally came about with the collapse of the system they have lived
with for a lifetime. Before the communist era and joining the USSR in 1922, Belarus was one of
the poorest countries in this region of Europe. Once forcefully being united with the Soviets,
they executed a five year plan to exponentially grow the country industrially (Ioffe, 2004, 86).
election. Belarus is lacking in local self-government. The local officials have extensive
responsibilities, including carrying out programs such as health administration and infrastructure.
At their own expense, they must fulfill obligations laid out to them by the central administration.
President Lukashenko gives the orders and the local budgets are depleted forcing them to heavily
rely on the government (Silitski & Pikulik, 2011, pp. 117-118).
First we will look at the history of Belarus discussing the era before the Soviet Union as
well as when the Soviet Union controlled Belarus. The Soviet Union’s institutions were vital to
keep Belarus functioning as a new country. We will also cover the President and how he runs his
country through the governmental structure. After we discuss the history and the corruption in
the government, we will discuss the social contracts that were created to create stability, how
they have started to erode, and how the President attempted to alter them from social to military
contracts. The attitude towards the government and the trust of the citizens towards the army will
also be analyzed. Finally we will discuss the future Belarus is heading towards with the current
administrations and leaders.
Historical Background: How Belarus came about
Belarusian history goes back further than the Soviet Union. The area has always been
very volatile and changes have taken place numerous times depending on the reforms the current
regime wished for. From Mongols, to Soviets, to Lukashenko, oppression is still oppression. The
independence of the country finally came about with the collapse of the system they have lived
with for a lifetime. Before the communist era and joining the USSR in 1922, Belarus was one of
the poorest countries in this region of Europe. Once forcefully being united with the Soviets,
they executed a five year plan to exponentially grow the country industrially (Ioffe, 2004, 86).
Belarus as a nation was very gradual in its development. The region that is now Belarus has been
conquered and divided up by rulers, set on conquest, starting with the Baltics and the Eastern
slavs. The Mongols forced the regional principalities into submission in the year 1237, however
full unification of the local pagan tribes wouldn’t take place until October 24th, 1795. Russia,
Austria, and Prussia divided the region, with Russia gaining the region which later became
Belarus.
Under Imperial Russia Belarusian nationalism was strongly discouraged. The use of the
Belarusian language was prohibited and Catholic beliefs were pushed on the people to try to
replace their Orthodox faith. The Russification, or the resettling of Russian nationals into other
countries to strengthen Russia’s hold on the area, went on for many years creating a negative
attitude towards Russian culture. In 1863, Belarusian peasants and insurgents joined an uprising
against the Russian Empire, but independence did not sprout quite yet. During the October
Revolution, urban workers united and overthrew the government.
On July 31st, 1920 the Soviets conquered Belarus’s capital city Minsk from Poland and
set up the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (BSSR). Years following the Soviets
implementing the Korenizatziya Policy, which encouraged Belarusian language and culture
along with new economic policies, led to rapid growth and industrialization across the BSSR.
The BSSR joined the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922. After the World War
Two invasion and occupation by the Nazis which killed millions, the Soviets and Russians
continued to implement Sovietization and Russification policies meant to isolate Belarus from
Western Europe. The devastation that came along with World War Two impacted Belarus
tremendously, wiping out a third of the region’s population (Ioffe, 2004, 86). In 1988, the
nationalist Belarussian Popular Front (BPF) accused the Soviet government of trying to eliminate
conquered and divided up by rulers, set on conquest, starting with the Baltics and the Eastern
slavs. The Mongols forced the regional principalities into submission in the year 1237, however
full unification of the local pagan tribes wouldn’t take place until October 24th, 1795. Russia,
Austria, and Prussia divided the region, with Russia gaining the region which later became
Belarus.
Under Imperial Russia Belarusian nationalism was strongly discouraged. The use of the
Belarusian language was prohibited and Catholic beliefs were pushed on the people to try to
replace their Orthodox faith. The Russification, or the resettling of Russian nationals into other
countries to strengthen Russia’s hold on the area, went on for many years creating a negative
attitude towards Russian culture. In 1863, Belarusian peasants and insurgents joined an uprising
against the Russian Empire, but independence did not sprout quite yet. During the October
Revolution, urban workers united and overthrew the government.
On July 31st, 1920 the Soviets conquered Belarus’s capital city Minsk from Poland and
set up the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (BSSR). Years following the Soviets
implementing the Korenizatziya Policy, which encouraged Belarusian language and culture
along with new economic policies, led to rapid growth and industrialization across the BSSR.
The BSSR joined the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922. After the World War
Two invasion and occupation by the Nazis which killed millions, the Soviets and Russians
continued to implement Sovietization and Russification policies meant to isolate Belarus from
Western Europe. The devastation that came along with World War Two impacted Belarus
tremendously, wiping out a third of the region’s population (Ioffe, 2004, 86). In 1988, the
nationalist Belarussian Popular Front (BPF) accused the Soviet government of trying to eliminate
the Belarusian people upon the discovery of a mass grave site near Minsk. These people were
killed during the Stalinist purges of 1937-1941. The Supreme Soviet issued the Declaration of
State Sovereignty of the BSSR making Belarusian the official state language. When the Soviet
Union collapsed, the BSSR became the Republic of Belarus, finally independent.
As independent Belarus appeared on the map, an entire state political system needed to
be built and a strong president was found in Alexander Lukashenko. Belarus as a new country
lacked independent traditions, which were essential when forming a new nation; instead, the
USSR’s identity lingered (Kuleszewicz, 2018, p. 619). Free from Moscow’s top down command,
Belarus was free to design their government how they pleased, but a relationship with their
former brothers in Russia was still essential, in comparison to other countries that also were part
of the Soviet Union which viewed Russia as an enemy. Lukashenko emerged seemingly out of
nowhere. Before running for President, he was the head of a small state farm and was well
known for authoring an article that warned of the possibility of a dictator arising in Belarus.
After giving a speech on the radio denouncing corruption, he defeated the current prime minister
in the presidential election. Immediately after taking office, Lukashenko started to impose his
autocratic rule (Way, 2020, pp. 18-19). Emboldening the office of the president, Lukashenko has
managed to concentrate much economic and political power in his hands and in the hands of his
office should he ever be removed.
Institutional Features: Corruption of state
In most dictatorships, whoever is in power generally is willing to do whatever it takes to
stay in power and maintain control. Belarus is no different, from corrupt elections to
constitutional changes. Power in Belarus is very centralized in the seat of the president. Changes
of the constitution helps contribute to the mass amounts of corruption occurring throughout the
killed during the Stalinist purges of 1937-1941. The Supreme Soviet issued the Declaration of
State Sovereignty of the BSSR making Belarusian the official state language. When the Soviet
Union collapsed, the BSSR became the Republic of Belarus, finally independent.
As independent Belarus appeared on the map, an entire state political system needed to
be built and a strong president was found in Alexander Lukashenko. Belarus as a new country
lacked independent traditions, which were essential when forming a new nation; instead, the
USSR’s identity lingered (Kuleszewicz, 2018, p. 619). Free from Moscow’s top down command,
Belarus was free to design their government how they pleased, but a relationship with their
former brothers in Russia was still essential, in comparison to other countries that also were part
of the Soviet Union which viewed Russia as an enemy. Lukashenko emerged seemingly out of
nowhere. Before running for President, he was the head of a small state farm and was well
known for authoring an article that warned of the possibility of a dictator arising in Belarus.
After giving a speech on the radio denouncing corruption, he defeated the current prime minister
in the presidential election. Immediately after taking office, Lukashenko started to impose his
autocratic rule (Way, 2020, pp. 18-19). Emboldening the office of the president, Lukashenko has
managed to concentrate much economic and political power in his hands and in the hands of his
office should he ever be removed.
Institutional Features: Corruption of state
In most dictatorships, whoever is in power generally is willing to do whatever it takes to
stay in power and maintain control. Belarus is no different, from corrupt elections to
constitutional changes. Power in Belarus is very centralized in the seat of the president. Changes
of the constitution helps contribute to the mass amounts of corruption occurring throughout the
country. President Lukanshenko rules with almost absolute power, making democracy a topic not
spoken of much in Belarus. After taking office, he revised the constitution to extend his office
terms and power. Under Lukashenko, it is deemed illegal to criticize the government as well as
hold demonstrations that are deemed anti-government. The Western media outlets refer to
Lukashenko as Europe’s last dictator. In Belarus, the chief of state is the President, the head of
government is the Prime Minister. The cabinet or council of ministers is selected by the
President. Under the leadership of the President, the executive branch carries out government
policy. The president is directly elected by an absolute majority popular vote, in more than one
round if it is necessary, to a term of five years with no limits otherwise.
The political system focuses most of its power in the seat of the President; these include
appointment powers such as appointing the Prime Minister as well as Deputy Prime Ministers,
who work directly under him. Another power the seat of the President holds is the power to
execute laws and degrees for an undisputed amount of time. (Warfield, 2024). Lukashenko has
ruled Belarus with an iron fist since taking office, the way the government is structured, giving
him almost absolute powers allows this, along with his elite and loyal military force. Other
countries such as Poland and Lithuania do not recognize President Alexander Lukashenko as the
legitimate president of Belarus. Lithuania hosts the main opposition candidate along with other
members of the opposition (BBC, 2024).
Belarus, after becoming independent, drafted a modern constitution introducing
separation of powers and reducing the role of the Prime Minister. This constitution, also making
Belarus a presidential democracy, was finally drafted and signed in 1994. Amendments can be
proposed by the president to the national assembly or by a petition of at least 150,000 eligible
voters. The complex system Belarus partially secured from the Soviet period has helped them
spoken of much in Belarus. After taking office, he revised the constitution to extend his office
terms and power. Under Lukashenko, it is deemed illegal to criticize the government as well as
hold demonstrations that are deemed anti-government. The Western media outlets refer to
Lukashenko as Europe’s last dictator. In Belarus, the chief of state is the President, the head of
government is the Prime Minister. The cabinet or council of ministers is selected by the
President. Under the leadership of the President, the executive branch carries out government
policy. The president is directly elected by an absolute majority popular vote, in more than one
round if it is necessary, to a term of five years with no limits otherwise.
The political system focuses most of its power in the seat of the President; these include
appointment powers such as appointing the Prime Minister as well as Deputy Prime Ministers,
who work directly under him. Another power the seat of the President holds is the power to
execute laws and degrees for an undisputed amount of time. (Warfield, 2024). Lukashenko has
ruled Belarus with an iron fist since taking office, the way the government is structured, giving
him almost absolute powers allows this, along with his elite and loyal military force. Other
countries such as Poland and Lithuania do not recognize President Alexander Lukashenko as the
legitimate president of Belarus. Lithuania hosts the main opposition candidate along with other
members of the opposition (BBC, 2024).
Belarus, after becoming independent, drafted a modern constitution introducing
separation of powers and reducing the role of the Prime Minister. This constitution, also making
Belarus a presidential democracy, was finally drafted and signed in 1994. Amendments can be
proposed by the president to the national assembly or by a petition of at least 150,000 eligible
voters. The complex system Belarus partially secured from the Soviet period has helped them
survive this long. Belarus’s stability can be largely attributed to its police force and military. It is
thought Belarus has the largest law enforcement force per capita among post soviet states
(Pranevičiūtė-Neliupšienė & Maksimiuk, 2012, pp. 107). A previous democratic opposition
leader considered the powers held by Lukenskanko to be unlawful as he held the power to
appoint and dismiss members of all courts including the supreme court (Kuleszewicz, 2018, p.
622).
In 1996, facing calls for impeachment, Lukashenko shut down the parliament, replacing
it, and imposing a new constitution with a system where he was almost the supreme power of the
country. Elections originally were more or less fair because the incumbent had not learned the
manipulation tactics required to rig the elections but over the years fraud became more evident to
the public, especially as Lukashenko’s popularity has declined significantly (Way, 2020, p.19;
Silitski, 2005, pp. 85-86). For many years he portrayed a sentiment of invincibility in the polls.
When the opposition attempted to deteriorate his popularity, Lukashenko introduced censorship
in the media and established personal control over most state institutions (Silitski, 2005, p. 86).
Opposition candidates that challenge Lukashenko in Belarus are always silenced in some way,
some have been arrested, but all have been censored in one way or another when they have been
interviewed. In electoral authoritarian states it is important for the authorities at large to maintain
a level of control over the election and the rules. The government of Belarus refuses to allow the
opposition to spread unrest and democracy to the public (Bedford, 2017, pp. 386-387). Current
opposition leaders for Belarus are not located in Belarus, they hold out in neighboring countries
where they may rally supporters to aid in their cause. Many of his former opponents were
executed by a death squad, according to a credible Belarusian security agent (Ó Beacháin &
Polese, 2010, p. 124).
thought Belarus has the largest law enforcement force per capita among post soviet states
(Pranevičiūtė-Neliupšienė & Maksimiuk, 2012, pp. 107). A previous democratic opposition
leader considered the powers held by Lukenskanko to be unlawful as he held the power to
appoint and dismiss members of all courts including the supreme court (Kuleszewicz, 2018, p.
622).
In 1996, facing calls for impeachment, Lukashenko shut down the parliament, replacing
it, and imposing a new constitution with a system where he was almost the supreme power of the
country. Elections originally were more or less fair because the incumbent had not learned the
manipulation tactics required to rig the elections but over the years fraud became more evident to
the public, especially as Lukashenko’s popularity has declined significantly (Way, 2020, p.19;
Silitski, 2005, pp. 85-86). For many years he portrayed a sentiment of invincibility in the polls.
When the opposition attempted to deteriorate his popularity, Lukashenko introduced censorship
in the media and established personal control over most state institutions (Silitski, 2005, p. 86).
Opposition candidates that challenge Lukashenko in Belarus are always silenced in some way,
some have been arrested, but all have been censored in one way or another when they have been
interviewed. In electoral authoritarian states it is important for the authorities at large to maintain
a level of control over the election and the rules. The government of Belarus refuses to allow the
opposition to spread unrest and democracy to the public (Bedford, 2017, pp. 386-387). Current
opposition leaders for Belarus are not located in Belarus, they hold out in neighboring countries
where they may rally supporters to aid in their cause. Many of his former opponents were
executed by a death squad, according to a credible Belarusian security agent (Ó Beacháin &
Polese, 2010, p. 124).
Political Culture: Eroding Contracts and Attitudes
The attitudes of Belarusians vary in regard to the President and the current regime.
Social contracts were what the country’s foundation was built on and Lukaskenko has attempted
to change them to better fit his political needs. Fear is a leading factor for loyalty when in the
past social contracts were important for stability. When the communist era came to an end
Belarus had an identity problem. Gaining independence was unexpected for the members of the
Soviet Union and so the Belarusian culture retained many soviet attributes as they searched for a
sense of belonging as did other countries who were pushed into independence. Much of the
support from Belarusians came because they viewed Lukashenko as a protector of their Russian
culture (Manaev et al., 2011, p. 102, 105).
Lukashenko’s popularity has significantly declined over the many years he has retained office,
however many view him as the only man for the job, they feel a strong leader is an essential part
of their government (Korosteleva, 2003, pp. 527-530). It is beginning to be clearer as the years
pass that people of a younger age group are more inclined to democracy than the older
generation. This is seen more amongst those born who have not lived through communist rule.
Younger generations are also more likely to be skeptical of regimes with heavy control by the
state. This is why Lukanshenko’s popularity is continuing to decline (Krawatzek & Langbein,
2022, p. 108).
For Belarusians to have trust in their institutions such as the army and armed security
forces was a key value. In an authoritarian system trust in public institutions speaks volumes to
how citizens relate to their political and social environments. One reason the army is such a
trusted institution is because the citizens view that it operates separate from politics. The army
and other security apparatuses are seen as the external protectors of the country and young
The attitudes of Belarusians vary in regard to the President and the current regime.
Social contracts were what the country’s foundation was built on and Lukaskenko has attempted
to change them to better fit his political needs. Fear is a leading factor for loyalty when in the
past social contracts were important for stability. When the communist era came to an end
Belarus had an identity problem. Gaining independence was unexpected for the members of the
Soviet Union and so the Belarusian culture retained many soviet attributes as they searched for a
sense of belonging as did other countries who were pushed into independence. Much of the
support from Belarusians came because they viewed Lukashenko as a protector of their Russian
culture (Manaev et al., 2011, p. 102, 105).
Lukashenko’s popularity has significantly declined over the many years he has retained office,
however many view him as the only man for the job, they feel a strong leader is an essential part
of their government (Korosteleva, 2003, pp. 527-530). It is beginning to be clearer as the years
pass that people of a younger age group are more inclined to democracy than the older
generation. This is seen more amongst those born who have not lived through communist rule.
Younger generations are also more likely to be skeptical of regimes with heavy control by the
state. This is why Lukanshenko’s popularity is continuing to decline (Krawatzek & Langbein,
2022, p. 108).
For Belarusians to have trust in their institutions such as the army and armed security
forces was a key value. In an authoritarian system trust in public institutions speaks volumes to
how citizens relate to their political and social environments. One reason the army is such a
trusted institution is because the citizens view that it operates separate from politics. The army
and other security apparatuses are seen as the external protectors of the country and young
Belarusians in particular place a high amount of trust here. The president also receives high trust
ratings. However, it is a sensitive question and respondents may have self-censored their views
due to fear of retaliation. Higher trust in the President was expressed by women, especially
younger women with children (Krawatzek, 2019, pp. 20-21).
There is an unspoken social contract between the president of Belarus and the people.
This contract provides Belarusians with a basic level of social and financial stability. In
exchange for this stability the people give the country their support. The general understanding
of this contract is that, there are no alternatives and fear of repression is a leading factor for
loyalty. This contract means opportunities to find a job along with a variety of services and
subsidized prices will be provided. This was made possible due to the cheaply run industry and
the income that was generated by the heavily imported natural gas and crude oil received from
Russia. This soviet style social contract’s stability that was promised has faltered. Along with it
the loyalty that was promised to Lukashenko.
Lukaskeno, who is the Belarusian Government, has tried shifting the social contract to
more of a security contract. As the economic crisis affects the world and inflation is on the rise it
is hard to keep the citizens paid and fed. Providing security for the country, which he already
needs to do, seems a much easier task. Although strained, the social contract/policy still exists
and to an extent works. However one must remember that most of the loyalists are part of a
socially vulnerable group, living in areas which require more support, being either resources or
financially from the government (Bedford, 2021, pp. 810-811; Pranevičiūtė-Neliupšienė &
Maksimiuk, 2012, p. 122).
Conclusion: Belarus’s future
ratings. However, it is a sensitive question and respondents may have self-censored their views
due to fear of retaliation. Higher trust in the President was expressed by women, especially
younger women with children (Krawatzek, 2019, pp. 20-21).
There is an unspoken social contract between the president of Belarus and the people.
This contract provides Belarusians with a basic level of social and financial stability. In
exchange for this stability the people give the country their support. The general understanding
of this contract is that, there are no alternatives and fear of repression is a leading factor for
loyalty. This contract means opportunities to find a job along with a variety of services and
subsidized prices will be provided. This was made possible due to the cheaply run industry and
the income that was generated by the heavily imported natural gas and crude oil received from
Russia. This soviet style social contract’s stability that was promised has faltered. Along with it
the loyalty that was promised to Lukashenko.
Lukaskeno, who is the Belarusian Government, has tried shifting the social contract to
more of a security contract. As the economic crisis affects the world and inflation is on the rise it
is hard to keep the citizens paid and fed. Providing security for the country, which he already
needs to do, seems a much easier task. Although strained, the social contract/policy still exists
and to an extent works. However one must remember that most of the loyalists are part of a
socially vulnerable group, living in areas which require more support, being either resources or
financially from the government (Bedford, 2021, pp. 810-811; Pranevičiūtė-Neliupšienė &
Maksimiuk, 2012, p. 122).
Conclusion: Belarus’s future
For the past decade the social contract with the citizens of Belarus has started to erode. A
movement has started to take place, one that is moving against the current regime. The society in
Belarus has slowly been undergoing a social transformation and Belarusians are wanting a
government that is more accountable to them. The citizens can see that as the contract erodes and
Russia raises their price for energy, the economy is stalling. The only thing that has been
progressing has been the corruption and malpractice by the government.
Lukashenka’s support has been steadily declining. So much to the point that he fails to
receive strong support from any single social group. Back when the elections were somewhat
fair, his regime’s main strategy has been to repress, or threaten to repress to stay elected. Now, he
relies on his siloviki (security forces) to maintain his legitimacy. In the long run, if Lukashenka’s
regime does crumble, as it seems to have started to, the power vacuum will be filled, whether it
comes directly from the Kremlin, the West or from the citizens of Belarus themselves (Glod,
2020, pp. 4, 8, 13).
The European Union (EU) does their due diligence to push democracy in Belarus as well
as it can, but as authoritarianism has grown over the years, it has put Belarus and the EU in direct
opposition. In 2006, the EU reached out to the people of Belarus, underlining the illegitimacy of
their leadership and laying out steps to become a partner. These steps included a change of
regimes, as well as a complete political and economic structural change. The biggest problem the
EU faces when trying to reach the people of Belarus is that the political regime in Minsk,
Belarus’s capital city, sees the EU as a direct threat to their existence and so acts accordingly
(Nice, 2012, pp. 8-9). Regime change would surely result in the replacement of Lukashenko’s
dictatorship. Losing power would likely result in arrest or exile.
movement has started to take place, one that is moving against the current regime. The society in
Belarus has slowly been undergoing a social transformation and Belarusians are wanting a
government that is more accountable to them. The citizens can see that as the contract erodes and
Russia raises their price for energy, the economy is stalling. The only thing that has been
progressing has been the corruption and malpractice by the government.
Lukashenka’s support has been steadily declining. So much to the point that he fails to
receive strong support from any single social group. Back when the elections were somewhat
fair, his regime’s main strategy has been to repress, or threaten to repress to stay elected. Now, he
relies on his siloviki (security forces) to maintain his legitimacy. In the long run, if Lukashenka’s
regime does crumble, as it seems to have started to, the power vacuum will be filled, whether it
comes directly from the Kremlin, the West or from the citizens of Belarus themselves (Glod,
2020, pp. 4, 8, 13).
The European Union (EU) does their due diligence to push democracy in Belarus as well
as it can, but as authoritarianism has grown over the years, it has put Belarus and the EU in direct
opposition. In 2006, the EU reached out to the people of Belarus, underlining the illegitimacy of
their leadership and laying out steps to become a partner. These steps included a change of
regimes, as well as a complete political and economic structural change. The biggest problem the
EU faces when trying to reach the people of Belarus is that the political regime in Minsk,
Belarus’s capital city, sees the EU as a direct threat to their existence and so acts accordingly
(Nice, 2012, pp. 8-9). Regime change would surely result in the replacement of Lukashenko’s
dictatorship. Losing power would likely result in arrest or exile.
In 2025, Lukashenko confirms that he will be running for his seventh term in office.
Ahead of this election, he is working on improving his public image. To do this, he has been
releasing political prisoners, trying to bridge some international gaps that have been put into
place over the last few years. Belarus has been isolated from the rest of the world after Russia
strengthened their allegiance with Belarus, putting the country in the middle of the War with
Ukraine (Impelli et al., 2024; Karmanau, 2024, p. 1).
Ahead of this election, he is working on improving his public image. To do this, he has been
releasing political prisoners, trying to bridge some international gaps that have been put into
place over the last few years. Belarus has been isolated from the rest of the world after Russia
strengthened their allegiance with Belarus, putting the country in the middle of the War with
Ukraine (Impelli et al., 2024; Karmanau, 2024, p. 1).
Works Cited
BBC. (2024, February 26). Belarus country profile. BBC. Retrieved October 8, 2024
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17941131
Bedford, S. (2017, Fall). “The Election Game:” Authoritarian Consolidation.
Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 25(4), 381-405.
Bedford, S. (2021). The 2020 Presidential Election in Belarus: Erosion of Authoritarian
Stability and Re-politicization of Society. Nationalities Papers, 49(5), 808-819.
Glod, K. (2020). The Future of Belarus. CEPA, 1-20.
Impelli, M., Kuttab, D., Wierson, A., & Rose, L. (2024, September 4). Putin Ally
Pardons 30 Prisoners Jailed for ‘Protest-Related Crimes’. Newsweek. Retrieved September
6, 2024 https://www.newsweek.com/belarus-alexander-lukashenko-political-prisoners-
pardoned-protest-crimes-1948708
Ioffe, G. (2004, January). Understanding Belarus: Economy and Political Landscape.
Europe-Aisa Studies, 56(1), 85-118.
Karmanau, Y. (2024, August 19). Belarus sends more troops and aircraft to its border
with Ukraine. AP News. Retrieved September 6, 2024
2024,https://apnews.com/article/belarus-border-ukraine-troop-movement-
6d914756f4f873bb1d4462f63cccd5db
Korosteleva, E. A. (2003, October). Is Belarus a Demagogical Democracy? Cambridge
Review of International Affairs, 16(3), 525-533.
Krawatzek, F. (2019). Youth in Belarus. ZOiS Report, (5), 1-18.
Krawatzek, F., & Langbein, J. (2022, February 25). Attitudes towards democracy and the
market in Belarus: what has changed and why it matters. Post-Soviet Affairs, 38(1-2),
107-124.
Kuleszewicz, A. (2018). Electoral System of the Republic of Belarus after 25 Years of
Independence. Polish Political Science Yearbook, 47(4), 618.
BBC. (2024, February 26). Belarus country profile. BBC. Retrieved October 8, 2024
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17941131
Bedford, S. (2017, Fall). “The Election Game:” Authoritarian Consolidation.
Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 25(4), 381-405.
Bedford, S. (2021). The 2020 Presidential Election in Belarus: Erosion of Authoritarian
Stability and Re-politicization of Society. Nationalities Papers, 49(5), 808-819.
Glod, K. (2020). The Future of Belarus. CEPA, 1-20.
Impelli, M., Kuttab, D., Wierson, A., & Rose, L. (2024, September 4). Putin Ally
Pardons 30 Prisoners Jailed for ‘Protest-Related Crimes’. Newsweek. Retrieved September
6, 2024 https://www.newsweek.com/belarus-alexander-lukashenko-political-prisoners-
pardoned-protest-crimes-1948708
Ioffe, G. (2004, January). Understanding Belarus: Economy and Political Landscape.
Europe-Aisa Studies, 56(1), 85-118.
Karmanau, Y. (2024, August 19). Belarus sends more troops and aircraft to its border
with Ukraine. AP News. Retrieved September 6, 2024
2024,https://apnews.com/article/belarus-border-ukraine-troop-movement-
6d914756f4f873bb1d4462f63cccd5db
Korosteleva, E. A. (2003, October). Is Belarus a Demagogical Democracy? Cambridge
Review of International Affairs, 16(3), 525-533.
Krawatzek, F. (2019). Youth in Belarus. ZOiS Report, (5), 1-18.
Krawatzek, F., & Langbein, J. (2022, February 25). Attitudes towards democracy and the
market in Belarus: what has changed and why it matters. Post-Soviet Affairs, 38(1-2),
107-124.
Kuleszewicz, A. (2018). Electoral System of the Republic of Belarus after 25 Years of
Independence. Polish Political Science Yearbook, 47(4), 618.
Manaev, O., Manayeva, N., & Yuran, D. (2011, Fall/Winter). More State than Nation:
Lukashenko’s Belarus. Journal of International Affairs, 65(1), 93-113.
Nice, A. (2012). Playing Both Sides: Belarus between Russia and the EU. ssoar.
Retrieved October 6, 2024 https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-350228
Ó Beacháin, D., & Polese, A. (Eds.). (2010). The Colour Revolutions in the Former
Soviet Republics: Successes and Failures. Routledge.
Pranevičiūtė-Neliupšienė, J., & Maksimiuk, Z. (2012). Authoritarian Bargain in Belarus:
The System of Social Benefits as a Factor of Regime Stability. In politologija (pp. 106-
140).
Sahm, A. (1999). Political Culture and National Symbols. Nationalities Papers, 27(4),
649-661.
Silitski, V. (2005). Preempting Democracy: The Case of Belarus. Journal of Democracy,
83-97.
Silitski, V., & Pikulik, A. (2011). Nations in Transit 2011.
Warfield, D. (2024, September). Belarus: Government Overview. Global Road Warrior.
Retrieved September 27, 2024 https://www.globalroadwarrior.com/belarus/government-
overview.html
Way, L. A. (2020, October). Belarus Uprising: How a Dictator Became Vulnerable.
Journal of Democracy, 31(4), 17-27.
Photos Cited
Belarus Flag Map. (n.d.). Google. Retrieved October 17, 2024
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/hJtvHA8xK32Xv42vHVLFdQn4qrDlAXooIlwy
tmzmXM_UMQiC79ikCQ5tFVtttSfIqsw-pN5JSDw60PUri-
VGsfUlRa_Ouy0IXqXD5M20vBT4ISp5jb3i8Al0KskCnAo1F3BsKyUdkBXbnuHcLlh5
kA_rphaPOsEjPpLlCeZZSSPTZqrGc3BMKm9DO8s=w1365-h631
Lukashenko’s Belarus. Journal of International Affairs, 65(1), 93-113.
Nice, A. (2012). Playing Both Sides: Belarus between Russia and the EU. ssoar.
Retrieved October 6, 2024 https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-350228
Ó Beacháin, D., & Polese, A. (Eds.). (2010). The Colour Revolutions in the Former
Soviet Republics: Successes and Failures. Routledge.
Pranevičiūtė-Neliupšienė, J., & Maksimiuk, Z. (2012). Authoritarian Bargain in Belarus:
The System of Social Benefits as a Factor of Regime Stability. In politologija (pp. 106-
140).
Sahm, A. (1999). Political Culture and National Symbols. Nationalities Papers, 27(4),
649-661.
Silitski, V. (2005). Preempting Democracy: The Case of Belarus. Journal of Democracy,
83-97.
Silitski, V., & Pikulik, A. (2011). Nations in Transit 2011.
Warfield, D. (2024, September). Belarus: Government Overview. Global Road Warrior.
Retrieved September 27, 2024 https://www.globalroadwarrior.com/belarus/government-
overview.html
Way, L. A. (2020, October). Belarus Uprising: How a Dictator Became Vulnerable.
Journal of Democracy, 31(4), 17-27.
Photos Cited
Belarus Flag Map. (n.d.). Google. Retrieved October 17, 2024
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/hJtvHA8xK32Xv42vHVLFdQn4qrDlAXooIlwy
tmzmXM_UMQiC79ikCQ5tFVtttSfIqsw-pN5JSDw60PUri-
VGsfUlRa_Ouy0IXqXD5M20vBT4ISp5jb3i8Al0KskCnAo1F3BsKyUdkBXbnuHcLlh5
kA_rphaPOsEjPpLlCeZZSSPTZqrGc3BMKm9DO8s=w1365-h631
