This paper attempts to analyze Belarus' authoritarian features and deficits in terms of civil society and democratic unfolding of basic liberties, basing on the core premises of the theory of authoritarian regimes and the concept of civil society.
The 20th century was heavily marked by an immense ideological dispute between two opposing political and economic systems. The collapse of the Soviet Union brought an end to the Cold War and the profound confrontation between capitalism and communism throughout the globe. Nevertheless, the legacy of this wide system remains to some extent very influential in many of the nation-building processes of the post-Soviet countries. Despite the regional divergencies and the distinct sociopolitical developments, some continuities may derive from this common historical background. Belarus builds the focus of the study of this paper since it belongs to the nations, which have not successfully managed to bring forward a democratization process, failing to guarantee the core requirements for building a strong civil society. Moreover, the outcome of the 2020 presidential elections, which reinstated Lukaschenko for the 6th consecutive time in front of the Belarusian state, may corroborate the widespread thesis that characterizes Belarus as "Europe's last dictatorship". It is therefore attempted to explore which factors may have hindered the strengthening of civil society, bearing in mind that some of its current authoritarian features may have been inherited from the Soviet-era and remain deeply rooted in its political culture.
The premises of authoritarian regimes according to Maćków, as well as Gellner's and Diamond's understanding of civil society, constitute the theoretical background for understanding the impact of authoritarian practices in limiting political pluralism and hindering the building of a strong civil society. On one side, it should be analyzed which concrete factors throughout Belarus' history - after the Collapse of the Soviet Union - serve as an explanatory approach for the current political deficits in matter of civil society and political pluralism. On the other hand, it should be examined how the requirements for building and developing a strong civil society according to western- democratic standards have evolved during the last years in the country of study.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theory of authoritarian regimes
2.1. Core premises of authoritarianism according to Maćków
2.2. Limited political pluralism as an impediment for strengthening civil society
3. Empirical research: Soviet legacy in Belarus’ building of a civil society
3.1. The Soviet Union has a historical background
3.2. Elite recruitment and omnipresent Executive
3.3. Repression of the political opposition and non-free elections
3.4. Limited freedom on the Net and pluralism of opinion
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Objectives and Research Focus
The paper examines why Belarus has failed to successfully democratize and strengthen a robust civil society, exploring how historical Soviet-era legacies and ongoing authoritarian practices hinder democratic development. It focuses on identifying specific political factors and systemic deficits that sustain the current authoritarian regime and restrict basic democratic liberties.
- Analysis of the historical and sociopolitical influence of the Soviet legacy on Belarusian state-building.
- Examination of authoritarian mechanisms such as elite co-optation, repression of political opposition, and electoral manipulation.
- Investigation into the impact of state control over mass media, the internet, and the suppression of free expression.
- Assessment of the current state of civil society in Belarus against western democratic standards.
Excerpt from the book
3.2 Elite recruitment and omnipresent Executive
Belarus' executive serves as an example for the country's deficit in matter of political meritocracy and public interest-based decision making. The political system is primarily based on the principle of the personal retention of power, which attempts to preserve the regime by surrounding itself with faithful government members. In this sense, new state functionaries acquire political authority through the personal designation of the President, which places loyalty towards the regime over real qualification. Lukaschenko's promise of maintaining the order and guaranteeing economic security as a new beginning in the early years of the newly formed Republic of Belarus has been used a justification for strengthening ever since a highly centralized and vertical authority, which envisages a border expansion of his power over the legislative, executive and judiciary branches, as well as the bureaucratic system and the security force (cf. Silitski 2007: 8f).
By building up the competences of the security forces and dismantling private companies that may have been cooperating with the opposition, Lukaschenko marked the beginning of a series of constitutional reforms that shifted the power structures in his favor. One example is the referendum of 1996 on a constitutional amendment which would grant him additional political competences. In the following years, several leading personalities of the opposition as well as political competitors for the presidency disappeared mysteriously, endowing the political apparatus with more authority. Following his re-election in 2001 the civil society became the new political threat to his administration: “Seine Regierung führte eine massive Kampagne gegen die Zivilgesellschaft und die unabhängige Presse und erließ Beschäftigungsgesetze im öffentlichen Sektor, die Entlassungen erleichtern” (Silitski 2007: 9f).
Chapter Summary
1. Introduction: Outlines the historical ideological conflict of the 20th century and sets the research focus on Belarus as a post-Soviet state that has struggled to democratize and build a strong civil society.
2. Theory of authoritarian regimes: Defines the core premises of authoritarianism, specifically focusing on limited political pluralism, the absence of a constitutional state, and the theoretical framework of civil society.
3. Empirical research: Soviet legacy in Belarus’ building of a civil society: Provides an in-depth analysis of how historical continuities and modern state actions, such as elite control and repression, stifle civil society and political opposition.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes how authoritarian features and the lack of a legal culture continue to maintain an undemocratic system in Belarus, making a transition toward democracy highly challenging.
5. Bibliography: Lists the academic sources, reports, and indices used to conduct the research.
Keywords
Belarus, Authoritarianism, Civil Society, Lukaschenko, Soviet Legacy, Political Pluralism, Human Rights, Censorship, Democratization, Elite Recruitment, Opposition, Electoral Fraud, Rule of Law
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper explores the reasons why Belarus has not successfully transitioned to a democracy, focusing on the persistence of authoritarian structures and the suppression of civil society.
What are the central themes of the analysis?
The work focuses on the Soviet legacy, the concentration of executive power, the manipulation of electoral processes, and state restrictions on media and freedom of expression.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to analyze how historical and institutional factors have hindered the establishment of a strong, independent civil society in Belarus according to western democratic standards.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The paper employs a qualitative analysis of political history, theoretical frameworks of authoritarianism, and quantitative data derived from international reports and governance indices.
What does the main part of the paper cover?
The main section investigates how the Belarusian executive maintains power, how political opposition is suppressed, and how state control over media and the internet creates a restrictive environment for public discourse.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key concepts include authoritarianism, civil society, political repression, the Soviet legacy, electoral integrity, and media censorship.
How does the author explain the failure of democratic transition in Belarus?
The author argues that the lack of an independent legal culture, the centralization of power in the presidency, and the systematic dismantling of independent civil society organizations are the primary obstacles.
What is the significance of the 2006 and 2020 elections mentioned in the text?
The 2006 elections are identified as a turning point in civic engagement, while the 2020 elections are analyzed as a unique period where civil engagement merged with political opposition due to systemic dissatisfaction.
How does the regime manipulate the information space?
The regime uses legislative measures to censor online content, blocks independent websites, and pressures journalists into self-censorship, effectively monopolizing information.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Daniela Forero Nuñez (Autor:in), 2020, Lasting authoritarian features in Belarus. The Soviet Union’s legacy in the building of a civil society, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1036222
