Shushkevich on Neocommunism in Belarus

Vera Rich

A Journal for Western Man-- Issue XXVIII-- December 15, 2004

A book review by Vera Rich of Stanislav Shushkevich's "Neokommunism v Belarusi, ideologiya, praktika, perspektivy," Smolensk, 2002, 284 pp. (in Russian).

This is a brilliant and insightful work from the nuclear physicist who, through a quirk in history, became the chief architect of the Belavezha Accords - which formally wound up the terminally ill Soviet Union - and the first head of state of independent Belarus whose less than grateful country has rewarded him with a state pension of around $1 a month. Under similar circumstances, many ousted leaders would have taken refuge in self-justification.

Shushkevich's work, on the contrary, addresses this subject with a calm and scholarly detachment. "Neocommunism," in Shushkevich's definition, is the "ideology of a communist revanche, which denies the objectivity of the causes of the fall of the communist regimes in the USSR and the countries of the 'socialist camp.'" This ideology, he continues, "has become, in the 'post-Soviet space,' an instrument for the active mobilization of the population in support for antidemocratic authoritarian regimes. The most vivid example of this is the regime of Lukashenko in Belarus."

Shushkevich analyses this "example" in detail, beginning, in sound scholarly style, by analyzing "communism" (as defined by the October 1961 Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), and setting out in tabular form the principal differences between the communist and western "liberal-democratic" views of the individual, society, law, and human rights. Having defined his terms, he gives a brief outline of Soviet society, and pinpoints the "key difference" between "classical Soviet communism" and the "Belarusian model of neocommunism," namely, that in the latter: "the realization of the communist postulates" by the regime is taking place not in a totalitarian but an authoritarian political system which does not seriously restrict its potential capabilities but nevertheless gives it recourse to "greater populism and a more refined system of state propaganda."

He then presents what is, in effect, an apologia for his own term of office - the impossibility of reversing in three years the 73 years of Soviet depredations in Belarus, the "inertness" of the country's political elite, the reluctance of the entrenched bureaucracy to take on any promarket, prodemocracy reforms.

Then, having defined concepts and initial conditions, he proceeds to his main theme - the rise and deeds of the Lukashenko regime. His account - and even the section headings - make for grim reading: "Liquidation of local self-government," "Liquidation of freedom of expression," "The power of the courts and the procuracy," "Liquidation of parliamentarianism," "Restriction of civil rights and freedoms," "Escalation of repression and political terror" - all against a background of a deteriorating economic situation both at the macro and micro levels, and a constant propaganda war, aimed at discrediting democratic institutions and the "West," hunting out and scapegoating imaginary "internal enemies," and promoting a cult of the president's "charisma and power."

Writing shortly after Lukashenko's re-election in September 2001, Shushkevich concludes that Belarus has become a police state in which "elections have become a farce, and a change of power could be effected only by a 'coup at the top' or a 'social explosion,'" though, in his opinion, the latter is "improbable."

This, however, is only the midpoint of the book. In his next long chapter Shushkevich turns his attention to the growth of authoritarianism in the other regimes of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), country by country, with comparative regional summaries (Central Asia, the Caucasus, European CIS), analyses which, though shorter than his study of Belarus, would be invaluable for anyone wanting a quick but comprehensive briefing on those countries. This chapter ends with a section on Russian-Belarusian relations, on which he pronounces categorically that "Russia wants to swallow Belarus and does not hide this."
He also adds some remarks on the role of the Polish Solidarity movement and Czechoslovakia's Charter 77 in the downfall of communism - the uniting of a broad-based resistance with a "cabinet of theoretician-patriots putting their professionalism at the service of their country," an approach which, Shushkevich stresses, "allowed the number of victims to be minimized."

He further notes the importance with which Polish political thinkers throughout the post-World War II period put on Belarusian and Ukrainian sovereignty as a guarantee of that of Poland. The following chapter returns to Belarus, to consider the economic and social results of Lukashenko's neocommunism - the stifling of economic freedom, plummeting standard of living, pensions swallowed up by inflation - and an ever-bleaker outlook, particularly for the most vulnerable social groups. Meanwhile, the abolition of customs barriers with Russia and the transit rates for Russian oil and gas - notes Shushkevich, quoting the prestigious Russian journal Novoe Vremya - "saves and will save the Russian raw-materials corporations (and consequently the Russian budget) billions of dollars."

A penultimate chapter - "Chronicle of Recent Events" - analyzes, with significant quotations from international observers and the western media, the manipulation of the 9 September 2001 "elections" that returned Lukashenko to office, the role of Russia (including the Russian Orthodox Church) in them, and the effects of the 11 September attacks on Russian-policy priorities.

The final chapter, "Conclusions" may be epitomized by two sentences from it: "Belarus continues in a state of profound, systemic crisis. The chief barrier to the course of market economy reform, democratic structural transformation, and integration of the country into the world civilized community is the ruling of the effectively totalitarian political regime." The content of this book, for anyone who values concepts of freedom, democracy, and the human and civil rights of the individual, is necessarily depressing. Shushkevich's lucid exposition, however, serves to alleviate, a little, the reader's progress along the "via dolorosa" of Belarus. Its importance for anyone having anything to do with Belarusian matters - whether at the level of summit diplomacy or that of an immigration clerk considering an application for political asylum -- cannot be overestimated.

Source: RFE/RL Poland, Belarus and Ukraine Report, August 27, 2002.

This article appeared in
Belarusian Review, Vol. 14, No 4

This article was originally featured in the Belarusian Review
Vol. 14 (No. 4), but is no longer accessible on the website of said organization. It has accordingly been salvaged and again made available to the public by The Rational Argumentator.

 Give feedback on this work at TRA's forum, which you can access at http://rationalarg.proboards24.com.

Advertise your business or product permanently on TRA for a mere $1 donation to a worthy endeavor to combat human aging. Click here to learn more.

Help bring about the cure for human aging within our lifetimes. Learn how you can help through the Chicago Methuselah Foundation Fund.

Visit The Rational Argumentator's new Online Store.

Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, a means of notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator. You can sign up by sending an e-mail to rationalargumentator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Click here to return to the Issue XXVIII index.

Visit TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues of the magazine. Click here.