Democrats look objecting to election boycott
After the brutal dispersal of the peaceful opposition demonstration to mark 90 years since Belarus’s first declaration of independence and the followed crackdown on independent media, rumors emerged that the opposition was set to boycott the elections to the House of Representatives in the fall of 2008. The European Radio for Belarus has learned that the political parties that earlier announced their intentions to run for the parliament will not resort to boycott.
According to Anatol Lyabedzka, one of the leaders of the United Pro-Democracy Forces (UDF), both the part activists and ordinary voters regard at the word “boycott” as a call to do nothing. It is vital for the opposition to “work” with the population and to tell them about their existence.
“We are absolutely against any kinds of boycotts. Boycott implies lying on a sofa and doing nothing. In our situation when two thirds of people are clearly the “kitchen dissidents”, it is very important for us to work with them. Elections create additional opportunities for this kind of work,” Lybedzka says.
The politician believes that their candidates will come to the end of the election marathon. But they reserve the right to step aside at the very last moment.
“We reserve the right to remove all 110 candidates from our single list several days before the actual voting day. If we see that we will have even limited opportunities to control the vote count, we will go all the way to the end”.
Mikola Statkevich, the coordinator of the European Coalition and the founder of the ‘European List’ of candidates, explains to the European Radio for Belarus that the unwillingness of the opposition politicians to boycott the elections can be explained very simply: they don’t have the money.
“Boycott is a declared defeat. Besides, it is very expensive. We are not children and understand that politics mean money. With our extremely limited financial resources – because internal funding to the opposition is almost impossible – this is mission impossible”.
To Syarhey Haydukevich, the leader of the Belarusian liberal democrats, the issue of the money in the situation with a possible boycott is not acute. The main gold and currency reserve of the Liberal Democrats is the personality of Syarhey Haydukevich. It is always there. Boycott is not of advantage to the Liberal Democratic Party and its leader personally. He says that in 2010 there will be presidential elections, so he needs to spin himself off using every means.
“Talking about any boycott, we need to understand who will be doing it. What political forces can do it? I will tell you right away that if the Liberal Democratic Party boycotted the elections, it would be more than serious. But I am going to take part in the presidential campaign. Voters are waiting for me! I would need very significant reasons in order not run for the parliament”.
Haydukevich maintains that he is a person No 2 after Lukashenka in terms of recognition. He cannot deny his voters their right to see him during the elections. Yet, he would not rule out that anything can happen in life, and he can boycott the polls. He would not elaborate on the cause of such a potential move.
The politician says that no money is needed in order to stage a boycott. It would be just sufficient for his party to pull out of the race.
Syarhey Haydukevich: “If one imagines for a second that the Liberal Democratic Party will not take part, then it will mean a boycott. The BRSM cannot say that they don’t participate. It is not interesting to anyone. We hear about them only when they show some action on TV. Those who say that money is needed for a boycott do not understand anything.
Political commentator Aliaksandr Ftaduta believes that apart from the money, boycott requires a lot of efforts and work. While oppositionists are still capable of distributing leaflets during an electoral campaign, they will hardly do it outside of an election campaign and for their own money. Moreover, control over the elections is the most important thing during boycott. That’s something the democrats are lacking.
The first thing to be done is to ensure the transparency of elections. But it is hardly possible in the near future, he says.
