Talk:Alexander Lukashenko/Archive 1

message: "Predecessor: None" is no joke. 
Before Lukashenko the power structure was that of the Soviet Union. There were three main persons in the State: 
*The leader of the Communist Party. despite the modest title "general secretary", he was The Number One. But he never called himself President.
*The chairman of the council of ministers, which was the executive power (that executed the will of the Politburo) 
*The chairman of the Supreme Soviet, which was the legislative power (that rubberstamped the will of the Politburo)
(As I read wikipedia on this subject, I see it still has some confusion in details, but I don't care.) Mikkalai 00:50, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Predecessors?

message: Could someone enlighten me what's the difference between oblast and voblast? Is the latter name in Belorussian or what? The reason I ask is that apparently one of the main targets of the edit war was this poor Vitebsk oblast/voblast...Halibutt
Oh, sorry about that.  I made the change because I'd never heard the word voblast.  If that's not correct, then I apologize.  RickK 01:27, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One spelling is in Belarusian, the other is in Russian. "Lukashenka," for instance, is the Belarusian spelling, ending with "o" it is the Russian spelling. "Voblast" is Belarusian, while "oblast" is Russian. We should be using the Russian spellings on this page, as this is the offical administrative language of the country. 172 03:00, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, even Russians pronounce it that way. I don't think that we have to get so picky about that because many of the Belarus related pages use that spelling. Voblast, oblast sort of like hot dog and frankfurter, are they really different? I'd rather get more content in this article and prevent that CIA funded propaganda about how "oppressive" Belarus is. On my visits there I've only found Belarus to be a friendly, welcoming place, maybe civil rights could use strengthing, but they are moving in the right direction, if slowly.  Yes there is not a lot of advertising and the structural changes since the end of the BSSR are very difficult but it is not as bad as some other countries, after all Luka is just a glorified tractor driver. Even Belarusians (that is how I spell that word) laugh at him. Really the US funded guys who have been running against him are not very strong candidates, the CIA and State Department really could do better. Want a job 172? — Alex756  talk 06:43, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oblast vs voblast

message: Here 172 goes again by reverting to his flawed version.  The consensus here is that 172's article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Why doesn't he understand?  Three people have told him his article is biased.  How many more people does he need?  Scythian99
-------
Bullshit. I am a critic of Luka's personalistic, populist leadership-style with no motivation to "bias" the article in his favor. Unlike Scythian99, ChrisO has done good work on the background section and the 1994 elections. However, the confused and uninformed Scythian99 is still poisoning the atmosphere. He continues to tamper with the article and provoke flame wars. ChrisO, Mikkalai, and Alex576 are serious, well-informed contributors. But from Scythian99 we have seen nothing but bellicose sloganeering and ad hominem attacks.
Scythian99 doesn't even know what's going on. What does he mean by "opinion?" Writing this article, or any article, is inherently a process of analysis. It is a process of sorting out the significant from the insignificant. Including information, for example, on election results rather than each meal that he has had on state visits is a matter of judgment and discretion.
He is too obtuse to understand the relevance of certain sections right away. He hides this fundamental lack of understanding by continuing to refer to "opinion" and "analysis" versus "facts." Rather than resorting to brow-beating (i.e. accusing me of supporting Luka), Scythian99 needs to raise objections to the evidence and the arguments, rather than throwing catch-phrases. He still hasn't explained why it is irrelevant to describe the context in which Lukashenko emerged as a personalistic one-man leader.
Let me elaborate (with the desperate hope that he can grasp this and perhaps do some research on his own). Everywhere, the transition from a system of Soviet-style administrative command to the market comes with immense social costs. Luka has the support of social groups and political elites who want to go without baring the burden of economic and political reform. Why? The transition to a market in post-communist systems includes lifting price and currency controls, and a harsh regime of government austerity to counter-act the ensuing hyperinflation. This is done to restore the balance between what a society spends and what it earns (thrown out of whack by communism), and lay the foundation for the healty growth and development of a market economy (despite short-term costs). In the short-run, however, interest rates soar, depressing investment (a function related to the IR). Hyperinflation erodes the real wages of fixed-income wage earners (most of the population) and wipes out the value of Soviet-era spending. Government spending is slashed, at the cost of Soviet-era welfare benefits on which large sectors have grown dependent. Subsidies to inefficient state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are cut, throwing resulting in massive lay-offs. With the shortage of liquidity, pension and wage arrears abound. In short, radical reform always produces more short-run losers than winners (especially among groups who are not politically well-connected or elderly - most of the population). In Russia, consumption and GDP contract deeply. Inequality increased drastically. Unemployment soared. Lukashenko promises to delay this (perhaps ignoring the risk of a future economic and social crisis). With this in mind, Lukashenko relies on the support of the social sectors and political elites most vulnerable to shock therapy.
This is not "pro-Luka" propagdana, as Scythian99 seems to believe. Educated critics of Luka (and I am one of them) acknowledge this. While living standards may be higher in Belarus than in Russia right now, and while inequality may be far less pronounced in Belarus than in Russia, Luka's insistence on a personalistic leadership style, tied to pledges to delay reform, is propably unsustainable. Market economists expect slow decline. As an aside, as a result of Russian decisions to cut off gas subsidies, Luka may not be able to parcel out all the benefits to his supporters and social constituencies, and could be ousted like scores of other patrimonial dictators in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia over the past two decades.
Even the most market-oriented economists agree that "rent-seeking" constituencies support him, fearing the short-run outcomes of reform. They argue, however, that he's just delaying the inevitable, while leaving Belarus on a weaker footing and exasperating problems of institutional fragility in the process. The most pro-market post-Communist specialists would not follow Scythian99's course of action. Perhaps, if one wanted an "anti-Luka" section, it could expound the existing content (rather than remove it), explaining how he is leaving Belarus on a bad footing for market reforms, which most specialists agree is coming sooner or later to Belarus.
Unfortunately, Scythian99 just insists on mutilating the article, while slandering me in the process, not knowing what's going on, lacking the training to be able to distinguish the significant from the insignificant. Untutored, he has constructed a very partial and dogmatic worldview that blinds him to the complexities of the facts and relationships in question. 172 09:20, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Let ChrisO create a new article

message: I read this article for the first time with a completely open mind, having taken no part in the previous arguments about it. I'm not even sure whose version I was reading. My conclusion is that the article as it stands is simply a piece of propaganda for the Belarus regime and Lukashenko, and should be totally rewritten.
It is hard to recognise in this article the country Human Rights Watch (not an agency of the US government) describes in the following way:
As the European Union continues its expansion, Belarus, situated on the E.U.'s new eastern border, continues its isolation from Europe and the rest of the world. The government persists with Soviet-style practices of tightly controlling the media and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and preventing free and fair elections. Continuing abuses in 2003 included government crackdowns on independent media, NGOs, and the political opposition.
Conditions for journalists and publishers deteriorated significantly, prompting the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) to list Belarus among the ten "Worst Places to be a Journalist" in 2003. In May 2003, the government issued more warnings to independent publications in one week than it had throughout all of 2002. The Ministry of Information suspended Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta (Belarusian Business Paper) and its supplement BDG. Dla Sluzhebnogo Polzovania (BDG Restricted) from circulation for three months after a number of warnings had been issued to the editorial boards stating that articles published in the independent periodicals defamed the "honor and dignity" of the president. A number of independent newspapers, some of which had published BDG materials received similar warnings.  
The government expelled Pavel Selin, Belarus correspondent for the Russian television network NTV, in July 2003 for alleged biased reporting and closed NTV's Minsk office soon thereafter. Belarusian radio is also facing tighter restrictions. As of July 1, 2003, the contents of all news programs must be presented to the Ministry of Information one day before broadcast. Independent media have also been burdened by steep increases in charges for printing and distribution services, which are controlled by state-owned companies. Between early 2002 and late 2003, charges rose by 40 percent for printing and 66 percent for distribution services, increases which some analysts have alleged were arbitrary and politically motivated.  
The government's continuing assault on civil society threatens the survival of independent citizens' groups. In 2003 several major nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were liquidated, mostly on petty administrative charges. The activities of many others were severely constrained by Presidential Decree No. 8, a 2001 order that significantly increases the tax burden of organizations that receive foreign aid, and Decree No.13, a 2003 order prohibiting non-governmental organizations, from representing ordinary citizens (non-members) in court.  
Unfair elections remain a major obstacle to reform. Analysts in 2003 reported blatant fraud in the conduct of March local elections; international observers were not allowed to attend the polls. Appointments to electoral commissions at all levels were made according to individuals' loyalty to the authorities and few members of democratic parties and NGOs were represented on commissions. Members of the political opposition reported harassment during collections of signatures and problems registering candidates, including having candidates stripped of registration on doubtful pretexts with no opportunity to appeal the decisions.  
In early 2003, Belarusian authorities halted investigations into the "disappearances" of Viktor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky, and Yuri Zakharenko, all opponents of President Lukashenka, as well as the "disappearance" of journalist Dmitry Zavadsky. After the wives of Gonchar and Krasovsky complained to the Procuracy General, the investigation was reopened in July with a new investigator.  
Christos Pourgourides, a PACE rapporteur on disappearances in Belarus who visited Minsk in November 2003, suggested in his report that Belarusian authorities, including former Security Council Secretary Viktar Sheyman (now prosecutor-general) and former Interior Minister Yury Sivakou (now minister of sports) may have been implicated in orchestrating the disappearances. He urged the Council of Europe member states to put "maximum political pressure" on the Belarusian leadership to compel an independent investigation of the disappearances. In December, 2003 the Belarusian Prosecutor's Office resumed the investigation into the disappearance of Dmitry Zavadsky.  
In late 2002, Belarusian authorities ordered the OSCE's Advisory and Monitoring Group out of the country. Lukashenka accused the mission of supporting the opposition and interfering with the country's internal affairs. In response to the closure, the United States and fourteen E.U. countries imposed a travel ban on Lukashenka and several high-ranking politicians. After long negotiations the OSCE was able to return Belarus with a scaled-back mandate in January 2003 and, in April, the travel ban was lifted.  
In early 2003 Lukashenka attracted international attention with his remarks on Belarus' unstinting friendship with Iraq and his support for Saddam Hussein's "reasonable policies." It therefore did not come as a complete surprise when, in June 2003, several high-ranking Iraqi officials were found to have been issued Belarusian passports.  
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) issued a resolution on Belarus in April 2003, in which it expressed deep concern about human rights in Belarus, and urged the government to release journalists and other individuals detained for politically motivated reasons and to cease harassment of non-governmental organizations and political parties.  
In spite of Russia's traditionally close ties to Belarus, Lukashenka's policies increasingly have become a source of irritation for Russia in its relationship with Europe and the United States. The economic and political union between the two countries that has been under discussion for eight years still seems uncertain. Steps taken in July 2003 toward a common currency contrasted sharply with Russia's unvarnished criticism of Belarus's failure to liberalize its economy. 
Also see Amnesty International's most recent report on Belarus
---------
Sigh. The article already makes it clear that Lukashenko is an autocrat and a personalistic one-man dictator. If Adam, Scythian99, or ChrisO want write additional content on the suppression of the independent media, opposition parties, and NGOs, they will have my full support.
My problem is not the addition of new content, but the removals of large chunks of data by Scythian99. These sections are not on the human rights situation, but on Lukashenko's opposition to "shock therapy."
Alex576 and I have explained why the nature of his regime must be discussed in context of the short-run social and economic costs of "shock therapy." So far, nobody has challenged the content in question, or our arguments on the talk page, on matters of facts and argument.
Instead of a counter-argument, I continue to hear charges of a pro-Lukashenko agenda (despite comments on this very page which clearly explain my opposition to his regime). This is nothing but a form of brow-beating and intimidation meant to stifle real debate.
In addition, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International cannot be our only sources. First, they are advocacy agencies. Second, this is not an article on the media and civil society in Belarus. Adam, perhaps, could write an article on the human rights situation in Belarus, or at least attach the Amnesty International link to the bottom of the page. 
For this article, refer to these reports by all means, but also be engaged with academic journals (anyone want links?), sources on the politics of economic adjustment (anyone want ISBN numbers?), and hard news agencies (e.g., Reuters, AP, the New York Times) rather than advocacy agencies. Credible encyclopedias and sourcebooks do the same. Check the Scholarly Journal Achieve at http://www.jstor.org . Google and yahoo searches for old news articles is a quicker option.
We know that this is a nasty regime. As an aside, Russia's human rights situation is hardly optimal, but since they haven't been subject to the same degree of vilification in the West the articles on Putin and Yeltsin (and even the far more repressive regimes in Central Asia) are not based on the publications of activist groups.
Maybe all the controversies here are a matter of style. Adam, as usual, is interested in stern moral judgments. I respect that and I share his revulsion vis-à-vis the lack of space for an independent civil society in Belarus. What he has done to the autonomous public sphere will definitely retard the country's capacity to emerge as a free market democracy someday, once Lukahsenko's personalistic regime can no longer withstand the decades of economic stagnation.
However, we're only able to work with the historical record for now. Thus, the article focuses on what conditions enabled him to consolidate power and maintain power to this date. The rise of Lukashenko was related the fears and uncertainty among the social groups must vulnerable to the transactional costs of post-Communist economic adjustment. And yes, many people support him because the country is stable and pensions and salaries, however meager, are paid on time. Patrimonial regimes not only rely on repression, but also the control and distribution of resources to elite supporters and other powerful sectors. You can find the same points raised in almost any brief synopsis on his rule by an objective source. Why are so many users preoccupied with censoring this?
Perhaps other users fail to understand that this does not vindicate his leadership-style or economic policies. The issue is that he is sweeping structural problems under the rug (while suppressing those who ardently object to his Soviet-style regime), allowing these problems to fester. As a result, reform come later, but when it does, it will be far more wrenching (for Lukashenko's very own supporters among rural residents, pensioners, and workers at SOEs) than it should have been. 172 11:44, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]]

message: I've completed the first stage of my rewrite. Comments welcomed!
I do think the original article had a lot of problems, as I've explained in my post of 22:29, 27 Jan 2004. I've tried to address these by adding a lot more factual detail and cutting back on the analysis, much of which I think was quite dubious anyway. The assertion that Lukashenko has kept Belarus economically stable was particularly questionable - the country's economy would have collapsed long ago (and nearly did, in 1998) if it hadn't been for Russia constantly propping it up. The analysis was also unbalanced. It has to go both ways - not just explaining Lukashenko's domestic appeal, but the reason why he is so villified abroad as well. -- ChrisO 18:00, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Solid job. I'd only suggest to remove derogatory opinions about Belarus and Belarussians, for two reasons: they are derogatory and they are opinions. Mikkalai 21:44, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough - done. -- ChrisO 22:31, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Great Job ChrisO.  These are the kind of articles I like. Scythian99
--------
Correct observation by Adam on "shock therapy." However, the outcomes of policy must be discussed in the context of the "initial conditions." I'll elaborate if anyone's interested.
This is not really a "re-write." Substantively, it is not much different. Most of the contents of the old article were reintegrated in the new version that is simply more detailed. Scythian99 claims to be satisfied, but he is simply confused. He kept on deleting portions of the old article that discussed his rejection of IMF-backed economic adjustment. But this article pays attention to this subject. Substantively, more details were added on the strengthening of the executive.  Unlike Scythian99's version, this version doesn't hack away at reasons for the emergence of his personalistic rule and his connections to constituencies dependent on Soviet-era state support. Scythian99 unfairly attacked the old text, which was fine. We could've accomplished this a lot sooner had he focused on other topics that could be more fully developed, rather than attacking sections that were already there without any evidence to support a counter-argument, or even a counter-argument.
The rewrite here should inspire other users to start working on the Yeltsin article, which is far more light and superficial. Please note that the strengthening of the executive, and a super-presidential system including sweeping powers of decree, is not unique to Belarus, but has been a phenomenon throughout most of the former USSR. This been the case throughout much of Latin America as well, where newly re-democratized regimes enacted painful policies of economic restructuring austerity while insulted from - or better yet buttressed from - a great deal of societal input. We see much of the same trends in state-civil society relations, executive-legislative balance, and party weakness under economic reformers who were the darlings of the West, such as Yeltsin in Russia, Collor in Brazil, Menem in Argentina, and Fujimori in Peru, just to name the most notorious examples. They too were populists who subverted, skirted, circumvented, and even suspended (in the case of Yeltsin and Fujimori), democracy. They too detested institutionalized constraints on their leadership, such as parties and representative institutions. Again, at the root of these trends were pressures for structural adjustment. Overall, this new version is a bit too voluntaristic, giving the impression that certain trends are unique to Belarus under Lukashenko. 
I'll have another look at it shortly. 172 06:06, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite done (so far!)

message: 172 is adding material which again in innapropriate for wikipedia.  I have deleted the Allende paragraph.  This has no relevance to a purely descriptive article on Lukashenko.  Honestly, this page needs to be handled by authors who do not have an agenda.  ChrisO, you are seeing the problems I have had with 172. Scythian99
----------
Frankly, I may be the only one here who doesn't have "an agenda." Scythian99 certainly has one. This the user, after all, who just comes here to periodically slander me and make bellicose anti-Lukashenko pronouncements. He has not said a single thing of substance so far. What is he some cheerleader? An instigator?
I don't like personalistic dictators (and I don't need to be fed propaganda to come to these conclusions). But I will not tolerate simplistic and distorted accounts that explain every problem in Belarus solely in terms of Lukashenko's personality, rather than the structural problems that underlie the emergence of his regime. 
This all reminds me of the loopy users who were accusing Jtdirl of being an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church (meanwhile, others were accusing him of "left-wing historical revisionism") last year. Why? Because he stood firm against a simplistic a narrow view of history, even when addressing unpopular subjects. 172 01:30, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you two have had difficulties, but I'm hoping that 172 will have the courtesy to respond to the individual points below. Let's see what he says. BTW, I agree with you on the Allende paragraph - it's a sloppy and inaccurate comparison (different continent, different US president, different era, different political circumstances, different just about everything). My guess is that 172 is trying to make a case that the US always goes around "targeting and vilifying radical governments", which is very clearly a partisan POV and therefore incompatible with the Wikipedia NPOV requirement. -- ChrisO 00:14, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: The more important point is the reference to Central Asia. The reference to Allende is just there since it is a well known example. 172 01:30, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to the same problems