These days, the peaceful co-existence of diverse elements in Belarus has become practically impossible. An OMON officer uses a club to clear the square of young people because they subscribe to different political viewpoints; drunken hooligans beat up citizens on the underground simply because they are from a different area of town; Christians are forbidden to pray in their own church because they hold divergent beliefs… One group of people is always different in some way from the next, and all you need to do is to guess which of these will sooner or later, try to ‘wipe you out’… Or will you perhaps try to wipe them out first?

What the Belarusian state is trying to achieve is the forcible formatting of society with one single standard model for its citizens. The paradox is only that human diversity cannot, as a matter of principle, be eliminated and people are not identical, provided, of course, that they are real people. This explains the repressive essence of fascism, in its aspiration to an impossible unification. Apolitical behaviour, loyalty and servility cannot save you from total genocide, because you are simply always different. How near or far is the current situation in Belarus from the ideal (in the Weberian sense of the word) fascist type? We will soon find out, as these things are all unfolding before our very eyes.

The events currently surrounding the “New Life” church are extremely significant for the whole of the country, even though they appear exclusively to concern the congregation of a single church and a private administrative dispute over property. In their scale and significance for the life of Belarusian society, they are no less important than the events of last March. This judgement does not depend on whether you side with the direct instigators of these events or with the main political figures involved. Moreover, it should be said that, even if they do now recognise the scale of what is happening, the instigators of the fast/hunger-strike clearly did not plan on it beforehand. As far as the main political players are concerned, their modest involvement in the situation – to put it mildly – speaks for itself.

The significance of events is determined by their place and role in the life of the country. And here they are exceptional, in that the way in which the conflict between “New Life” and the state is resolved will be indicative (emblematic) of the whole contemporary situation in Belarus. In the first place, the outcome of the conflict, whatever it is, will allow a diagnosis of the Belarusian regime: either it has total control of everything going on in the country, or there is still room for aspects of civil society, however minimal. If the “New Life” situation ends in victory for the power, this will show that a totalitarian fascist regime has finally become established in Belarus, and force us to recognise that society is wholly incapable of resisting this regime. In that case, even the existence of parties or public associations will be exposed as no more than a decorative screen for the regime. In this respect, the situation is a test of totalitarianism.

Secondly, the developing situation is a test of how far the democratic forces (in the broadest sense) of Belarus are capable of acts of solidarity. It is, so to speak, a test of their fighting strength. In fact, this is just one more check, since March 2006, on the inventory of the human resources available to the democratic forces. If we are to make a serious and realistic judgement, then the congregation of this one church, acting as a single subject, can be seen as a force equal to or even outstripping, in their numerical strength and particularly in their level of organisation, each and every one of today’s Belarusian parties, and the Christians of this one community are far superior to the party coalition. In turn, the potential for acts of solidarity with the Christians, who are being denied the right to worship, exceeds by far any similar opportunities in all the so-called Union of Democratic Forces (ODS). The protestant community (which incidentally persistently strives to distance itself from any political activity) is becoming a nucleus around which all the country’s democratically disposed inhabitants can become united in solidarity.

Thirdly, the “New Life” situation is characteristic of the state of the whole of society, which shows a complete lack of normal mechanisms for dealing with the problems experienced by this or that group, either between themselves or with the organs of state. Indeed, the protestors have repeatedly stressed that the essence of their demands boils down to organising a dialogue as equals with the relevant state structures. As in September of last year (see here), this church has become a nerve-centre, or nucleus, and a centre for public life; it is being put to the test, and the way in which it emerges from this trial will be the measure of the future of the whole country. Is it not for this that it has been chosen? This is possible only in conditions of institutional crisis, when even a small incline in the plain seems like a huge cliff, and a small church becomes a marker for the whole of civil society. But this doesn’t make it larger and stronger in reality; compared with the state, this one community is as nothing.

A positive outcome for the church is possible only if the power enters into negotiations, or to be more precise, if the power is compelled to enter negotiations. The declaration of the fast/hunger-strike is indeed a means of compulsion. However it is clear that this action of itself cannot be effective. The coercive force of the hunger-strike as a form of protest, being based on the possibility of a fatal conclusion, is reduced to zero by the principles of Christianity, which cannot accept suicide in any form.

If the power is to be forced to negotiate, it is essential to fulfil two conditions: 1) to paralyse (render impossible) the normal activities of the power structures and 2) to sustain (prolong) this paralysis until the moment when the power agrees to negotiate (see Strategy-2006). Obviously, “New Life”, even at full strength, and on the outskirts of Minsk, cannot satisfy these conditions without risking peoples’ lives. What is needed is the organisation of pressure on the power, both within Belarus and externally, so that this pressure cannot be ignored, and so that it becomes a serious impediment to the normal functioning of the organs of power. For this, it needs to be prolonged, consistent and draw in the masses. So the possibility of a positive outcome for “New Life” is directly linked to a show of solidarity, and that must be on a scale far greater than the congregation or community itself. In other words, the situation within the church can be resolved only as part of a situation that extends far beyond its confines, and by means of actions showing solidarity between democratically inclined forces. And this interconnection is not dependent on the wishes of the immediate protestors, and may or may not be acknowledged and recognised by them.

On the other hand, this is a chance for the democratic forces to demonstrate their real capabilities and willingness to conduct joint activities in defence of such key democratic values as freedom of conscience, the inviolability of property and so on. From the outcome of the situation it will be possible to judge just how well-founded declarations about the expansion of opposition tendencies really are. Moreover, such events enable us to distinguish between real activity and posturing, given that, though a show of solidarity can change the situation, it will yield no political dividends. Metaphorically speaking, the prizes and laurels in the event of a victory will go to the Christians alone, whereas in the event of a defeat, everyone will be a loser.

In analysing the current situation, one more important point must be noted. In the course of these events, we have been given insights into the processes, internal structuring and development of the forces opposing the regime. As the circle of participants in the protest action widens ( both in the number of hunger-strikers, and those showing solidarity by their actions) there necessarily emerges a “division of labour”, which requires the organisation of cooperation between people involved in the various activities: those taking decisions, organising protests and participating in them, others holding talks and so on. The effectiveness of this cooperation depends directly on recognition of each other’s competence and on trust. “Work” thus goes on in several areas, which is something that our Strategy-2006 defined as key to the achievement of victory over the regime: resolving personnel issues and overcoming barriers within the democratic forces.

Tatyana Vodolazhskaya
Andrei Egorov
The Agency for Human Technologies

Translated by C. M. Ayton
24/10/2006