Talk:Alexander Lukashenko/Archive 1

Alexander Lukashenko and Alyaksandr Lukashenka

Predecessors?

"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)

Propaganda article

The point of a wikipedia article is to be encyclopedic, not propaganda, and not pro- or con-. Anyone intelligent person knows this. User:172's Lukashenko page is such blatant propaganda for a dictator, that it seriously taints the article about Lukashenko and makes it useless as a reference source. Where are the editors??? I think USer:Mikkalai's edits which I have restored are the only ones acceptable. I will not let User:172 or anyone make this page a forum for their political beliefs of a dictator that is universally condemned around the world for human rights abuses, controlling the press, and stifling any politics or dissent in Belarus. Scythian99

Are you sure that Lukashenka is "universally condemned". Having been to Belarus I know that many Belarusians state that he is the kind of "strong man" that they want. It is not that I agree with them, but the issue here is to document these things, not to provide pro-western propaganda under the name of neutrality. The issue is not is clear as some would like to beleive. I direct the reader to the Report of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group:

"The West has waged a war of political attrition against President Lukashenko for more than seven years now. Yet Belarus is one of the few success stories in the region. Despite the endless propaganda about that country’s poverty, Belarus is better off economically than Russia, Ukraine, Latvia or Lithuania, its main neighbours. It is also ahead of those other darlings of the West, Romania and Bulgaria."

"Given this overall favourable situation, it is baffling that the West continues with its policy of hostility towards Belarus, especially since no benefit apparently seems to be coming from it. The attacks over the law on religion, which are being used to justify the US’ new “Belarus Democracy Act”, whose main provisions are to give more money to the opposition in that country, underline the fact that the opposition is largely tele-guided from abroad. Of course it is desirable that a state evolve towards political pluralism; but the West’s obsession with writing its own fairy-tale script in Belarus is having a severely distorting effect on the democracy of what is, at the very least, one of post-communist Europe’s few partial success stories. [1]

So, on the basis of the above and other reports that the BHHRG has written (I have also read the one on recent election reporting) I don't know if 172's contributions are just propaganda. I think your statement that Luka is "universally condemned around the world" when a well respected Oxford based human rights monitoring group disagrees with you might indicate that you are a propagandist too. Just don't tell me that these British human rights activites are propagandists. I will not agree with you. — Alex756 | [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 12:11, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Umm. I think they are propagandists, actually: they're not one of the official Helsinki Committees and they aren't a member of the official International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF). The official British Helsinki Committee is the Parliamentary Human Rights Group. The BHHRG has been criticised by other Helsinki groups for appropriating the Helsinki name. It appears to be largely a one-man band, run by a fellow called Bejtullah (or Beitullah or Beytullah) Destani, a Kosovo Albanian living in north Oxford. Mark Almond and Norman Stone, two very right-wing historians whom I know well from my university days, are also apparently involved. They are fine historians but they are very ideological - they are, I suppose, UK equivalents of the US neo-cons.

It also seems to have a tendency to make dubious claims, for instance denying any electoral malpractice in Belarus (which has been fairly well-established by now) or any discrimination against Roma in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (which is extremely well-established and which I've seen for myself). It also denies that there was any electoral manipulation in the recent Georgian parliamentary elections or in the 1996 Belarussian referendum, for which they were the only monitors allowed by the Lukashenko government. If BHHRG takes positions which literally every other major human rights group opposes, you have to wonder why.

In short, if you want to use them as a source be aware that they appear to have a definite agenda. It's hard to work out precisely what that is, but judging by the content of its website, it's at the very least strongly influenced by the right-wing conservative crowd. I've met at least some of the people involved and that would certainly fit with BHHRG's viewpoint. I would guess that they take a default ideological position of defending any central or eastern European government criticised by Western powers for human rights or other failings. -- ChrisO 23:28, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Useful information to be kept in mind. Of course everything, on some level is propaganda. After all the word comes from the Catholic Church and their attempts to propagate the faith amongst sinners. — Alex756 [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 05:13, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reversion

I reverted to 19:21, 24 Dec 2003 version, which is was an attempt removal of most notorious or irrelevant pieces. After that all edits were restoring of previous heavily biased versions. All my deletions were commentet in the body of my version. You can rea them by compaing histories. I didn't see much sense to litter the talk page by justifciation of deletion such ridiculous for encyclopedia statemnets as "and is very active unlike most middle-age Russian and Belorussian males".

Please stop tug-of-wars ant try to EDIT, not revert. Mikkalai 18:50, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is really only one biased version, and that was 172's, but it seems that this article started this way. And yes it is great that Mikkalai deleted such atrocious statements like "and is very active...". Which have no place in Wikipedia. This is an ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a forum for opinions. I don't know why someone had not kept an eye on this page before. There should be editors out there that look for such biased articles. To respond to Alex756, I don't only use one group's findings on a dictator to form my opinions on him. Scythian99

You did not respond to me, your statement is evasive. Why? Well, you state in your first post "universally condemned around the world for human rights abuses" and then the British Helsinki group is standing up for the present regime in Belarus. Obviously someone does not know what they are talking about and comparing the texts of you and the BHHRG I would tend to discount your opinion and give their opinion more weight. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, just do not condescend on us and tell us that we have to all accept your version of the truth when it is prima facie contradictory based upon reliable references. — Alex756 [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 06:43, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here is where you are flawed in your understanding of Wikipedia Alex756. I could care less about your opinion of Lukashenko (and in turn I could care less what you think of mine) and so should everyone else care less at Wikipedia of your opinions. An article about Lukashenko on Wikipedia should not contain any opinions, likes, or dislikes; it should simply state FACTS. The previous Lukashenko article was not one of facts, but mostly opinions, ergo anything that is pro- or anti-Lukashenko should be removed. Scythian99

Oblast vs voblast

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)

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)

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 [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 06:43, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Deletions

172, You keep asking for explaining deletions in the talk page. Pleas explain what's wrong with my explanations inserted in the body of the article by means of comments <-- of this type --> . Do you disagree with them or it is simply inconvenient for you to read them there? Mikkalai 16:17, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I usually delete those when I find them. Comments belong on the Talk page. RickK 16:43, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK. Below are my deletions. Mikkalai 18:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

...was a surprising, youthful newcomer to the Belorussian political scene in 1994, emphatically winning the runoff presidential election on July 10 against Prime Minister Vyacheslav Kebich, a man who had controlled the politics of the country through strong backing in parliament. He was reelected in September 2001.

I replaced this by

... is President of the Republic of Belarus from 1994 to present.

Reason: the very first sentence is a definition, not a telltale. The info from the deleted text is in the article elsewhere, with the same accents.

Deletions:

<--- it is about Russia, not Belarus; besides, the essense has already been said in the above paragraphs ---- Over the past decade in Russia, the depression induced by structural adjustment and stabilization of the regime has been far more severe than the Great Depression in the United States and about half as severe as the catastrophic depression that led to the Bolshevik Revolution. In Russia, roughly half the population is now impoverished in a country where few in the past lacked essentials. --->

The following piece

Belarus, however, is labelled as 'Europe's last dictatorship' by much of the West. Lukashenko's resistance to IMF, World Bank, and US-backed reform has met great resistance among the rich countries. The United States has embarked on a strategy of trying to topple President Lukashenko through the ballot box. Its appointment of Michael Kozak, a veteran of Washington's campaigns to install sympathetic leaders in Nicaragua, Panama and Haiti and undermine the Fidel Castro government in Cuba as head of the US mission in Havana for four years, to lead the US Embassy in Minsk was considered to be a sign of Western hostility.

Western governments cite Lukashenko's beliefs an authoritarian style of government, which he believes is the only alternative to instability, especially evident in the soaring rates of crime in an impoverished Russia and powerful networks of organized crime known as the "Russian mafia."

Lukashenko, however, claims that he has only targeted non-government organizations that have been front organizations for Western ambassadors engaged in spying and plotting to overthrow his government. Lukashenko claims that his only crime has been to be show too much interest in aligning his country with Russia, not the ever-expanding NATO and lack of interest in putting state-owned assets on the block to be snapped up by Western investors looking to make a quick profit.

is rewritten with less histerics and with some actual facts (<=-- xxxx ---> are hidden comments)

Belarus, is labelled as 'Europe's last dictatorship' by much of the West because of Lukashenko's autoritarian government, total control of media in the country, and weak opposition. <=--- IMO encyclopedia is not a place to explain why it is weak; just the fact: it is weak --->

Western governments cite Lukashenko's beliefs in an authoritarian style of government, which he believes is the only alternative to instability, especially evident in the soaring rates of crime in an impoverished Russia and powerful networks of organized crime known as the "Russian mafia."

In 1995 the president's administration issued an order requiring the approval of printing firm publishing contracts by the Main Administration of the Office of Socio-Political Information. Since then the opposition prints their major newspapers in Lithuania. Lukashenko, however, claims that he has only targeted non-government organizations that have been front end for the efforts of the West to overthrow his government.

<=--- A piece of that entered below --- Lukashenko claims that his only crime has been to be show too much interest in aligning his country with Russia, not the ever-expanding NATO and lack of interest in putting state-owned assets on the block to be snapped up by Western investors looking to make a quick profit. --->

Lukashenko resists the pressure of IMF, World Bank, and USA for bolder economical reforms. He justifies this by lack of interest in putting state-owned assets on the block to be snapped up by Western investors looking to make a quick profit.

<=--- deduction, POV; suitable for a political article, not encyclopedia --- The United States has embarked on a strategy of trying to topple President Lukashenko through the ballot box. Its appointment of Michael Kozak, a veteran of Washington's campaigns to install sympathetic leaders in Nicaragua, Panama and Haiti and undermine the Fidel Castro government in Cuba as head of the US mission in Havana for four years, to lead the US Embassy in Minsk was considered to be a sign of Western hostility. -->

The piece

Despite efforts by the Belorussian opposition to discredit his government, Lukashenko appears to have sufficient public support. He remains popular at home, partly for his efforts to hold together the social safety net and stem the economic turmoil that accompanied the 1991 Soviet collapse.

is expanded to shed more light on Lukashenko's electorate.

Despite efforts by the Belorussian opposition to discredit his government, Lukashenko appears to have sufficient public support. He remains popular at home, partly for his efforts to hold together the social welfare net and stifle the economic turmoil that accompanied the 1991 Soviet collapse. These efforts have gained him almost unanimous support of the elderly population, which is a significant part of the active electorate in Belarus.

Deletions:

<=--- If anywhere, this paragraph must go to "Politics" article, not to personal article. Besides, it is hearsay. Exact reference needed. --- Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said they recorded no violations on voting day Sunday—but said the election "failed to meet international standards."

However, Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Lukashenko by telephone after his victory, the Kremlin press service said, and the two leaders pledged further cooperation in their countries' union. --->

<=--- POV. ---, while Russia's distribution of wealth is among the most disproportionate in Europe. Belarus' rates of unemployment and poverty also remain far lower than Russian levels. Masses of compromising material and the international community's negative attitude toward Lukashenko have failed to dampen his chances significantly. --->

On one occasion, he even declined to meet a delegation from the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe on the grounds that he had an important soccer match to attend. <=--- Praise --- Even his critics cannot disparage the good example that he is setting. ---> <=--- Nonsense --- After all, inactivity, alcoholism, and tobacco addiction are major factors contributing to declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union. --->

I complied with your demands, didn't I? Mikkalai 18:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Great, you pull out sections of the article, quote them, and call them "POV" without really explaining why. I'm going to keep restoring the better written, more complete version until I can get Alex756's imput. 172 03:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here you go again 172. First, your version is not written well at all, but what is worse is its content. I prefer Mikkalai's version because it is unbiased, simply stating the facts. I do not think you know what the purpose of an encyclopedia is and I think you just enjoy creating this argument because you must enjoy flame posts. Finally, Mikkalai has justified his edits and I agree with him, not that his article needed your approval anyway. Scythian99

Only one thing is marked POV w/o explanations, which I am ready to restore. What about the rest? Are you willing to discuss the issues? Unless you prove that I am wrong, I am going to restore my versions that neutralize some tabloid-style statements.

There are no "tabloid-like" statements in the article. No offense, but we should ask for the input of native English-speakers for such matters of style. Let's wait for Alex576 to comment on the chunks of text you insist on removing. In addition, things like the distribution of wealth have objective indicators. Take a look at the Ginis for the two countries. 172 09:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK I apologize for "tabloid-like". But I didn't ever tried to edit "style". I'm perfectly willing to see third-person opinion. As for Ginis, it is objective only for comparing counries ith comparable resources. Russia's gini value merely shows that there was an enormous wealth of natural resources to grab during privatisation. (It is OK with me that someone "have stolen" it from "Russian people", since "people" newer actually owned it anyway.) Besides, polarisation of wealth in Russia is not a new development: in the Soviet Union there always was polarisation of Moscow and the rest of Russia. Mikkalai 16:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Notice that I did't remove most of positive statements about Lukashenko. I removed only telltales. And I tend to agree that his rule is probably good for Balarus, especially comparing his with post-soviet asian "fathers of nations". At least there was no alternative. Nationalists were good as icebreakers, but as politicians they are so pitiful, unfortunately. Mikkalai 04:06, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Mikkalai, you don't let your personal opinion get in the way of good unbiased writing. Bravo! This is why your article is best. Can you imagine how articles would look if only pro- or con- people were writing them, credibility out the window and totally useless as an encyclopedic article. Still, I think a fully democratic leader is best, but I am leaving my opinions to the TALK page! LOL Scythian99

172's position

I have been dreading the prospects of having to communicate with the likes of Scythian99 for a while. These types are the reason that I have cutback my contributions to Wikipedia significantly. I cannot stomach how Scythian99 and so many other users read articles and judge them according to whether they find them "pro-" or "anti-" whatever enough for them, disregarding the merits of the evidence or the arguments.

For the record, I am not an admirer of Lukashenko. He is a personalistic one-man dictator. But this is the same strongman who has maintained a measure of stability not seen in neighboring Russia, and has kept living standards from eroding as rapidly as elsewhere in the former USSR. For that, he has significant popular support. Like many other populists, his regime emerged in a context where substantial sectors of the lower classes were available for political mobilization but were not effectively represented by established parties and did not possess institutionalized forms of channeling their interests. They stood to lose considerably from economic reform in the short-run. If one cannot grasp this concept, a few searches on google or yahoo will suffice. One doesn't need to be a Russia specialist, political economist, or an expert on comparative politics to grasp this.

On the other hand, his plebiscitary style of leadership has exacerbated conditions of institutional fragility. On balance, living standards are better for now as a result of continuing to postpone economic restructuring, but Luka's leadership-style is only leaving Belarus on a worse footing for the day of reckoning that will come inevitably. This could be coming soon, with Putin's decision to cut off gas subsidies.

However, it is mindless and arbitrary to isolate "positive" and "negative" aspects of a clientelistic regime. They are two haves of the same walnut, so to speak. Luka will have significant popular support as long as he can pay wages and salaries on time and continue to parcel out state benefits. His elite supporters (state-owned enterprise managers, the armed forces, cabinet officers, heads of the state-run civic associations, local administrators, etc.) will also continue to support him as long as he can parcel out the level of benefits to which they've grown accustomed. In sum, the same Luka who relies on the enthusiastic support of the pensioners and collective farmers is also the one-man dictator condemned in the West. The Luka of Scythian99 (who is "Europe's last dictator") is the same Luka as the Luka of Alex576 (who is aware of the "positive" side).

The article only brings up his populist-style, his personal connection to, and appeal among, certain popular sectors, to convey an understanding of the context within which Luka emerged. The popular sectors simply have it better in Belarus than in Russia, at least for now. As a result, this article does a better job of explaining the nature and characteristics of Luka's regime, and how it exploited post-Soviet structural problems, than the bellicose and mindless rhetoric eminating from Scythian99 and his ilk. The less informed users are the more belligerent and opinionated they are, it seems. 172 09:18, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, I tend to agree with your position. I merely disagree with some ways of its expression. I understand your stand as an author defending his writings, but please beleive that some phrases do stand out as too exsessive praise (may be it is because I'm not a native English speaker, but I suspect 57% of wikipedia readers are such kind of folk :-). My removals do not kill what you wanted to say. If you think that some important facts are removed, I am hearing you. Mikkalai 16:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind response. However, I still object to the removal of content comparing objecting indicators of Belarus' standard of living and income distribution with those of Russia. This content should stay in the article, so as to explain why a personalistic dictator can rely on a significant degree of popular support, especially among pensioners and rural residents. The transition to a market economy comes with painful transactional costs, explaining why the social groups vulnerable to these changes support him. Lukashenko's raison d'etre, from the standpoint of his supporters in Belarus, is that he can provide a measure of stability not seen in Russia, where radical reforms were implemented. BTW, I'm sorry for being a bit abrasive and defensive earlier. I was not happy, to say the least, when Scythian99 came here and started accusing me of 'pro-Lukashenko' bias without the faintest idea as to what he was talking about. 172 19:05, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker and I can read the language that 172 is using and it isn't pretty. I find some of it offensive really. He can write paragraphs with many words, but most of them do not say anything pertinent to the subject of the article. 172 needs to swallow some pride and just accept the the truth about his article. I am glad 172 that you have dreaded people like me because people like me keep Wikipedia honest for everyone else. If you have had other people find problems with your articles, maybe that is telling you something. Keep your writing to basic facts, and keep opinions to yourself.Scythian99

What are you talking about? You are not making sense. What are my "opinions?" What is factually incorrect? Can you justify your criticisms of the evidence and arguments? Of what are you accusing me? What is my agenda? What is irrelevant and why? 172 20:45, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK 172, how about you edit your article with our suggestions to make it unbiased because I will revert to Mikkalai's better edit until there is a better one.Scythian99

Time for a fresh start

This debate seems to have got bogged down in a nasty and pointless edit war. I think there are actually problems with all of the versions that 172, Mikkalai and Scythian99 are fighting over: the article is short on historical coverage of Lukashenko's career and long on analysis. Let's get the historical detail right first, then move on to the analysis.

I also think that there are serious NPOV problems with the way that it's been presented. It does read as if it's been adapted from a pro-Lukashenko biography. There is next to no coverage of the many political and economic problems of his presidency, nor of the reasons why he is widely regarded as a quasi-dictator. There's also no coverage at all of his attempts to create an "Slav union" with Russia and Yugoslavia, nor of his strongly anti-western stance, which has been a significant theme of his (to put it mildly).

My first impression of the article (and I'm neither pro- nor anti-Lukashenko) was that it tries to present Lukashenko as an honest and effective ruler trying to keep his distance from rapacious foreigners and an unstable Russia. This is very definitely not NPOV. In fact, I find it hard to understand why so much has been omitted if not for political reasons.

I propose to rewrite this article from scratch. I know enough about the country to be able to do so, and I have more than enough raw material to draw on. I've already made a start by rewriting the first section. 172, Mikkalai and Scythian99, could you please call a truce, let me rewrite the article and then debate whatever I come up with? -- ChrisO 22:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

First, the same could be said about the articles on Putin and Yeltsin. Russia's problems are detailed in articles on politics of Russia and the economy of Russia. Anyhow, the Luka article makes it clear that he favors a Soviet-style economy and is an autocrat with expanded constitutional powers of presidential decree and without term limits. Second, Luka is an anomaly in the former USSR. He is the lone populist outsider to emerge, presiding over the most unreconstructed economy in the former USSR outside Central Asia. Noting that he is able to parcel out the goodies to collective farmers, managers of SOEs, workers, and pensioners just like in the old days must be included. What you want could fit into an article on politics of Belarus or the economy of Belarus. 172 09:39, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO, I am behind you 100%. Please rewrite the article and make it neutral as any article on Wikipedia should be. That is all I ever wanted for the Lukashenko article. Scythian99

Let ChrisO create a new article

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)

Comment from Adam

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)

I don't claim to be particularly expert on post-Soviet affairs, but what reading I have done tells me that those countries which did early and thorough "shock therapy" in the introduction of capitalism have done much better in the longer run than those which delayed or tried to do it by stages. Lukashenko's demagogic resistance to change only serves to keep Belarus in a stagnant swamp of poverty and backwardness. Why on earth does Lukashenko deserve praise for this? The fact that the articles on Turkmenistan etc are inadequate (if it is a fact: I haven't looked at them) doesn't excuse this one. A great deal of the very questionable rationalisation for Lukashenko's thuggish regime could be cut out with no loss at all. Adam 14:21, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite done (so far!)

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)

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)

Fair enough - done. -- ChrisO 22:31, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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)

Back to square one?

I had another look, and this time I did more than just skim the article. Most of ChirsO's additions have been fine. However, some sections selectively present the data to sketch an abstract impression of "Europe's last dictator."

I couldn't salvage the new section on the financial crisis in 1998, which was the most biased and distorted accounted that I've ever read (or could imagine ever reading). The 1998 crisis hit the entire former Soviet Union, remember, and was triggered by the East Asian crisis. It almost seems as if ChrisO has gone to effort to present this problem as something unique to Belarus.

On that note, I also abridged much of ChrisO's excruciating minutiae on inflation and monetary policy. The Yeltsin article doesn't go into such laborious (and selective) detail on Russia' overvalued exchange rate before the default and devaluation in 1998, although this was another problem in its own right posing far greater challenges to Russia' balance of payments, fiscal base, and prospects for GDP growth than inflation in Belarus at the time.

There is a dynamic of response and counter-response between Lukashenko' government and multilateral lenders and Western governments. ChrisO, however, went to painstaking effort to avoid addressing this in context. He chose to solely paint the picture of demagoguery, an erratic personality, and anti-Western prejudices. At the root of his bad relations with the West has been his economic policies.

I also trimmed down ChrisO's tendency to dwell on every bizarre detail he can dig up. Okay, Lukashenko responds to outside pressures with vitriolic statements and bizarre denouncements. If anyone follows Russian politics, this wouldn't seem so unusual, especially during the Yeltsin administration, and especially at the regional level and the Duma. This is also not uncommon among isolated regimes pushed into tight corners. We don't need huge chunks of text focusing on every little episode of day-to-day diplomatic and political intrigue. 172 16:45, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the edits that you've made and your stated reasons for making them, most of which are pretty tendentious. You've not "abridged" the article as you've claimed - you've simply reverted much of the text back to your original problematic version (which doesn't even mention the 1998 crisis).

You can add it, but keep it brief and in context of what was happening in Russia. I didn't say that it doesn't belong, just that I couldn't salvage it given how distorted your account was. I address this in greater detail in postings below. 172 23:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Back to square one? Your stated reasons for doing so are feeble, to say the least: you call the economic background "excruciating minutiae". Far from it - it's the reason why Lukashenko came to power in the first place and it's a major reason for his hostility towards the West after 1998.

No, the "excruciating minutiae" is the content that dwells on inflation afterwards. See my comments below.

You've also deleted a great deal of factual material without any explanation, such as the description of the effects of the collapse of the Belarusian currency in 1998. If you disagree with the facts that I've presented, please cite your sources. As it is, it looks very much like you've deleted factual content because you don't like it (it's "excruciating", right?).

Distorting my comments, right? Just like your distorting the presentation of the '98 crisis. I said that you were selectively choosing to present certain facts. The problem with your account of the '98 crisis was not what was in it, but what was not, or what was dwelled on, and what was ignored. 172 23:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've deleted all mention of the 1998 economic crisis, or the pre-Lukashenko crisis which propelled him into the presidency. This kind of deletion of historical fact simply isn't sustainable.

You went overboard when you were trying to make the case that the "sleepy backwater" was unique in the former Soviet Union. You were going through problems exhibited by all stagnating systems of administrative command. The discussions of nationalism and trade dependence on Belarus were left. 172 23:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, your grasp of the facts is shaky. You say above that "The 1998 crisis hit the entire former Soviet Union, remember, and was triggered by the East Asian crisis." True up to a point, but the point that I made (and that you deleted) was that the Belarusian government was printing money and had nothing to back it up with. As I said in one of the factual bits of content that you deleted, "The Russian central bank suspended trading in the ruble, blaming the problems on the Belarusian government: 'Money-supply growth in Belarus was double the planned levels in 1997, and this couldn't but lead to a fall in the exchange rate and a loss of confidence in the currency.'" In other words, the collapse was inevitable: the Asian crisis probably made it happen sooner but it was not the underlying cause.

Once again, I said that I could not salvage your writing on the '98 crisis, not that it shouldn't be addressed. I said that the problem was selective use of the data, not incorrect data. Your portrayal of the '98 crisis and the political and diplomatic fallout was to the point of being comical. Your emphasis on inflation was fine, but we don't need to make this into A Monetary History of Belarus. Soviet-style Communism always throws macroeconomic balance – the balance between what a society spends and what it earns – out of whack. Inflation was only hidden under the Soviets, taking the form of supply shortages rather than monetary instability. Of Central Bank policies were inflationary before the '98 crisis! Of course inflation was rampant. Belarus was not under an IMF-backed austerity regime, so inflation is a natural outcome. But in the context of Lukashenko (not an article on the economy of Belarus), it's only relevant in the context of falling real wages and the government's tensions with creditors. 172 23:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your changes have once again made the article very unbalanced, factually problematic and arguably POV. Unfortunately your edits have had the effect of making the article amount to an apologia. Despite your acknowledgement in the Talk page that Lukashenko's is (in your words) "a nasty regime", you've deleted much that explains why Western governments have been so hostile and even why relations with Russia have been difficult in recent years - for instance, Belarus's arms trade and political relationship with so-called "rogue states" like Iraq and Yugoslavia.

The level of detail, tone, and lack of context in these sections is problematic. Your account of his tensions with the West is static and one-sided. The article is not a day-by-day overview of his presidency. The article only has time to address the sources and implications of his tensions with the West, along with some key events. We do not need trivial, anecdotal accounts of hostile governments hurling insults at each other. There are concrete sources of tensions between Lukashenko's regime and the West, and it's just as simplistic to attribute it to "US imperialism" as it is to solely attribute it to concerns over human rights. 172 23:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is there a political agenda thing going on here? Am I right in guessing from the tenor of your changes that you're writing from an anti-globalisation perspective? If so, I don't think this is an appropriate article to promote your POV. -- ChrisO 21:11, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What is an "anti-globalization" perspective anyway? I don't know. I doubt that you know. While policy options have narrowed, there is still room to maneuver within the framework of world markets. But it is patently silly to argue that integration is an unmitigated good that automatically strengthens living standards for all places and all people. Changing economic structures always come with challenges and opportunities. I'm not interested in the hubris of post-Cold War triumphalism or the knee-jerk pessimism and nihilism of "anti-globalization" activists, what ever that means. You can interest yourself in these silly debates that mirror the sterile controversies of the Cold War period. In reality, international markets produce varying degrees of linkage and leverage, and have varying relationships with development in the long-run. We have seen Taiwan and South Korea on one hand, and the "banana republics" of Central America. I examine the context, rather than some simplistic far-left or far-right ideology that blinds me to reality.

We both know that restructuring was inevitably necessary in the former Soviet Union. However, you just can't seem to stomach admitting that reform has come with significant costs and burdens. Why is this hard for you to address? Lukashenko's hesitancy to enact reforms and the backing for groups tied to state support is the over-arching hallmark of his regime. 172 23:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Batka

The word is ised in the informal meaning of "chieftain". Again, it is fairly informal, unlike some titles in former Asian Soviet republics, like "turkmen-bashi" (father of turkmens).

Opposition happily uses it the ironic sense, because in the Russian folk culture the best known batka is batka Makhno (Nestor Makhno). And indeed, there is something similar between "Batka Luka's" opposition to West with simultaneous unaccaptance of economic recipes of Russia, and Makhno's motto "Beat Reds till they turn red and beat Whites till they turn white!" :-). (Really angry opposition indeed uses it as a hint to similarity with khan-style dictatorship of "bashi"s) Mikkalai

Back to the same problems

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)

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)

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)