Life-changing Choice

To elect Andrei Sannikov a president would mean to put an end to the epoch of barbarity and loutishness in Belarus.

A few months ago I published an article where I proposed to start a discussion on the pages of “Narodnaya Volya”, who out of all oppositionists should be recognized its single leader. First of all I meant an obvious fact that having 9 rivals for the eternal president of Belarus in the election is pointless. The proposal seems to be premature, as interrogations of the arrested were underway, and trials had not taken place. Now the situation is different. And finally, the first response to my article was received.

I mean an interesting letter of P. Murashka from Mahilyou “Decembrists”, published in “Narodnaya Volya” number 71-72 on May 17-19 2011. The author justly blames the pro-democracy candidates for their inability to unite and nominate one candidate. Besides, he analyzes some tactical mistakes of the election campaign. It is beyond dispute. But the author also reproaches me: “Yury Khadyka offers to select a new leader from the same oppositionists. I categorically disagree. There is a rule: the commander who has lost a strategic battle, loses not only shoulder straps, but sometimes is cut shorter by the head.”

This remark is true on the whole, but two statements contradict the article of P. Murashka himself. Firstly, in the end of the article he himself urges V. Nyaklyaeu to restore “Tell the Truth!” movement. And secondly, in 2010 we (the democratic opposition) did not have “a commander”. In 2006 a commander A. Milinkevich was really deprived of “shoulder straps”. He remained only a leader of an NGO, rather big for our country. And the campaign of 2010 was not “a strategic battle,” but a harsh test of aims, skills, moral qualities of those who had offered themselves for the role of the national leader. Lukashenka’s satraps finished the procedure of selection. It is enough to look at the verdicts to former candidates to understand whom the clique fears most.

Sannikov is number one among them. Even Lidziya Yarmoshyna has positioned him higher than other Lukashenka’s rivals. It was just a distorted reflection of people’s support, which had been won by the educated, refined, talented man. We have become used to rudeness and lies on TV that Sannikov’s success seems a real breakthrough. A flash of hope. So I would like to remind the stages of Andrei Sannikov’s life which have given him the right to become a national leader.

He has excellent education, which climax was the Foreign Affairs Academy in Moscow. The beginning of his career was brilliant. He worked abroad, in New York and Geneva. And then Belarus became independent. At the age of 37 Andrei returns to his home country and becomes deputy Foreign Affairs Minister of the new country. Is main achievement in this period was negotiations on removal of nuclear armaments from the territory of Belarus. The negotiations were successful, as the country became nuclear –free and received money compensation. However, the year 1996 came… The power of the first president, an obvious ochlocrat, became shaky. Before the notorious referendum on imposing a dictatorship, three persons leave his first government: Prime Minister M. Chyhir, minister A. Sasnou and deputy minister A. Sannikov. How often we underestimate such people! And it is understandable. The vast majority of our oppositionists are “thin people”. There are little “fat people” (people from the establishment) among them. And we are inclined to undervalue their sacrifice on the altar of democracy and independence. We undervalue their life and political experience.

Moreover, tow phobias have become popular in the milieu f democrats. A phobia of Communism and Russophobia. Sometimes they hinder uniting of the democratic forces and creation of a powerful oppositional movement. It is ridiculous to hear from the young people, who were toddlers in the times of the Soviet Union, philippics against Communism. The new Christian Democrats seem to be unaware of the fact that before Marxism stained its hands with blood, educated and respected people called it warped Christianity, a Christian heresy.

Instead of struggling with “a Russian school and Russian church”, which have brought to a conclusion what hadn’t been finished by the Russian bayonet, we are offered to fight with Moscow, which is simply madness. We should have good and mutually beneficial relations with the neighbouring country. Independence is strengthened by national consciousness, not by enmity.

I need these digressions in order to stress that Andrei Sannikov, a son of the political establishment, for 15 years has been fighting for democracy, for justice, for Belarus. In 1997 he founded Charter’97 movement following the example of Charter’77 in the Czech Republic. He supported and headed the People’s University, which functioned in 32 cities of Belarus and increased political culture of about a thousand of political activists before it was banned. He supported “Zubr” movement, created a popular “European Belarus” website and movement, to launch a challenge to A. Lukashenka’s regime.

And finally, A. Sannikov is a son of an old family of Belarusian intelligentsia. It is very valuable, as the intelligentsia was the main target of Stalinist repressions and a mean policy of comprador corrupt “interlayer”, which does not have a right to be called “intelligentsia”. So electing Sannikov a president in the possible second round or in a new election under democratic rules would mean an end to the epoch of barbarity and loutishness in Belarus. For the first time in history Belarusians will start to live in a normal free country. Andrei’s courage in ordeals and his steadfastness are giving us such a hope.

Professor Yury Khadyka, “Narodnaya Volya”