What If There’s No Sniper or Tea With Polonium?

The authorities are afraid of a new awakening of the Belarusian people.

Lukashenka timed his decree, which was touted as epochal, to Victory Day. However, the symbolism of the decree turned out to be gloomy and ambiguous, writes political commentator Alexander Klaskovsky on naviny.online.

What is the result? Decree No. 2 "On Defending Sovereignty and the Constitutional System" stipulates that if Lukashenka dies, the Security Council will take over power (which, according to many commentators, contradicts the Constitution).

The ruling elite is afraid of a new awakening of the people.

What does the adoption of Decree No. 2 really mean?

Firstly, it reveals that for almost 27 years of Lukashenka's reign, Belarus has not developed a normal, self-sufficient system of state institutions. The leader de facto confirms that he has created a personalistic regime, adapted to one person. It is enough for a sniper to fire a single shot, and the whole system will come under attack.

Secondly, high officials unwittingly show that, contrary to their assurances of complete control over the situation, they are nervous and focused on the visions of terrible reprisals against themselves. Lukashenka recalls the fates of Milosevic, Hussein, and Gaddafi.

Lukashenka and his entourage explain the necessity of the force majeure decree mainly by the external threat. However, they probably have August 2020 in front of their eyes. The ruling elite is afraid of a new awakening of the people. People at the top see that the repression has not contributed to the people's "love" for the authorities; the protesting part of society is just biting its lip and waiting for an opportunity.

In other words, this decree means indirect recognition that the regime is unpopular and relies on batons.

The decree is a double-edged sword.

Lukashenka has always tried to stop time, conserve the situation in the country. Now, he is trying to extrapolate this strategy.

It is a thankless task; the toolkit is limited. Any variant of modification of the personalist regime poses additional risks for Lukashenka and his entire system.

When it comes to the decree, there is the danger of a conspiracy by the security services, who have a chance to seize full power in the country.

As analyst Igor Ilyash notes, "the paradox is that the decree envisages the transfer of unlimited power to the people who determine whether the decree comes into force or not. If any of the power structures suddenly wake up with political ambitions, this document will become a monstrous temptation for them. Now, they will be able to hit the jackpot in the blink of an eye".

Secondly, the Belarusian nomenclature may create a secret connection with Moscow, which has its views on the transit of power in the neighbouring country.

Thirdly, even if these risks fail, the efficiency of "collective Lukashenka" will questionable.

After all, the first president did his best to prevent the formation of a full-fledged political class in the country. Inside a closed structure with the domination of security officials (each of them has people with guns), a struggle for domination may start, and the State would fall apart (what the Decree is meant to prevent).

What if there is no sniper or tea with polonium?

The key point is that despite all the fuss about the emergency decree and the new constitution, society still does not get an answer to the question of natural - without sniper or tea with polonium - change of power. Logically, the start of a normal mechanism of rotation of the ruling elite would cut off the need for a conspiracy.

In general, high officials stuck in rhetoric about enemies, conspiracies, coups, and the need to fight back. If one discards this, it turns out that the king and his entourage are naked. There is no elementary positive program, no development strategy. It means that the challenges of time will increasingly test Lukashenka's system.