Mikalai Statkevich On Journalism, Analytics And Sociology Under Dictatorship

Why did smart people hype up puppet candidates at the “elections”?

The opposition leader and former political prisoner Mikalai Statkevich spoke on that with Natallia Radzina, the chief editor of charter97.org.

– Mikalai Viktaravich, as is well known, journalists in Belarus are under great pressure, especially after 2010. In a recent interview you even said: "To be honest – independent mass media cannot exist in Belarus." Is everything really so bad?

– First of all I would like to note that most independent Belarusian journalists are really brave people, professionals, who honestly do their job in the most difficult conditions. My respect is for them. My hat's off. Moreover, I owe them. When I was in the prison, I could get at least some information, I could even see my name in the newspapers. I can imagine what it cost.

But now, when out of the prison, I have to listen to journalists complaining: "We make article about you, and the editor removes it." Or even: "I had made an article about you and I was summoned after that..."

Media coverage of the past “elections” and the so-called “alternative candidates”, Lukashenka’s fictitious rivals, was part of a special operation organized by the authorities. Lukashenka wouldn’t have let a real opposition candidate, who would have called people to the streets, take part in the “elections”. Not only the dictator made every effort not to let such candidates appear and to make the “elections” as still as a graveyard, but also he carried out that operation. There was an international cover to prevent democratic candidates from receiving funding, and there was an informational campaign inside the country.

– What do you mean by the “information campaign”?

– I think that both, journalists and editors were perfectly aware of what kinds of candidates were taking part in the “elections”. They are smart people, they know what’s going on in the country, who really stands behind the so-called “opposition” candidate Karatkevich and who directs her. The person who confessed to her colleagues that she had a curator in the authorities. They know it all, but still pretended that everything was real.

I think that editors experience pressure. They are the point of force application.

– But what can they do when the KGB puts pressure on them?

– They just have to be honest and remind the readers: we cannot tell you everything because then we will lose possibility to work and will seize to exist as journalists. And if they cannot tell and write everything, then at least they shouldn’t do what they are commanded. They shouldn’t build up a false view of the world. I say so because during this campaign the media tried to depict the performance as something real.

– Were it only the mass media that depicted it so?

– Perhaps, this is what is called false misrepresentation. But I am talking not only about the media. Forget about the media – they have to save their offices, to publish material in the printing house. There are also analysts with their pens, notebooks and computers.

– And what was their role?

– It’s a funny situation: people thoughtfully discourse on political perspectives and actions of puppet figures, knowing (as they are definitely not fools) that these are puppets. Why do they do this? What are their motives? What inspired them? I have no ready answers to these questions. But perhaps it’s time for the society to ask itself these very questions?

I was knocked dead by one phrase. A pseudo-candidate for presidency speaks, and an analyst comments: "A new politician was born today". This is a presidential candidate, he or she was registered as a candidate a month ago, and he or she was born only today! First, a politician is born, then he or she climbs a political ladder - a manager of some organization, a deputy of a local council, the head of a regional organization, a member of a bureau or a committee, the party chairman – and only then he or she becomes a candidate. And here it’s like: first he or she becomes a candidate and only after that he or she is born. Even common people, who are not analysts, can see that there’s a discrepancy. And how could it happen that a non-politician became a candidate? Who made him or her candidate? For what merits? For what purpose? Dear analyst tells nothing about this.

When I heard that, I thought: the regime is immoral, disgusting, it poisons everything around and forces intelligent, decent people to do indecent things.

– Many analysts are referring to results of sociological research.

– We cannot speak about sociology, as a sociologist comes to a respondent and asks: what do you think, do you trust Lukashenka or not? Is an honest answer possible in the terrified country, can you guess?

We can speak about Sociology in Belarus only relatively. There is a rate of fear, and once some sociological services measured it. Earlier it was 5-7%, now, of course, it has increased and we can talk about 10%.

In addition, there is a rating of sociologists’ fear as well. A criminal case could be opened against them at any moment. I have been a social activist for a long time, and I have a good memory. I can recall at least three cases when pressure was put on the head of one of the sociological services personally, or on the service itself. People were fired, expelled from universities, organizations were banned. A criminal case for activities on behalf of unregistered organization could be opened against them.

Every time crackdown began, this "courageous" man immediately conducted a sociological survey. And that survey always showed a sudden 5% increase in Lukashenka's rating.

I am far from thinking that a sociological miracle has actually happened. Hence, the rating of sociologists’ fear was 5%. Now it’s probably more.

Imagine a situation: I'm in "Amerikanka"(the pre-trial KGB jail in Minsk), on hunger strike since December 19, 2010, lying, and the head of the prison, Colonel Varabiou, if I'm not mistaken, enters the camera.

– Arlou.

– Arlou or Varabiou. I used to call him Varabiou all the time, because his size was closer to the family of passerine birds. And the colonel says: in the square you announced that 37% had voted for Lukashenka according to exit polls. And the organization that had ordered the exit poll denied it later, because they wanted to continue to live and to work. But the survey was conducted and showed 37%. That was close to the reality. At that time there was some growth in the standards of living.

And in prison Arlou types something on a mobile phone and shows: Lukashenka has 51% of support. I'm lying down and say: "Take away the rating of the respondent's fear, the rating of sociologist’s fear and you’ll get the same 37%."

The country is frightened, there are beaten people, many are in prison, and at this time sociological service "courageously" conducts opinion polls, no matter what. For this you can get into prison, as a matter of fact, the head of one sociological organization has fled from the country, and the other is still working. Perhaps, in order to come to the ambassadors, diplomats and in prisons and say, "Look, he has won." I haven’t got another explanation.

– According to the research results of the Independent Institute of Socio-Economic and Political Studies, Lukashenka had allegedly scored 51 percent, and these figures were brought to all political prisoners in the KGB jail cells.

– It had been done for this purpose. Everything was trapped, everything that moved was suppressed, and those "courageous" people conducted an opinion survey. What was the purpose? Who had allowed that? Why haven’t they been repressed, since we know that one of the sociologists was hiding abroad? That is the price of sociology. But let them live, let them work, let them gather their information.

But again, I must honestly say, "Keep in mind the respondent's rating of fear." You cannot talk about yours fear and, if you are so scared, whisper in one’s ear: "Take away 12%". Besides, some sociologists have let us know that one of the conditions of work in our country is to publish personal ratings of politicians is to publish them with the knowledge and acceptance of Lukashenka's administration only.

– Thanks for the interview.

– Thanks for giving me a chance to speak.