Belarus:
A New Geopolitical Reality?

Koktysh K.E.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, kirill.koktysh@gmail.com

elibrary_id: 250721 | ORCID: 0000-0002-6555-0391 | RESEARCHER_ID: ABF-5548-2021

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.03.07

Rubric: Orbis Terrarum: International Relations

For citation:

Koktysh K.E. Belarus: A New Geopolitical Reality? – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No. 3. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.03.07

Abstract

The scaled post-electoral protests in Belarus raised a number of questions both in practice and in political theory. Was it just one more attempt at a “color revolution”, or was I an outburst that can be logically explained in terms of internal contradictions and mistakes made by the authorities? Why did the level of political technologies used by the protesters, which was high, not affect the outcome of the Belarusian confrontation? Among the reasons for the latter, the author singles out the protest’s failure at creating its own “symbolic space” which could become a semantic and “power” center, the failed attempts to split the ruling elite after which the enemy was declared as being “the system as a whole”, and the negative concept of freedom adopted by the protest, which in fact goes back to Voltaire’s tradition, within which freedom is “something that was lost” when state emerged but not something that can be defined in a positive way. It is easy to see that within such a cognitive framework the enemy of freedom can be clearly identified (this being the state), but it is completely unclear what freedom is and how and at what point it can be obtained. The uncertainty of this concept quickly transformed into the certainty of nationalism, and the protest began to take shape as a “confrontation of the new nation” with the “obsolete state”. At the same time, there was not, and could not be, any positive program of “tomorrow”. The state also suffered losses: “pro-Belarusian” ideology (previously a synthesis of the concept of order and the concept of cultural nationalism) split, leaving the state with a “naked” concept of order, while the protesters privatized nationalism. In addition, as part of the pragmatism of normalization in the West’s direction after 2014, the Belarusian regime actually turned a blind eye to the loss of its own dominance in the information space. As a result, the struggle took the form of a confrontation between “ideas without institutions versus institutions without a national idea”, i.e., the idea of a new nationalism and the idea of order. The latter turned out to be a win for the state and a loss for the protest: the protest idea eventually degraded to a simulacrum, the meaningful management of which is hardly possible. The author also questions how the “reassembly” of the Belarusian political system can occur – it is supposed to start with the adoption of amendments to the constitution. The configuration of latter will most likely take the form of an increased role for parties, which runs the risk that the current confrontation may not be resolved but transformed, acquiring other forms. In this regard, Russia will have to add inter-party diplomacy to the institution of inter-parliamentary diplomacy.

Keywords

Belarus, protests, color revolution, concepts of liberty, geopolitics.

Full Text

References

Ackerman P., Rodal B. 2008. The strategic dimensions of civil resistance. – Survival. Global Politics and Strategy. Vol. 50. No. 3. Р. 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330802173131

Baudrillard J. 2000. La Transparence du Mal. (Russ. ed.: Baudrillard J. Prozrachnost’ zla. Moscow: Dobrosvet. 257 p.).

Baudrillard J. 2015. Simulacres et Simulation. (Russ. ed. Baudrillard J. Simulyakry i simulyatsii. Moscow: POSTUM Publishing house. 240 p.).

De Montesquieu. 1999. De l’esprit des loix. (Russ. ed: De Montesquieu. O dukhe zakonov. Moscow: Mysl’. 674 p.).

Eco U. 2007.A passo di gambero: Guerre calde e populismo mediatico. (Russ. ed.: Eco U. Polnyi nazad! “Goryachie voiny” i populizm v SMI. Moscow: Eksmo. 592 p.).

Foucault M. 2010. La Naissance de la biopolitique. Cours au College de France (1978-1979). (Russ. ed.: Foucault M. Rozhdenie biopolitiki. Kurs lektsii, prochitannykh v Kollezh de Frans v 1978-1979 uchebnom godu. St. Petersburg: Nauka. 448 p.).

Foucault M. 2015. Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (Russ.ed.: Foucault M. Nadzirat’ i nakazyvat’. Rozhdenie tyur’my. Moscow: OOO “Ad Marginem Press”. 500 p.).

Hirschman A.O. 2009. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. (Russ. ed.: Hirschman A.O. Vykhod, golos i vernost’. Reaktsiya na upadok firm, organizatsii i gosudarstv. Moscow: Novoe izdatelstvo. 156 p.).

Karl T.L., Schmitter Ph. 2004. Concepts, Assumptions and Hypotheses about Democratization (Reflections on Applicability of the Transitological Paradigm for the Study of Post-Communist Transformations). – Polis. Political Studies. No. 4. P. 6-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2004.04.02

Kharitonova O.G. 2014. Color Revolutions in the Context of Democratization Theories. – Political Science (RU). No. 3. P. 184-210. (In Russ.)

Koktysh K.E. 1999. Transformatsiya politicheskogo rezhima Respubliki Belarus’. 1990-1999 [Transformation of the Political Regime in the Republic of Belarus, 1990-1999]. Moscow: MONF. 187 p. (In Russ.)

Koktysh K.E. 2019. Teoriya metafory i politicheskie instituty: uchebnoe posobie [Metaphor Theory and Political Institutions: A Study Guide]. Moscow: MGIMO-University. 225 p. (In Russ.)

Le Bon G. 1995. Les lois psychologiques de l’evolution des peuples. La Psychologie des Foules. (Russ. ed.: Lebon G. Psixologiya narodov i mass. St. Petersburg: Maket. 311 p.) .

Naumov A.O. 2018. Traditional and New Media as Actors of Color Revolutions. – DISCURS-P. No. 3-4. P. 79-87. (In Russ.) https://dx.doi.org/10.17506/dipi.2018.32.3.7987

Neumann J. von, Morgenstern O. 1970. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. (Russ. ed.: Neumann J. von, Morgenstern O. Teoriya igr i ehkonomicheskoe povedenie. Moscow: Nauka. 983 p.).

Parsons T. 1993. The Concept of Society: The Components and Their Interrelations. (Russ. ed.: Parsons T. Ponyatie obshchestva: komponenty i ikh vzaimootnosheniya. – THESIS. Theory and History of Economic and Social Institutions and Systems. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 94-122).

Pocheptsov G. 2005. [Revolution com. Fundamentals of Protest Engineering]. Moscow: Europe Publishing House. 532 p. (In Russ.)

Przeworski A. 2013. Political Institution and Political Order(s). (Russ. ed.: Przeworski A. Politicheskii institut i politicheskii poryadok. – Demokratiya v rossiiskom zerkale. Moscow: MGIMO-University. P. 398-428).

Rousseau J.-J. 2013. Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique. (Russ. ed.: Rousseau J.-J. Obshchestvennyi dogovor, ili Nachala politicheskogo prava. – Rousseau J.-J. Politicheskie sochineniya. St. Petersburg: Rostok. P. 116-239.)

Shults E.E. 2017. Color Revolutions: Methodological Problems of Theoretical Generalizations. – Political Expertise: POLITEX. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 88-99.

Terterov G. 2016. “Color Revolutions”. – 21st Century. No. 3. P. 16-26. (In Russ.) URL: http://www.noravank.am/upload/pdf/21_Vek_03_2016.pdf (accessed 20.04.2021).

Tsymburskii V.L. 2000. Rossiya – Zemlya za Velikim Limitrofom: tsivilizatsiya i ee geopolitika [Russia – the Land beyond the Great Limitrof: Civilization and Its Geopolitics]. Moscow: Editorial URSS. 144 p. (In Russ.)

Voltaire F.M.A. 1947. Filosofskie dialogi i fragmenty [Philosophical Dialogues and Fragments]. – Voltaire F.M.A. Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected Works]. Moscow: OGIZ. Goslitizdat. P. 457-553.

Zaiko L., Romanchuk Y.A. 2011. Belarus’ 20/20 v labirinte ehkonomicheskoi identichnosti [Belarus 20/20 in the Labyrinth of Economic Identity]. Minsk. 659 p.

Content No. 3, 2021