IISEPS — Independent Institute of Socio-Economic and Politycal Studies

GLOBAL TREND

In June A. Lukashenko’s rating changed in opposite senses comparatively to March. Electoral rating gained 2.2 points, while trust rating lost 3.1 points (Tables 1-2). These changes should be regarded as insignificant, so we can speak about a stabilization of public opinion on the actions of “the only politician” as the head of state on the first year of his fifth term. This stabilization does not contradict to the decrease in acuity of perception of the economic crisis by Belarusians, registered in March.

Table 1. Dynamics of electoral rating of President A. Lukashenko*, %

Date	12'13	03'14	03'15	06'15	09'15	12'15	03'16	06'16
Rating	34.8	39.8	34.2	38.6	45.7	33.3	27.3	29.5

* Electoral rating is the percentage of votes, which a politician received in answers to an open question "If presidential elections were held tomorrow, for whom would you vote?"

Table 2. Dynamics of trust rating of President A. Lukashenko*, %

Variant of answer	12'13	03'14	03'15	06'15	09'15	12'15	03'16	06'16
Trust	37.7	45.9	48.8	49.0	47.0	45.4	41.7	38.6
Don’t trust	47.5	44.1	39.7	39.1	37.1	41.9	47.4	48.0
DA	14.8	10.0	11.5	11.9	15.9	12.7	10.9	13.4

* Trust rating is the percentage of support in the answers to the question "Do you trust the President?"

Changes of public opinion registered in the course of quarter surveys are, as a rule, media ripples, or ripples caused by current changes in economy. The big is seen from a distance. Table 3 results allow us to see this "big". Over the last 10 years, public opinion drastically re-evaluated A. Lukashenko’s "pivots".

Table 3. Dynamics of answering the question: "According to you, what does President Alexander Lukashenko mainly relies on?", % (more than one answer is possible)

Variant of answer	08'06	06'16	Difference
Presidential hierarchy line	37.0	54.4	17.4
State officials	20.5	32.1	11.8
Directors of big enterprises	13.5	17.4	3.9
Businessmen	4.5	5.5	1.0
Specialists	9.9	9.2	–0.7
The military, the MIA, the KGB	48.6	47.1	–1.0
Cultural and scientific elite	8.3	4.4	–3.9
Rural people	30.2	11.5	–18.7
Pensioners	41.4	21.8	–19.4
Common people	34.2	8.2	–26.0

* The table is sorted by the last column

In full compliance with the theory of the classical politologist M. Weber, there was a routinization of charisma of the "nation-wide-elected president". From a politician, relying on people (rural people, pensioners and common people), he transformed into a politician, relying mainly on bureaucracy. A formal decrease of the importance of the military, the MIA and the KGB is probably related to their success in suppression of dissidence and public protests. As a result, their actions disappeared from the front pages of mass media.

It should be noted that Table 3 reflects changes in public opinion, but not actual changes in A. Lukashenko’s actions as the head of state.

22 years ago A. Lukashenko emerged as an undeniable leader of the first presidential race due to the fact, among others, that he "without fearing conspiracies and attacks, was disclosing corruption among high-level officials" (this is a quote from the first official biography of A. Lukashenko). Today, however, only one of four Belarusians believes in his ability to achieve success in the fight against corruption (Table 4). The share of pessimistic evaluations amounts to almost three quarters.

Table 4. Distribution of answers to the question: "Which statement about corruption in Belarus do you agree with?", %

Variant of answer	06'15	06'16
A. Lukashenko will succeed in fighting against corruption after a serious purge of high-ranked officials and after introduction of more serious penalties for such crimes	27.8	25.3
A. Lukashenko will fight against corruption, but it is not likely that he will succeed, as corruption in Belarus is ineradicable	29.5	26.5
It is difficult for A. Lukashenko to fight against corruption as he depends on corrupted officials himself	22.8	23.8
A. Lukashenko won’t really fight against corruption, because he is interested in it in one or another way	15.9	21.4
DA/NA	4.0	3.1

In 2006 average value of A. Lukashenko’s electoral rating amounted to 55.6%. In the first half of 2016 it amounts to 28.4%. The decrease is almost double-fold. This is the global trend, "cleaned" from the influence of local events. There are no reasons for this trend to turn backwards today.