Ales Chyhir about marginals in Belarusian politics

Ales Chyhir, activist of the Belarusian Popular Front Party and one of the leaders of the democratic forces of Babruisk, responded to the recent remarks of leader of the “For Freedom” movement Alyaksandr Milinkevich.

An article by Ales Chyhir was published on the website of the BPF party. Here is the full text of the article.

Alyaksandr Milinkevich says that the Belarusian opposition doesn’t’ take part in the negotiations of official Minsk and representatives of the European institutions due t its marginality.

“It was much discussed that the Belarusian opposition wasn’t taking part in the negations between the Belarusian authorities and the West. It doesn’t deserve this, it has become marginal and weak,” the politician said.

“We have less influence on the society. We should solve the matter not with the EU, for not having been invited somewhere, but we must deal with the problem of our influence on the Belarusian society.”

A position of Mr Alyaksandr on marginal character of the Belarusian democratic forces was supported by people without strong political views but with visible absence of moral values at the website of Babruisk.

That’s why I had to look up a definition for the word “marginality” in the dictionary. That is what I read:

“A marginal - One that is considered to be at a lower or outer limit, as of social acceptability.

It this definition is used in relation to the countries with democratic traditions of state governing, it’s obvious that being a marginal is very bad.

As a rule marginals are citizens and politicians who have radical views or suffering mental problems. There are plenty of such people around. A decree of marginalization of a politician is defined by a number of votes he or she gets at free and fair elections. As a result of such elections, we see elected, but not appointed (this is very important) spokespersons of the public opinion.

But this is true only in Europe. Those who suggest seizing and sharing get 5–6 per cent of the votes and a status of a “marginal”.

Our ”strong and prosperous state for people” is different. The word “democratization” is written down in the Constitution, but as an old Soviet joke says, a four-lettered word is written on the barn’s wall, but there’s firewood inside. It’s obvious that Belarus is a real authoritarian state with a real dictator on the top.

Such states usually have a special way f development and marginals at ours are those who stand against the regime – “If you are against, you are a marginal!”

We have already seen this:

Not joining Hitler-Jugend in the Nazi Germany was marginal. Marrying a Slav was marginal.

In North Korea those who don’t want to stave are marginals.

Red Khmers considered to be marginal everyone who could read – those were killed and fed.

In Rwanda of 1990s, marginals were the most educated Tutsi, only because there were more Hutu in the country and they had power. (By the way, the UN and the government had opportunities to prevent genocide in Rwanda, but didn’t do it because of lack of resources and political will).

It’ clear that in the societies, like ours, marginals are appointed by the ruling grouping and this decision doesn’t depend on an opinion of the people.

I am not ashamed to be a marginal, but with my respect to Mr Alyaksandr, but truth is dearer still:

A degree of marginalization of a politician can be defined only by fair and competitive struggle. Let’s imagine that from tomorrow we will be able to see such quasi-democratic talk-shows as “K Barieru” or “Chestny Ponedelnik” (NTV channel), where we will be able to listen to a dialogue between, for example, Vintsuk Vyachorka and Syarhei Martynau, or Alyaksandr Milinkevich and Uladzimir Makei.

I don’t even speak about a public dialogue between regional oppositionist and representatives of the authorities in regions.

In this case it would become clear who is able to gain support of people, and who is “a small group of marginal politicians”.

Are the current authorities afraid of this?