Uladzimir Hancharyk: People see no perspectives in the opposition

This was reported in the talk with the EuroBelarus Information Service by Uladzimir Hancharyk, the former candidate from united opposition forces in the 2001 presidential elections.

Let us recall that last week the meeting of the Supreme Council of the 13th Convocation took place in Minsk. At the meeting the statement condemning uncontrollable public sell of the national property by the unwarranted power was adopted. Uladzimir Hancharyk, the deputy of the Supreme Council of the 13^th Convocation was among the participants of the meeting.

Uladzimir, do you really ascribe yourself to active politicians? Or you are more of an honored oppositionist in retirement?

- Of course, I’m more related to the second category. But I am helping, consulting and communicating with a number of politicians from Russia and work closer with the trade unions. What about the recent meeting of the deputies of the Supreme Council of the 13th Convocation, it wasn’t designed legally, but this meeting resulted in our common statement on today’s most urgent issues.

- How you see your own role in the country’s modern history? How have you benefited to Belarus?

- This is not for me to decide. I am proud for how I organized and saved the trade unions. As a united candidate from the opposition at the presidential elections in 2001 I believe that my campaign was none the worse than all the following; vice versa, it was more large-scale and united. Yes, we were a bit naïve then and didn’t expect that the authorities are ready for such falsifications.

“The personality of the united candidate is of no importance”

- Some people hold the view that it was 2001 when Belarusan opposition had all the chances to win the elections, when the system wasn’t that obdurate. Do you agree with that, and why haven’t you used this chance?

- Judging by official results we drew more than 15 per cent of votes then. But I think that we had lots of oversights, especially during the start. We made an agreement before the elections, but despite all the assurance neither Siamion Domash nor Russia helped us.

- Would the chances to win the elections in 2001 have changed if some other person became a united candidate?

- No, nothing would have changed. The personality of the united candidate was of no importance, and neither is now. Of course, the personality of the candidate matters, but when everyone has a bad lack of cooperation, then all the rest is not that important.

- But you considered different variants of possible scenarios at the day of elections? Were you ready for the official results of the vote? Did you know what to do after that?

- No, it was our vulnerable point. It was the fault of our staff, too. We didn’t even have a thought that Lukashenka would draw 70-80 per cent of the vote, as different polls gave us about 30-40 per cent. Though I find it possible that Lukashenka would have won the 2001 elections even without the falsifications.

- After the presidential campaign of 2001 you made a hint that Russia cheated you by refusing to provide already prepaid TV broadcasts at the last moment. But could those broadcasts considerably change the situation and why do you find it a cheating, not the part of politics?

- When you are promised something that never comes to be fulfilled I call it cheating. What about the influence of Russian TV broadcasts, it was much more influential than it is now, and we placed certain hopes on that.

- Your call to “stand surety for the democratic elections in Belarus” to Uladzimir Putin in 2001 looks rather ridiculous now, don’t you think so?

- Of course. This is naiveté we had; however, Russia was different at those times, and Putin’s role was different, too. No one was speaking about the “controlled democracy” then. Russia is undergoing the same processes that are found in Belarus, and all the problems are resolved compulsory now. However, it would be easier to depose Lukashenka with Russia’s help anyway.

- What are those mechanisms that could make Russian authorities get involved in the process of change of the Belarusan current regime?

- Let me reveal something to you: I had a number of meetings in the US in 2002; meetings in the State Department, too. On the question about what was lacking for us to win my answer was “consolidated work of the international community”. If we talk about funding, no one said it should come from the West. There was only one country in Europe with a clear stance, and it was Germany. All the other countries didn’t influence Russia, though at that time there were certain mechanisms that could have persuaded Russia that the change of power in Belarus is required.

“No one would start a revolution”

- You keep on insisting that the opposition needs a united candidate at the presidential elections for over a decade already. Do you think it sounds unconvincing? Is it the question about the united candidate that has top priority for Belarusan opposition?

- Of course, the question of the united candidate is not first and foremost. But we have no other mechanism for consolidation. At least I see no such mechanisms. How can we unite all the political forces without a concrete person? If our common goal is to change the regime, this defines our main task, too.

- You have already said that the main mistake of the 2001 and 2006 elections was that no one meant to protect the results of the elections seriously. When it comes to the 2010 elections, there is a number of similar questions as well. Perhaps it is in this area where the reasons for sustained defeats of the opposition lie?

- It is a very important question anyway. When I participated in the elections I counted fully on my staff. But it turned out that we hadn’t got any prepared possible scenarios. And the problem with the protection of the election results is of greater importance than the figure of the united candidate and the procedure of its elections.

- You criticized the former presidential elections, saying that “the majority of the candidates were asserting themselves rather than fighting for power”. Now you call for “lowering of personal ambitions and thinking about the purpose of nominating the united candidate”. But you used to be such a candidate, and there appears a vicious circle with a predetermined result. What we have to do with it?

- We have to come to an agreement as early as possible. I’m not suggesting taking the campaign of 2001 as an example, but we have to draw proper conclusions from that experience. Up to a certain moment I believed that the political system of Belarus could be changed evolutionary. Even now I believe that we have no other way but elections. No one would start a revolution in Belarus – we have no such heroes.

“The youth is not attracted by the ideas of the opposition”

- Your biography is typical of the successful Soviet leader. What is your attitude to the generation that perceives Soviet Union as the Russian Empire that is known only from history?

- My attitude towards this generation is quite positive; my grandchildren are of this age. They are absolutely different; USSR is only a part of history for them. And I have no regrets about that.

- As a professional officer you certainly see that Belarusan opposition consists of the same people that represented it in the late 90s and the early 2000s. Why there is a lack of new personnel? How can we solve this problem?

- I can’t talk in the name of the parties, but it’s a fact that parties are growing old in Belarus. The youth is not very attracted by the ideas and actions of the opposition. Many people merely don’t see any future in the opposition.

- It will be very interesting to hear at least some names of the “young and promising politicians”.

- I wouldn’t like to voice their surnames; these people still have to be trained and supported.

- You have recently said that when you participated in the presidential elections you didn’t realize how dangerous it is for your family. What did you mean by that?

- Everything messed up at that time; surname Hancharyk caused sharp reaction everywhere. There was a task to destroy me as a politician; that is why my problems affected my family.

- What was your biggest regret after the elections of 2001?

- I can hardly say that I have some strong regrets. Perhaps, I could have been shrewder while selecting people for my inner circle.