BNR and Lukashenko

Well, if you start with the latter, it must be said that a number of steep turns ideological recent years shows that the resilience and stability of the present regime should not be underestimated. At the end of the last century, it seems that the policy of integration with Russia, especially the integration rhetoric — one of the main strongholds of the government that the loss or rejection of this will mean it is very spirited political ruin. In 2002 wasand the struggle with Putin’s proposal to join the Russian 6th province, in 2004 — the gas war in late 2006 — early 2007 — oil and gas war. All of these crises were accompanied by a radical change of rhetoric, and to a certain extent and politics. So what? And nothing, no accidents, no collapse as a result of loss of support integration failed. No ordinary electorate authorities did not raise it on the fork for the "betrayal" of, nor the opposition has caught many political dividends from that power, the latest at the level of rhetoric, caught her democratic slogans.
The least noticeable, but also quite significantly changed over the last few years a number of attitude, approach the authorities to ON. On said "round table" in "Russian Belarus" very revealing words came editor Pavel Yakubovich, that, say, about ON everything is clear, it is part and parcel of our glorious heritage, our majestic past, but about the BNR yet to understand. This is when same with ON of weird happened this evolution? We never saw. And here occurred, as it turns out, once. And also nothing devilish happened, nothing nowhere collapsed.
But if a drastic change from public affairs to the BPR, which was shortly before the emblem of faith national-democratic forces, the government will lose nothing, it is not quite clear yet what will become, for which it is lived, so to speak, 14 years (or rather, almost all 90 years) without BNR would live and on.
Try to list the possible prerequisites. Hardly such ideological turn is directly linked to today’s action on March 25. Recognition of the legitimacy of authority date legitimacy prazdnichek ability to quickly dispel the fear go to share, give her a faster mass that power plans hardly included.
Also does not look possible and version that recognition BNR — a concession to the opposition, is a typical attempt to dialogue with them, at least deflotu. The current state of the opposition, a number of internal conflicts, the last of which was the release of "Young Front" of SLM indicate anything but not the growth of political opposition forces, with which the government would be required to be considered.
But part of the society, for which the ON and BPR — this fundamental value is not exhausted accurate political opposition. This broader and more than a mass flow is not something so against the government, and not for. And the change of public affairs to BNR — a message on this particular circle, trying to do for him to exist in today’s Belarus more bearable, in a sense, to reconcile this with the power of the circle by concessions, not very principle for power, but for the principal these people. This turn in something similar to the famous musicians Pralyaskouski negotiations. Not for the sake of opposition is that government did. And for whom? That’s who did then, for the same about BPR and recognizes reality.
But there seems to be another level of understanding, and, in a sense, another destination. Then start with an analogy: the return of Stalin epaulettes in the Red Army in the midst of war, returned after the war, a significant part of the pre-revolutionary entourage. Many whereas, say, the return of the shoulder straps was a real shock. And for what it was Stalin? Well, in the benefits given the Orthodox Church in days when Hitler came to Moscow, you can still see the direct political pragmatism — still a lot of people have remained faithful to the Christian faith and to purchase at their own expense additional support was critical at that moment totally unnecessary. But what was epaulets return? Who asked them to return, who was supposed to return them to please, what was the political goal?
The point, apparently, was that not enough it seemed revolutionary legitimacy handy historical legitimacy, the eternal, the support which has centuries of history.

Well and BPR can be, at the moment there is the same. Oddly tried to find some other workaround for the nation and dyarzhavatvarennya, a confluence of events makes the overall. It is possible that a role here played and generational change in the echelons of power. Lukashenko himself, may have been comfortable in the state, which comes from the pedigree of the BSSR, the young generation of power, perhaps more comfortable and relaxed feel in a broader historical context. Figuratively speaking, at 100 and even 128 bucks for a thousand cubic meters of gas without BNR possible to do, but at 200 or 300 dollars a thousand cubic meters for the BNR may be purely practical ideological necessity.
"Our government, like the famous Midas ruler contrary to what one nor touched, transformed into gold, as to what our no touch, everything is transformed into another substance …" — remarked once about similar exercises pryvlashchvannya stories Tsigankov employee. Not without it, of course, but I think that at all costs, wittily characterized staff, a process that we look, it is worth still welcome.

Well, in the 1-x, from the nationalist point of view, based on the belief that general process natsyyatvarennya absolute good. Create civilization in opposition vitro, in the ghetto — is generally Oxymoron, a contradiction in the definition. Political thought can be satisfied with the support of society, the state is seeking the idea of success only if covers all or a large part of the people. And the same BPR — it is not inherited opposition party, and the overall heritage of the Belarusian people. And if the government, based on what you like low and opportunistic motives, it recognizes that it takes a step to strengthen the ties which unite Belarusians together.
If talk about the political side of the fact, then the consequences of the least ambiguous. To a certain extent a pair. On the one hand, the loss of the monopoly of the opposition (real or contrived) to ON, and the independence of the BNR, the smallness lowers morale, removes from the ranks of the opposition of those whose conflict with the authorities concerned just these subjects. That appeal to the historical tradition does not undermine, and secures power, immediately after the collapse of the Soviet leaders realized the Central Asian states. Realized and began to withdraw their ancestry managed countries with Russian time (although in some cases impartially their ancestry and was particularly so) and of greyish centuries past. And nothing, are sitting, run, and no historical consciousness that their management does not interfere.
But it is still a one side. On the other for the past authoritarian regime — this prop, and poison. Democratic opposition raise their flags on history except rest and since beheld it Protz own experience zeal for freedom, the experience of people, people — it’s not the kids who need serious supreme "father." In history there are a lot of things, but there it is. And this, together with other authorities and swallows, includes its own social revolution in its municipal ideology. How does it work — God knows, maybe at some stage throughout, and Lukashenko himself, it becomes clear that certain things as a child, he can do the Byelorussian SSR, and oh so descendant ON and BPR, even taking that legacy with an entirely cunning motives — has not.
Pair it is couples, winning is not guaranteed to anyone. Another thing is that those who thought and felt the same BNR its own heritage can no longer evade it.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: