Public opinion is a mechanism that ensures the existence of representative democracy, and the political practices of the Western countries pay a lot of attention to this. The whole industry of research, PR, political technologies and media deal with the formation and study of public opinion – or using it in interests of different groups, societal or corporate. Public opinion is a well-established mechanism in Western democracies, ingrown and integral for their public and political systems. In Belarus, the existence of public opinion as such can be questioned.
Public opinion is not characteristic of a society by definition; we cannot judge that public opinion exists just because polls and sociological surveys are being conducted and there are decades worth of databases of the results.
Public opinion is often compared to a mirror that reflects reality. But there is a second part of the process; this reflection is supposed to affect the reality it reflects as well; correct and change it. A society that looks into a mirror of public opinion does not just admire its own beauty or despises its ugliness, but also can improves its “looks” — just like a person can correct their make-up, straighten their tie or even decide to undergo a plastic surgery.
Before we try to understand how this mirror works in Belarus let us consider several basic issues that define public opinion as such.
The first notion is an object of public opinion, i.e. issues or areas public has opinions on. Not any issue can become such an object; it only applies to problems that can arouse discussions and represent an issue of public interest. This public interest does not exist itself; it is formed as a certain political agenda that is important for a society. The question is who set sets this agenda and how it is set. In a democratic society it is set in intellectuals’ discussions, political debates, public campaigns. They formulate questions that require an attitude or an opinion from a wider community.
But the mere existence of these questions does not lead to formation of public opinion on them; it has to be inspired and formed. Methods of formation of public opinion vary from elections and political campaigns to the daily work of mass media, public discussions, opinion polls. All these institutions work to transform formulated questions into the societally important ones that require the public to respond or take a stance on.
And here comes a question, the answer to which seems so obvious that almost no one bothers to ask it in the 21st century: who is the subject of public opinion? The obvious answer is “the public” or “society”. The real question is how we define a society that can have “public opinion”. Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist, anthropologist, and philosopher, seriously questioned an ability of every individual member of a society to have a relevant opinion. [Baring this in mind, it is difficult to think that a society as a set of all individuals can be a subject of “public opinion”.
Thus, the subject of public opinion can be a part of a society that is capable of competent political judgement about a public agenda. The opinion of this part of a society reflects results of intellectual battles, discussions, social innovations and political programmes. Desire for inclusion of all population of a society in this “subject” is a true democratic ideal to aspire to; but this ideal is rather utopian. So, there is a clear difference between a society as a simple aggregate of all individuals affected by a joint public agenda – and a society as a subject of public opinion. However restrictive and undemocratic it may sound, we have to take this difference into consideration, as well as the fact that when this discrepancy reaches a certain level, public opinion as a social institute ceases to function.
There are various forms and channels of expression of public opinion and they correspond to the methods of formation of public opinion we mentioned above. Election campaigns inspire public opinion on a direction of development of a country; referenda make people formulate their opinions on issues in question; their results finalise these processes. Media play a dual role; on the one hand they are an instrument of formation of public opinion, on the other hand, they are a platform of an open public debate that allows various arguments to be presented. Opinion polls represent a range of views and suggest reference points for politicians, public figures and a society. All these channels allow public opinion to influence the agenda, the content of discussions among politicians and intellectuals, and decision-making in the end.
We have described a rather ideal or theoretical type of functioning of public opinion. It shows that the “mirror metaphor” over-simplifies its understanding; it is rather a complicated system of mirrors that reflect and distort each other’s signals, and create quite a sophisticated image as a result.
Now let us have a look at the situation in Belarus through such a notion of public opinion. The space of public politics in Belarus is absent as such; the space of intellectual discussions is shrinking. Despite these facts the agenda of the most vital issues that must be in focus of public opinion is quite obvious. The country is stuck in uncertainty as it has not answered some basic questions any development is impossible without – from the problem of geopolitical choice (or “the choice of the future”) to the issues of historical memory (or “the choice of the past”, if you like).
Language, social and economic setup, Western or Eastern way of development, law-based or social state – here are just some of the questions there are at least two contradicting answers to in Belarus. And neither of the two camps have significant influence or a comprehensive programme of work with public opinion on these issues.
The authorities of the country don’t have such a programme. It may sound a bit paradoxical, but Belarusian authorities don’t have any strong influence on public opinion either – just because they don’t deal with the subject of public opinion, they only deal with “people” or “a population” they try to control with the help of a system of social and economic balances.
Political opposition has been losing its influence on public opinion during the past decade, and at the moment it has lost it almost completely. The opposition has lost support among civil society and intellectuals as well; thus they have started going down the same road of “dealing with people” as the authorities do. The proof is a growing appeal of the idea of populism among the oppositional forces. So, instead of elaboration of strategies and programmes to address the vital issues for the Belarusian society, the opposition try to address people and “gather their wishes”. The problem is there are no mechanisms to make those wishes come true.
The alternative political agenda in Belarus has been concentrated more and more in civil society and cultural underground; but as subjects of public opinion themselves, they don’t have enough potential to inspire massive processes of formation of public opinion on significant issues. This has to do more with peculiarities of self-identification of civil society, rather than with conditions of work or organisational weaknesses.
In such a situation media and opinion polls find themselves in quite an ambiguous position. Let’s leave the state media that function as propaganda tools alone. Independent media have to be guided by their own understanding of “general democratic values” and audience needs – because there are no other clearly identified public agenda setters. Thus, it is difficult to be a platform for sensible public debate. It results in a situation where the public opinion-setting work of the media cannot be effective as there is nobody to take note of it and use its results, if there are any.
Sociologists find themselves in a similar position. In fact they have to combine the roles of an “agenda setter” or a “public customer” – and of a researcher. The absence of a real public request for surveying and measurement of public opinion – as well as actual space for implementing their results – make any poll, however deep, mass-scale and methodologically perfect, quite useless.
Thus, the whole system that should ensure a functioning public opinion in Belarus is perverted. If we recall the “mirror metaphor”, all spaces or mirrors in it exist in parallel realities and create a “labyrinth of reflections”, where the subject of public opinion seems to be completely lost. Unfortunately, Belarus cannot boast of a large number of people who are capable of formulating a responsible political opinion that have a potential of influencing the situation in any area. The number of these people is decreasing rather than growing.
The only chance for a change is to alter the positions of mirrors.
The Supreme Economic Court of Belarus has upheld a decision by the Ministry of Information to cancel the licence of the Lohvinau Publishing House.
The company, owned by Ihar Lohvinau is well-known for publishing independent Belarusian literature and promoting national culture.
In September 2013 the Ministry of Information decided to withdraw its publishing license “for gross violations of the licensing legislation.”
The reason for the decision was Lohvinau’s publication of the Belarus Press Photo 2011 album, which was found to contain “extremist material” by a district court in Ashmiany in April 2013.
“It is quite obvious that the decision is unfair and we are going to seek justice. The Ministry of Information didn’t provide us with answers to our questions in the court room. We are going to appeal against the decision,” said Ihar Lohvinau after the hearings on 18 November 2013.
“The Ministry of Information interprets the licensing law too broadly; the licensing regulations in Belarus contain no reference to any ‘extremist materials’. Besides, the photo album in question was published long before it was considered ‘extremist’, it was sold freely in book shops, and the publisher bares no responsibility for the content of it or any later court decisions,” says Andrei Bastunets, a media lawyer and a Vice Chairman of the Belarusian Association of Journalists.
Belarusian law does not contain a clear definition of extremism, thus allowing arbitrary implementation of anti-extremist legislation. It has been used to silence critical voices and independent media in the country in the past.
As well as pictures of cute animals, the album, printed to accompany an exhibition of the best of press photography, featured images of bleeding protesters taken during a crackdown on an anti-government demonstration in Minsk after the presidential election of 2011.
Bryan faces a charge of ‘hooliganism’ after he was arrested while filming a Greenpeace protest on an Arctic Ocean oil rig.
Hooliganism is defined in article 213 of the Russian criminal code as “a gross violation of the public order which expresses patent contempt for society, attended by violence against private persons or by the threat of its use, and likewise by the destruction or damage of other people’s property”
Bryon could end up with a two-year sentence should he be convicted. That’s what Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina and Ekaterina Samutsevic of Pussy Riot received after they were convicted of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” in October 2012. Samutsevic has been released on bail, but Alekhina and Tolokonnikova remain in prison. There were fears for the wellbeing of Tolokonnikova recently after authorities could not confirm her whereabouts in the course of a prison transfer.
In the past week, artist Pyotry Pavlensky was charged with hooliganism for nailing his scrotum to Red Square, in what he said was a protest against political apathy.
Azerbaijan meanwhile, defines it as “deliberate actions roughly breaking a social order, expressing obvious disrespect for a society, accompanying with application of violence on citizens or threat of its application, as well as destruction or damage of another’s property…”
In May of this year, Azerbaijani activist Ilkin Rustamzadeh was sentenced to two months pre-trial detention for a hooliganism charge after he allegedly took part in a “Harlem Shake” video. Rustamzadeh, who had been active in calling for investigations into the deaths of young soldiers in Azerbaijan’s army, denied ever having taken part in the videos.
Before that, in 2009, Azerbaijan had jailed two young activists for hooliganism after they posted a video on YouTube satirising the government’s expenditure on importing donkeys from Germany.
It was suggested that the donkey import was a cover for money laundering. Shortly after the video was posted, the activists, Emin Milli and Adnan Hadjizadeh, were attacked in a Baku cafe. They were blamed for the fight and sentenced two and a half years and two years respectively.
In Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko’s regime frequently uses hooliganism charges to harass journalists and activists. Lukashenko is so paranoid about dissent that he at one point banned clapping in public, so its unsurprising that moderators of online anti-government groups get arrested. In August 2012, Pavel Yeutsikheieu and Andrei Tkachou, administrators of the “We are fed up with Lukashenko” group on Russian social network VKontakte, were both given short prison sentences for “minor hooliganism”.
In the old Soviet Union, inconvenient people were often declared mad and locked up by the authorities. Now, they’re classified as hooligans.
Manuel Chivonde Nito Alves was held in solitary confinement for printing t-shirts. Image from his Facebook page.
Angolan 17-year-old Manuel Chivonde Nito Alves went on hunger strike on Tuesday, following his arrest on 12 September for printing t-shirts with the slogan “Out Disgusting Dictator”. The message was aimed at the country’s President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, who has held power in since 1979. The shirts were to be worn at a demonstration in the capital Luanda, highlighting corruption, forced evictions, police violence and lack of social justice under dos Santos’ regime. Nito Alves has been charged with “insulting the president”, and has now spent almost two months in detention – parts of it in solitary confinement. His family were barred from seeing him, and three weeks went by before he was allowed to speak to a lawyer. The hunger strike is in protest at his “unjust and inhumane treatment”.
2) Belarus
Yury Rubstow wearing the t-shirt that landed him in prison. (Image Viasna Human Rights Centre)
On Monday, Belarusian opposition activist Yury Rubstow was sentenced to three days in jail for wearing a t-shirt with the slogan “Lukashenko, go away” on the front, and “A four-time president? No. This is not a president but an impostor tsar” on the back.” The message was aimed at the country’s dictator Alexander Lukashenko, during an opposition protest march. He was found guilty of disobedience to police officers under Article 23.4 of the Civil Offenses Code.
3) Swaziland
In 2010, Sipho Jele, a member of Swaziland’s People’s United Democratic Movement, was arrested for wearing a t-shirt supporting the party during a May Day parade. He was arrested under the country’s Suppression of Terrorism Act, and died in custody. The police said he had hanged himself, while the party say the police of killed him.
4) Egypt
The Rabaa symbol displayed at a protest in Turkey (Image Bünyamin Salman/Demotix)
In September, three Egyptian men were arrested for wearing t-shirts emblazoned with the Rabaa symbol. A hand holding up four fingers, it is widely used by those opposing Egypt’s interim military-backed government, and the coup that ushered in in. Mohamed Youssef, the country’s kung fu champion, was also suspended by the national federation for wearing a similar t-shirt during a medal ceremony.
5) Hong Kong
Avery Ng wearing the t-shirt he threw at Hu Jintao. Image from his Facebook page.
An activist from Hong Kong was arrested last December for throwing a t-shirt at former Chinese president Hu Jintao during an official visit almost six month earlier, on 1 July. League of Social Democrats Vice Chairman Avery Ng threw a t-shirt with a drawing of the late Chinese dissident Li Wangyang, a Tiananmen Square activist who died under suspicious circumstances only weeks before the visit. Ng was charged “with nuisance crimes committed in a public place”.
6) Malaysia
Malaysian protester wearing a Bersih shirt. (Image Syahrin Abdul Aziz/Demotix)
In June 2011, Malaysian police arrested 14 opposition activists for wearing t-shirts promoting a rally in Kuala Lumpur calling for election reform. The shirts carried the slogan “bersih” which means “clean”, and is the name of one of the groups behind the protest. Authorities claimed the demonstration was an “attempt to create chaos on the streets and undermine the government”, and they were therefore within their rights to arrest the protesters. They also confiscated t-shirts from the group’s headquarters.
7 & 8) The US
Jared Marcum wearing his NRA t-shirt in a TV report. (Image Youtube)
A 14-year-old student from West Virginia was in April suspended from school and subsequently arrested for refusing to remove a t-shirt supporting the pro-gun National Rifle Association. Jared Marcum was charged with “obstructing an officer” and faced a $500 fine and up to one year in prison.
On the flip side, a Tennessee man was arrested for wearing a t-shirt in support of stricter gun control laws. Stanley Bryce Myszka was wearing a shirt that read “Has your gun killed a kindergartener today?” at a shopping centre, following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. He was approached by security guards, who called the police when he when he refused to remove the shirt. He was also banned from the shopping centre for life.
9) United Kingdom
The front of Barry Thew’s t-shirt. (Image Greater Manchester Police)
A Manchester man was in October 2012 sentenced to eight months in prison in part for wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with offensive comments referencing the murders of two policewomen. Barry Thew had written “One less pig; perfect justice” on the front of his t-shirt and “killacopforfun.com haha” on the back. While four months of the sentence was handed down for breach of a previous suspended sentence, he was charged on a Section 4A Public Order Offence for the t-shirt incident.
