Minsk has long given up the idea of respecting democratic standards. Since 2020, it has also been drifting rapidly away from a “civilized autocracy.” Even among autocracies, Alaksandar Łukašenka’s regime is toxic, unreliable and unpredictable.
Autocracies can be different
Discussions of Belarusian authoritarianism often revolve around two questions: a) How far is it from democracy? b) What should happen to transform it into a democracy?
However, we can also look at the post-2020 Belarusian regime from a different perspective: How far is it from a civilized autocracy?
This question may raise both ethical and political objections. Introducing the notion of “civilized autocracy” may be perceived by some as an attempt to promote the idea of “good” autocracies. Others may see it as a sign of political capitulation and a loss of faith that a modern European democracy can be established in Belarus in the foreseeable future.
I would not justify any form of autocracy, and I do not think that Belarus is doomed to authoritarianism, not only for political but also for scientific and methodological reasons. However, there are at least three reasons to view the Belarusian regime of recent years through the lens of civilized autocracy:
1) Democracy has been in decline worldwide in the last 15-25 years.
2) Many societies, including Belarus, have certain demand for non-democratic governance, which is not the same as repressive and high-handed governance.
3) Some autocracies, like Singapore and other “Asian tigers,” were economically successful and socially acceptable.
All three of these factors are important for political communication. Trying to ignore or deny them weakens democracy supporters and strengthens Łukašenka regime stalwarts.
Civilized authoritarianism
If we take Singapore’s political system as a positive example of civilized authoritarianism, we can identify the following features:
1. Restrictions on civil liberties and reduced public influence on government policy
2. Rejection of Western political visions and emphasis on its own “Asian values”
So far, these features fit perfectly into any autocracy, including Belarus, but civilized authoritarianism is also characterized by:
3. Strong legitimacy based on the government’s efficient economic and security performance
4. Adherence to politically important procedures, including elections
5. Lack or measured use of severe reprisals, such as imprisonment, torture, or politically-motivated assassinations
Many autocracies can manage the third point, especially if they have access to cheap natural resources, as was the case in Belarus in the 2000s. The majority of autocracies struggle to fulfil the fourth and fifth points.
Despite the decline of democracy, modern autocracies aspire for the Singaporean model. Given the overall success of democratic systems, autocracies need to prove that they also can succeed.
Kazakhstan is a typical example. In 1997, then-President Nursultan Nazarbayev unveiled the Kazakhstan-2030 strategy, promoting the Kazakhstani leopard, a regional version of the Asian tiger. He regularly referred to this image throughout his rule.
Kasym-Jomart Tokayev, being sworn into office after his re-election in November 2022, said, “We will attract to civil service new managers from the real sector, selected in accordance with the principles of meritocracy and open competition.” Instead of “leopard” or “tiger,” Tokayev used “meritocracy,” a term often used in reference to Singapore’s political system.
Far behind Kazakhstan, even farther behind Singapore
How does the post-2020 Belarusian regime compare to civilized authoritarianism? Let’s compare it with Singapore during Lee Kuan Yew’s time, i.e. 1965-1990, when the Singaporean system was more authoritarian than in the following years.
Apart from Singapore, let us take Kazakhstan, which, like Belarus, was part of the Soviet Union and remains under Moscow’s influence. Kazakhstan is a typical example of a state that avoids democracy, but is building its reputation as civilized authoritarianism, of course giving it a different name. For Kazakhstan, let us take the last ten years of Nazarbayev’s rule and three years of Tokayev’s rule.
Table 1. Mean value of performance legitimacy index on a scale from 0 to 100
Source: Calculation based on V-Dem data
Today’s Belarus is far behind both Singapore and Kazakhstan.
Table 2. Average value of procedural legitimacy on the scale from 0 to 100
Source: Calculation based on V-Dem data
The difference between the three countries is huge.
Table 3: Average level of reprisals against NGOs on a scale from 0 to 100
Source: Calculation based on V-Dem data
Of course, this brief comparison does not reflect all aspects of the three political systems, but it shows the gap between the current Belarusian regime and a typical civilized authoritarianism. Even if there were grounds for comparing Belarus and Singapore, they remain in the past, somewhere in 2015-2019. After 2020, the Belarusian regime is no longer comparable even with Kazakhstan, which itself is far behind Singapore or other Asian tigers.
All autocracies have a fundamental ethical flaw: the suppression of liberties and reduced civic responsibility. But not all resort to brutal repression or blatant electoral fraud. Many modern autocracies want to be “civilized.”
Łukašenka’s regime defies democratic standards. Since 2020, it has also been drifting rapidly away from a civilized autocracy. Even among autocracies, his regime is toxic, unreliable, and unpredictable.
This publication was prepared as part of the project “Shaken Authoritarianism. The Belarusian political system after the 2020 elections in comparative perspective”, carried out at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences with the financial support of the Polish National Center for Research and Development, under the program “Solidarity with Scientists.”