By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Exit polls indicate Alexander Lukashenko secured a seventh term as Belarusian president with 87.6% of the vote, a result widely condemned by the US and EU as neither free nor fair due to the suppression of opposition and independent media. Lukashenko, in power since 1994, has overseen a crackdown on dissent following the 2020 protests and allowed Russia to utilize Belarusian territory for its invasion of Ukraine. The election, featuring largely unknown opposition candidates, saw an 81.5% turnout, although an estimated 300,000 Belarusians in exile were unable to vote. International observers and exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya dismissed the election as a sham.
Read the original article here
Belarus’s recent presidential election, which saw incumbent Alexander Lukashenko declared the victor with a staggering 87.6% of the vote according to a state television exit poll, has sparked a wave of skepticism and cynicism worldwide. The sheer magnitude of the reported victory immediately raises questions about the legitimacy of the process. It’s difficult to reconcile such a high percentage with any genuine democratic process, especially given Belarus’s history of authoritarian rule and suppression of dissent.
The near-unanimous support suggested by the exit poll seems implausible, even for a leader with a strong base of support. Such overwhelmingly high percentages are typically associated with authoritarian regimes where elections serve as little more than a formality to maintain power. Historically, these types of numbers are far more common in countries with highly restrictive political systems than genuine democracies.
The reported 81.5% voter turnout further fuels these doubts. While high turnout can sometimes indicate strong public engagement, in this context, it raises concerns about coercion or manipulation. The possibility of widespread intimidation tactics, limiting genuine participation, is undeniable given the Belarusian government’s record on human rights.
Many observers have compared Lukashenko’s reported victory to those of other authoritarian leaders, highlighting the seemingly arbitrary nature of these inflated figures. The question remains: is there a strategic reason behind choosing a percentage like 87.6% instead of a rounder, more impressive number like 90% or 100%? Perhaps the aim is to project an image of some level of opposition while simultaneously crushing any sense of hope for change.
The reported result seemingly serves as a tool of demoralization, designed to reinforce the idea that opposition is futile. By showcasing an overwhelmingly large victory margin, the regime seeks to discourage any potential challenges to its authority. This tactic, unfortunately common amongst authoritarian leaders, aims to deter participation in future elections, effectively silencing the voices of those who might otherwise oppose the regime.
This exit poll, regardless of its actual accuracy in reflecting the actual votes cast, serves as a powerful symbol of the regime’s grip on power. It’s a blatant display of the lack of genuine democratic competition and the suppression of political opposition within Belarus. The absence of any credible opposition candidates further strengthens this narrative, leaving many to wonder why an election was held at all, given the predetermined outcome.
The international community’s response to these results will be crucial in determining the course of future events. Strong condemnation of the election process and continued support for pro-democracy movements within Belarus are vital to countering the regime’s narrative and encouraging progress towards a more democratic future. Failure to effectively denounce such blatant displays of authoritarianism can only embolden similar actions by other regimes globally.
Ultimately, the 87.6% reported victory for Lukashenko in the Belarusian presidential election casts a long shadow on the concept of free and fair elections. It highlights the challenges faced by those striving for democracy in the face of authoritarian regimes. The result leaves one questioning whether the term “election” can be accurately applied to a process so seemingly devoid of genuine democratic principles. The international community’s reaction, and indeed the response of the Belarusian people, will be critical in shaping the country’s future.