There are 2 types of political associations: short-term and long-term.
The only condition for the formation of short-term associations:
– common goal
Conditions for the formation of long-term associations:
– common goal
– a unified view of the methods of achieving the goal
– unified political values erected as fundamental and secondary
– a unified position regarding the future expansion of the association
– a common understanding of the “average voter”, taking into account his political views and value orientations
– a single idea of the “framework” within which there is a political association
– unified position regarding the radical nature of the movement
– the absence of conflicting economic interests of the participants in the association
– lack of ambition among “equal allies” to lead the movement through the suppression of alternative internal centers of power
– a common “general” strategy of the movement and a close position on solving everyday problems.
– rejection of the concept of “leadership” and “leadership” in favor of free and equal representation
– formation of a branched apparatus that generates ideas and implements them.
A recent example of a short-term association is the alliance between the pro-Russian Socialist Party and the pro-Western Action and Solidarity Party to overthrow the mafia, corrupt, oligarchic regime of Plahotniuc in the Republic of Moldova. The association lasted several weeks, but was able to realize the original task.
In Belarus, the opposition will have to fight the regime throughout the war, and then the post-war period, when all the attention of the West will be riveted to the problems of Ukraine. That is, Belarus needs a long-term coalition to reach the political throne.
The opposition has only a single goal – the overthrow of Lukashenko (a “short-term coalition” is possible, following the example of the “women’s trio” within the framework of the electoral process), but according to all other criteria, the current scattered fragments of the opposition are not suitable.
NAU Latushko separated from Tikhanovskaya’s Office: that is, there was a rupture of tectonic plates even on the basis of “permanent allies” since 2020. What kind of “global unity” can we talk about if the opposition plunged into the struggle with the opposition itself for a place under the sun (control over grants )?
Forums are replaced by Congresses… No matter the name, the essence is important: everyone strives to demonstrate a tendency to consolidate in conditions where consolidation is impossible, since there are no actors, no special desire, no concepts within which it is possible to reach compromises without mutual accusations.
Everyone needs “lack of unification” populism, but no one is even trying to build it.
From the fact that everyone comes out with the thesis “All idiots. I’m the only one smart. Let’s unite around me to all” non-idiots “the consolidation will not happen, because you need to move away from the destructive position of mutual accusations and move on to a constructive position of strategic planning for future actions.
But then populism will have to be abandoned, and this will mean the loss of political points in “opposition ranks.”
From the point of view of political technology, I cannot imagine a long-term unification of the opposition – there is literally no political base within which it is possible to “combine” the pieces on the game board.
A short-term consolidation is possible within the next electoral window, but before that, the Belarusians do not shine for unification. Here is such a feature – we all have “Napoleons”. You can’t unite Napoleon and Caesar. Not because they will synergize badly together, but because the ambitions of each will not allow themselves to be placed under a partner.
When everyone is Robespierre, then the “alliance” becomes an unrealizable task.
Another feature is that no new Che Guevara has the courage to take responsibility for constructing real future plans. It is fashionable to criticize opponents, but it is not fashionable to present one’s initiatives, because the first brings points of political attention, and the second requires accountability, responsibility and effectiveness, otherwise political legitimacy is disavowed by total disappointment in the absence of at least some effectiveness of the work done.