dw.com
Lukashenko's Seventh Term: Belarus's Authoritarian Consolidation
Alexander Lukashenko is expected to win a seventh term as Belarusian president on January 26th, 2025, in an election marked by the absence of real opposition, widespread repression, and a complete lack of international observation.
- What are the immediate consequences of the highly anticipated Lukashenko reelection in Belarus?
- On January 26, Belarus's Central Election Commission (CEC) will likely announce Alexander Lukashenko's reelection for a seventh term. His campaign focused on demonstrating loyalty to the regime, not on a competition for votes. The CEC reported 2.5 million signatures in support of Lukashenko—over 35% of voters.
- How did the Belarusian regime's response to the 2020 election protests shape the 2025 electoral process?
- The 2025 Belarusian election lacks real competition; opposition figures are imprisoned or exiled. This election is a show of loyalty, reflecting a shift towards a totalitarian regime. The lack of free media and independent observation ensures Lukashenko's victory.
- What are the long-term implications of Belarus's transition towards a totalitarian regime on its domestic and international relations?
- The Belarusian regime's response to the 2020 protests has resulted in intensified repression and a complete elimination of opposition. The election is not about choosing a leader, but demonstrating allegiance to the current regime; this has major implications for human rights and Belarus's international relations.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the election as a sham, highlighting the lack of real competition and the suppression of dissent. The headline and introduction immediately establish this perspective, influencing how readers interpret the subsequent details. The repeated emphasis on the regime's control and the lack of free choice shapes the narrative towards a conclusion of illegitimacy. The inclusion of the opinion that the 2020 election results were falsified further reinforces this viewpoint.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "sham," "suppression," and "illegitimate" to describe the election and Lukashenko's rule. These terms reflect a critical perspective rather than neutral reporting. Phrases like "pro-government parties" and "pseudo-opposition candidate" also reveal a biased tone. More neutral alternatives could be used, for example, instead of "sham election", it could be described as an "election with limited opposition participation.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of potential international reactions to the election beyond mentioning the lack of OSCE observation. It also doesn't detail the economic consequences of Lukashenko's continued rule or the specifics of Belarusian citizens' daily lives under his regime. The lack of diverse voices beyond those critical of Lukashenko is a notable omission. The article also lacks concrete numbers on voter turnout, instead relying on the official numbers presented by the Central Election Commission.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice as either supporting Lukashenko or facing negative consequences. This oversimplifies the complex political landscape and the range of potential responses from Belarusian citizens. The portrayal of opposition solely as those either imprisoned or in exile ignores the possibility of less visible, internal forms of resistance.
Gender Bias
While the article mentions several women involved in the political opposition (Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, Maria Kolesnikova), it doesn't disproportionately focus on their personal appearance or other gendered details. Gender is not a primary factor in the analysis of the political events, making it relatively gender-neutral.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article details the suppression of opposition, the imprisonment of political opponents, and the lack of a free and fair electoral process. These actions undermine democratic institutions, violate human rights, and prevent the establishment of peace and justice. The systematic restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly, along with the documented instances of torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners, are clear indicators of a breakdown in the rule of law and a severe lack of accountability.