Between 4 and 7 June, the World Editor Forum will take place in Moscow, the Russian Federation, organised by the World Association of Newspapers (WAN). More than 1,500 publishers, chief editors, managing directors, and senior newspaper executives from 90 countries are expected at the event which is one of the major meetings of the world press. Andrej Dynko, editor-in-chief of the Belarusian Nasha Niva, will give a lecture on the state of the Belarusian media landscape and the difficulties of independent journalism in Belarus. Read his lecture here. (02-JUN-06)



Authoritarism, consumerism and press freedom in Belarus

Belarus is the only country in the region where state owned mass media dominate. Moreover, there are no independent radio and television at all. The control of electronic mass media in Belarus is total. An exclusive significance is given to the television. All the four national TV channels are state owned. State mass media are subsidized from the budget. In 2006 the overall amount of state grants totals 60 million euro per year. Indirect subventions are issued in the form of compulsory subscription, imposed on the workers of enterprises and institutions regardless the form of property. This is scrutinized by deputy chiefs of companies responsible for ideology. Such a post has been introduced country-wide.

Meanwhile the existence of independent press is one of the few differences of Lukashenka’s Belarus from dictatorial regimes. Belarusian Constitution guarantees pluralism of opinions and freedom of speech. However the authorities view the independent media as subversive ones. Narrowing the sphere of alternative opinions is viewed as one of the tasks of state policy. Lukashenka sees bits of political alternative in any non-controlled activity, therefore trying to annihilate even potential manifestations of criticism in the mass media.

Journalists and editors were among the first targets of repressions. These repressions are gentle ones. The authorities attack the publications rather than publishers. They are not likely to close down newspapers via direct legal proceedings. There were only 6 such cases. The last case being the closure of an opposition edition of small circulation for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet. They profited from it as a pretext. Usually the ways to stifle a newspaper are more flexible. E.g. an edition is stopped for 3 months, which causes an irremediable finance damage. Such an approach was popular in the eve of the referendum of 2004 to prolong the president’s powers. 13 editions dealing with political issues were stopped at that time.

A new attack at the press was launched before the 2006 election. In that case the state virtually monopolised press distribution and cancelled agreements for distribution of independent editions — through crossing them out of subscription catalogue or banning retail sales. As the result several editions were done away with. Other newspapers lost their quality and value.

Total circulation of independent political press (not including “Komsomolskaya pravda v Belarusi” — this is a specific issue) fell down from 350 000 in 2001 to 135 000 in 2006. Apart from that some opposition editions are banned to be published in Belarusian printing-houses (both state owned and private). Private printing-houses functioning is strictly controlled by the state. It is indicative therefore that these opposition editions are now printed in the Russian Federation and transported across the transparent border. It is not surprising that there’s not a single opposition daily in Belarus today. Only weeklies have survived. By the way, today Belarus is a country with a uniquely high circulation of weeklies. The reason is the absence of a polygraphic base for quality magazine printing.

Today Belarusian independent mass media are something between true media and civic initiatives. They’re part of independent society, which is trying to create a new national identity. Doing this they confront not only the state autocracy, but also the consumerist society reflexes with its entertaining media industry which serves and satisfies autocracy. Along with state owned and independent mass media in Belarus commercial mass media exist — published in Russian, mostly being the property of Russian owners and amorphous in civil sense. “Komsomolskaya pravda v Belarusi” takes a special place among them — this is an edition with a uniquely big circulation in non-state sector.

Freedom of press degree in Belarus is lower than in the Russian Federation, speaking nothing of Ukraine. Governmental control of press is more consistent. Why? There is an intricate complex of reasons. The most significant one is the lack of economic transformation, miserable private sector in Belarus. But why doesn’t the regime consider the idea of eliminating the independent press at all? Firstly, Belarusian autoritarianism is closely watching to keep the steam valves open. Moreover, it greatly depends on Russia’s support and subventions. As the result the regime has to take account of the Russian political standards and to a certain extent of the interests of the Russian state and business. But the press existence is also due to people’s confidence in the press, its professionalism and civic spirit.

Latest surveys show that 60% Belarusians regard freedom of press as a value. Much more than any other political values. The protests of March 2006 which shocked Belarus were so ardent also because the last existing independent mass media were in danger before the elections. People were defending last chances for freedom of speech. The attitude of Russian media available in Belarus, which at best ignored those protests, was a greater shock for Belarusian civil society.