Independent Belarus: Domestic Determinants, Regional Dynamics, and Implications for the West ed. by Margarita M. Balmaceda, James I. Clem, Lisbeth L. Tarlow (review)

689 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 текстов, которые предлагает Грушевский. Так, Грушевский переводит chudy pachоłек как бедный человек, переводчики вслед за ним – как poor man (Т. VII. P. 161), а можно было бы бедный слуга (в другом месте украинское слово пахолок было более правильно переведено как footman, лакей (Т. VIII. P. 119)). Однако всякий перфекционизм должен знать меру, и нельзя требовать от переводчиков того, чтобы они еще и “исправляли” Грушевского. Труд издателей, переводчи- ков и комментаторов заслужи- вает высокой похвалы. Можно сказать, что между “Историей Украины-Руси” и современным читателем остался единственный барьер – объем текста. Рецензи- руемые три тома уже включают более двух тысяч страниц. И если разделы, посвященные со- циальной истории, читаются так, как будто бы они были на- писаны нашим современником, то изобилующие подробностями описания военных действий до- статочно устарели. Anna BRZOZOWSKA Margarita M. Balmaceda, James I. Clem, and Lisbeth L. Tarlow (Eds.), Independent Belarus: Domestic Determinants, Regional Dynamics , and Implications for the West. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002). 483 pp. Appendix . Index. ISBN: 0-91645894-6. The volume offers an in-depth analysis of contemporary Belarus, focusing on four basic aspects: domestic politics, economy, security, and possible challenges for the West. It contributes in a significant sense to an understanding of the Belarusian puzzle, which has been discussed in the historiography since the early 1990s.1 What is of great importance and value, the analysis is based on comparisons between Belarus and other central and east European countries. Thanks to this approach, it is possible to notice Belarusian exceptionalism, which consists, as the authors claim, of the weakness of Belarusian national identity and the dominant role of the president, 1 See f.i.:. Kathleen Mihalisko. The Outlook for Independent Belarus // RFE/RL Research Report. 12 June 1992. Vol. 1. No. 24. Pp. 7-13; Jan Zaprudnik. Belarus. At the Crossroads in History. Boulder, 1993. Recent publications on the topic include the edited volume dealing with security problems and two collections of articles on politics, economy and international relations. See: Sherman W. Garnett, and Robert Legvold (Eds.). Belarus at the Crossroads, Washington, 1999; Elena A. Korostoleva, Colin W. Lawson, and Rosalind J. March (Eds.). Contemporary Belarus. Between Democracy and Dictatorship. London, 2003; Ann Lewis (Ed.). The EU and Belarus. Between Moscow and Brussels. London, 2002; David R. Marples. Belarus. A Denationalized Nation. London, 1999. 690 Рецензии/Reviews Aleksandr Lukashenka. Another significant issue dealt with in the volume is the “exportability” of Belarusian experience. It has been neglected, the book argues, that the country, ignored frequently in the international sphere, can become a role model for other economically troubled former Soviet republics. The articles selected by Balmaceda try to address the complexity of the Belarusian situation. Importantly, the book argues that it is short-sighted to perceive the rule of Lukashenka as the effect of the application of force and violence. Rather, Lukashenka gained his position and power at least to some extent due to real popular support. Thus, the contributors of the volume dispute what the editors call “a comforting picture of a long-suffering Belarusian society oppressed by an authoritarian despot lacking popular support – and of a popular and united opposition” (P. 9). This attempt to challenge the stereotypical perception of Belarus is one of the most important contributions of the volume. Moreover, there is a practical aim that the authors seem to aspire to: they try to present those elements of Belarusian reality that can provide the basis for democratic changes and propose concrete actions. The nuanced view of Belarusian domestic and international politics allows for discovering the “cracks in the monolith ” that can be creatively exploited by Western policies. Inevitably, the volume contains numerous academic approaches, ranging from traditional and quantitative analyses to those employing qualitative and deconstructive metho-dologies. At the same time, it should be noticed that the texts are of unequal academic standard. Within the domestic politics section (part one of the volume), public opinion analysis conducted by Colton brings some interesting conclusions. Educated and better-off classes are not, aďs one might expect, prone to welcome the national ideology. Surprisingly, the Belarusian language does not provide the basis for national self-assertion either. Colton claims, furthermore, that the West functions in Belarus as a menace, rather than the model to be emulated. He sees “friendlier” and more linguistically accessible Western broadcasts to Belarus as a potential step that might ameliorate the situation. Linder addresses the “Lukashenka phenomenon”, and attributes the coming to power of this “post-Soviet non-politician” (P. 79) to the failed process of elite formation in Belarus. The contemporary Belarusian leadership recalls the nomenklatura of the past era, lacking the intellectual and reflective capabilities that would attract the population. This absence of a modern functional elite helps Lukashenka win. Because the isolation of Belarus by the West may result in dangerous “exportability” of her ex- 691 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 perience to near...