English

Policy Documentation Center

Online Campaigning in 2006 Presidential Election in Belarus 
 
Many writers emphasize the important role Internet has played in recent presidential elections in 
Belarus. “With newspapers, radio, and television under state control, the Belarusian opposition is 
using new technologies to get their message out -- in particular the Internet”, wrote Valentinas 
Mite on February 7, 2006 (Belarus: Opposition Politicians Embrace Internet, Despite Digital 
Divide http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/94d60147-0a69-4f28-86c3-
728a651fb0d0.html). 
 
Blogs, forums, livejournal online communities, flashmobs have become very new and prominent 
features of 2006 presidential election campaign in Belarus. Independent online sources managed 
to compete with “newspapers, radio, and television under state control”, at least for those who 
had occasional access to Internet, and for their friends and relatives. 
 
The four presidential candidates – A. Milinkevich, A. Kozylin, A. Lukashenko and S. 
Gaidukevich –had their online venues. However, only opposition candidates A. Milinkevich 
(http://by.milinkevich.org/) and A. Kozylin (http://www.kozylin.com/) launched single-purpose 
campaigning sites. A. Lukashenko, being acting President, occasionally used official presidential 
web-site (http://president.gov.by/) to cover some election events. S. Gaidukevich didn’t use even 
his party’s web-site for online campaigning http://www.ldpb.net/index1.htm.  
 
The dynamics of the number o fhttp://by.milinkevich.org and http://www.kozylin.com/ websites’ 
visitors is presented in the diagram below. 
 
Diagram 1.  
Dynamics of milinkevich.org and kozylin.com websites’ visitors (20.02-09.04, 2006) 
 
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
20
.0
2.
20
06
22
.0
2.
20
06
24
.0
2.
20
06
26
.0
2.
20
06
28
.0
2.
20
06
02
.0
3.
20
06
04
.0
3.
20
06
06
.0
3.
20
06
08
.0
3.
20
06
10
.0
3.
20
06
12
.0
3.
20
06
14
.0
3.
20
06
16
.0
3.
20
06
18
.0
3.
20
06
20
.0
3.
20
06
22
.0
3.
20
06
24
.0
3.
20
06
26
.0
3.
20
06
28
.0
3.
20
06
30
.0
3.
20
06
01
.0
4.
20
06
03
.0
4.
20
06
05
.0
4.
20
06
07
.0
4.
20
06
09
.0
4.
20
06
milinkevich.org
kozylin.com
 
 
The peaks in the diagram refer to the following events: 
23.02.2006. Thursday. The first A. Kozylin’s speech TV broadcasted (recorded); 
02.03.2006. Thursday. The authorities detained A. Kozylin, and his second speech (recorded) is 
broadcasted by the national TV channel. This day Kozylin’s web site became one of the 5 most 
visited Belarusian web sites according to Akavita rating system; 
17.03.2006. Friday. The last working day before the day of elections May 19, 2006; 
19.03.2006. Sunday. Both web sites were blocked or filtered. Milinkevich’s website was 
inaccessible. Kozylin’s web site was functioning with occasional breaks; 
20.03.2006. Monday. Milinkevich’s website site was re-launched; 
24.03.2006. Friday. The day before March 25 meeting (Chernobyl way); 
31.03.2006 Friday. A. Milinkevich team announced an online campaign on gathering 
information about human rights violations and arrests during the election campaign, as well as 
compiling audio, video and photo evidences of the events of election campaign.  
 
On 23.02, 02.03, and on 20.03 milinkevich.org and kozylin.com websites’ visitors searched for 
additional information and for full versions of A. Kozylin’s speeches. On 17.03 and on 24.03 
visitors looked for the information about authorities and opposition plans for election day and for 
25th of March meeting. Only on 31.03 (in one case of seven reported above), the peak was 
originated by an online campaign call. All the other peaks registered were a kind of online echo 
of offline events. 
 
None of the opposition candidates developed a defined online strategy, none of them managed to 
use Internet potential of spontaneous online activism. In most cases, they used their websites in 
an old-fashioned news provision way.  
 
The same conclusions may be drawn from the survey of presidential elections candidates web 
sites conducted by e-belarus.org during an election campaign period, and up to presidential 
inauguration (February 20, 2006 – April 9, 2006). 
 
The major indicators for the survey were derived from M. Foot, K. Schneider and M. Xenos’s  
research on online campaigning in 2002 US elctions [ M Foot, K. A., Schneider, S. M., Xenos, 
M. 2002. Online Campaigning in the 2002 U.S. Elections. Working Paper v. 2. (An earlier 
version of this paper was presented at the Internet Research 3.0 conference, Maastricht, the 
Netherlands, October, 2002]. These authors, conceptualizing Internet as a structure that 
facilitates political action, have developed 5 sets of indicators for online campaigning evaluation: 
1) 10 basic features on candidate sites (biography, issues, party affiliation, information 
about making donations volunteer sign-up and etc.); 
2) 11 indicators describing adapting traditional practices for online campaigning (campaign 
news, campaign adds, speech texts, endorsements and etc); 
3) 14 indicators for adopting web-exclusive campaign practices (like pop-up windows, send 
links, site –specific search engine and etc): 
4) 9 indicators for evaluation of candidates’ linking strategies; 
5) 10 indicators for comparison and documentation on candidate web-sites. (For details, see 
Table 1 below). 
 
The results of candidates’ web sites survey (catalogued in Appendix 1.) provide arguments for 
the following preliminary conclusions. 
1. Oppositional candidates used their online venues more actively (21 and 16 points for 
Milinkevich and Kozylin respectively) than the acting President and his “pocket 
candidate” S. Gaidukevich (10 and 3 points) in order to make up disadvantages entailed 
by their restricted access to traditional mass media.  
2. At the same time, they adapted traditional practices to online structures rather than 
adopted new web-based practices and structures in order to promote the effectiveness of 
their online and offline campaigns. The most striking thing was that both oppositional 
candidates didn’t use interactive polls to study opinions of the audience. 
3.  A. Lukashenko and S. Gaidukevich did not use their online potential: the first one, 
perhaps, because of the fact that he did not regard Internet users as his electorate, and the 
other one because of his predetermined role in the election campaign. 
4. All the web sites are characterized by extremely poor linking strategies (4 points of 
maximum 36 for all candidates). This indicates low awareness of “interactive” and 
“interaction” concepts, characteristic of Belarusian political community. It applies not 
only to online interactive tools, but also to the general political practices. There were no 
permanent links to other political parties, advocacy groups and etc. Only official website 
of the acting President (http://president.gov.by/) has permanent links to press-
organizations, such as http://www.belta.by/. Oppositional candidates failed to establish an 
online dialogue with different fractions of the society (see, for instance, section 5. 
Comparison and documentation on candidates web-sites, positions 2-7). 
5. None of the candidates managed to conduct transparent campaign as regards financial 
issues (see section 5, positions 8-10). Even in case of possible governmental charges on 
violations of legislation, oppositional candidates could have provide some financial 
information on campaigning in order not only to make their campaign more transparent, 
but to present counter-arguments before state propaganda about “opposition paid by the 
West”. 
 
Appemdix 1 
Online Campaigning in 2006 presidential elections 
 
1. Basic Features  
 
Indicators Milinkevich Kozylin Lukashenko Gaidikevich All 
1.Biography + + + + 4 
2. Issues section - - + - 1 
3. Party affiliation mentioned + + - + 3 
4.Volunteer sign-up + - - - 1 
5. e-mail sign-up + - - _ 1 
6. Campaign calendar + +   2 
7. Voter registration information - - + - 1 
8. Privacy policy - - - - 0 
9.Information about making 
donations 
- - - - 0 
1 
B
as
ic
 fe
at
ur
es
 
10.e-mail address for campaign + + - - 2 
To
ta
l 
Maximum 
10 for one candidate 
40 for 4 candidates 
6 4 3 2 15 
 
 
2. .Online campaigning: adapting traditional practices 
 
Indicators Milinkevi
ch 
Kozylin Lukashenko Gaidikevic
h 
All 
1.Campaign news + + + - 3 
2.Campaign adds + + - - 2 
3. Photographs of campaign events + + - - 2 
4. Information for offline distribution 
of campaign materials 
- - - - 0 
5. Speech texts - + + - 2 
6. endorsements - + + - 2 
7. Encourage letters to the editor + + - - 2 
8.Invitation to e-mail the campaign + + - - 2 
9. Telephone address or address for 
campaign 
+ + - - 2 
10. System to make online 
contributions 
- - - - 0 
2.
O
nl
in
e 
ca
m
pa
ig
ni
ng
: 
ad
ap
tin
g 
tra
di
tio
na
l p
ra
ct
ic
es
 
11. Information about contributors + - - - 1 
To
ta
l 
Maximum 
11 for one candidate 
44 for 4 candidates 
7 8 3 0 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Adopting web-exclusive campaign practices 
 
Indicators Milinkevich Kozylin Lukashenko Gaidikevich All 
1.Send links + + - - 2 
2.Web toolkits - - - -  
3.Electronic paraphernalia + - - - 1 
4.Site-specific search engine - - + - 1 
5.Other languages + - + + 3 
6.Pop-up windows - - - - 0 
7.Multimedia content + + - - 2 
8. Interactive polls - - + -  
9. Visitors comments - + - - 1 
10. Ability to individualize content - - - - 0 
11.Online events - - - - 0 
12.Accessible to person with 
disabilities 
- - - - 0 
13.Interactive campaign calendar - - - - 0 
3.
 
A
do
pt
in
g 
w
eb
-e
xc
lu
si
ve
 
ca
m
pa
ig
n 
pr
ac
tic
es
 
14.Solicit user’s web messaging 
handle 
+ + - - 2 
To
ta
l 
Maximum 
14 for one candidate 
56 for 4 candidates  
5 
 
 
 
4 3 0 12 
 
 
4. Linking strategies of candidates 
 
Indicators Milinkevich Kozylin Lukashenko Gaidikevich All 
1.Government sites - - + - 1 
2. Political parties - + - + 2 
3.Civic or advocacy groups - - - - 0 
4.Press organizations - - + - 1 
5.Local or community sites - - - - 0 
6.Portals - - - - 0 
7.Other candidates sites - - - - 0 
8. Individual citizen sites - - - - 0 
4.
 L
in
ki
ng
 s
tra
te
gi
es
 o
f 
ca
nd
id
at
es
 
9.Opponent sites - - - - 0 
To
ta
l 
Maximum  
9 for one candidate 
36 for 4 candidates 
0 1 2 1 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Comparison and documentation on candidate web-sites 
 
Indicators Milinkevich Kozylin Lukashenko Gaidikevich All 
To
ta
l 
Maximum  
9 for one candidate 
36 for 4 candidates 
0 1 2 1 4 
1.Site sponsorship identifier - - - - 0 
2. Present issue statements + + + - 3 
3. Provide rationale for positions + + + - 3 
4. Cite references in issue 
statements 
+ + - - 2 
5.Compare positions to 
opponent1
- - - - 0 
6. Compare positions to other 
groups 
- - - - 0 
7. Identify shared values with 
others 
- - - - 0 
8.Discuss campaign finance 
issue 
- - - - 0 
9.Report campaign expenditures - - - - 0 
5.
 
C
om
pa
ris
on
 
an
d 
do
cu
m
en
ta
tio
n 
on
 
ca
nd
id
at
e 
w
eb
-s
ite
s 
10. Report personal financial 
statement 
- - - - 0 
To
ta
l 
Maximum 
10 for one candidate 
40 for 4 candidates 
3 
 
 
 
3 2 0 7 
 
                                                 
1 Positions were compared only with a A. Lukashenko’s one 


Online campaigning in 2006 presidential election in Belarus

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Policy Documentation Center