[000:00:00;00] super-presidential republic, without going to grandma, they will definitely be difficult, the only question is how big our difficulties will be, and the task is that the difficulties do not become fatal for the country, but the geopolitical situation in the global chaos is changing so rapidly that it is impossible to predict, what exactly problem in a year, two, five or 10 will be the main one for belarus; therefore , to prepare the system to solve this particular problem, this is not possible, it could be anything, from any country, so lukashenko, as for me, i am puzzled that by the time he leaves power, this will happen someday, but god forbid not soon, the country was ready to solve any problem, for this, in a presidential republic after lukashenko there must be a strong president, a strong parliament, a strong veche, that is vns, this does not mean that all three of these authorities will be needed and critically important in solving problems; maybe a strong second president will be enough, maybe

it will be enough. it seems to me that alexander grigorievich, as a real leader, does not build the belarus of the future, based on his vision , the belarus of the future for him is a strong system of power that, independently, without the supervision of a super-president, will be able to understand itself and line up to solve any threat. lukashenko aims to give the country all political instruments. calls for filling the branches of power not so much with reliable people, although the word convenient would perhaps be better suited here, but with professionals, a component of the success of any political party, an attractive idea, very important professional, politically prepared,

ideologically infected... you can gather around you, as we say, reliable people, but if they are not professionals, you will immediately be a waste of money in front of people. separately with regards to political parties, there is the issue of white russia. after re-registration, we still have liberal democrats, that is, gaidukevich’s party, we still have communists, we still have the party of labor of justice. the creation of which was the largest pro-state public association, belaya rus. naturally, the most logical assumption, which came from both lukashenko’s supporters and from his opponents, it will be a classic party in power, to the point that when lukashenko ceases to be president, he will definitely become the head of the ruling party and , regardless of who occupies what positions, real power will remain with him, according to this principle, for example ,

power was built in poland, the head of the ruling party kaczynski still holds all the power and by the way i’m not criticizing, this is one of the forms of effective government, this is the place to be. this is the assumption that this is how it will be in belarus, it seems, even everyone has already believed a little, saying that everything is clear, white russia is the party of power, although lukashenko himself has said many times that this is not so, telling his formula of attitude towards parties, i am not with the left, not with the right , i'm with the people. and in white russia itself, in general, they also said that this was not so. that they are not the party in power, but nevertheless, once again on friday , alexander grigorievich personally said the following to all party leaders: if you can build a system, people will come to you, there is no administrative resource it will help, it will only harm, especially at the stage of formation, as for my attitude towards the parties, the leaders who

are present here, for me you are all equal. the cpsu is not building a party in power, no matter how much someone would like it, and it is generally normal for someone to want this for the political process, but sometimes it contradicts the logic of the state-building process. what is the main task of any party? on friday i listened to the reports of party leaders and smiled if i heard about some kind of education of the population, about increasing political culture, power, and so on, this is all very necessary, but it’s definitely not the parties that should be doing this, because any party has one... main task: to fight for power, if it gains power , to fight for this power preserve, this is a logical conclusion both from our legislation on parties and from the theory of party building in general. it seems to me that a political party cannot have any other main task, either in theory or in practice, although in our conditions a super-presidential republics, to fight for power can and should be, to fight for the current power

, for its... opinion, to be honest, i don’t remember that any parties in the twentieth were strongly and massively harnessed to the president, i’ll put it out of brackets, except that media of the party leaders, if only then, when these marches about protests were going on, the ldp would have brought teaching doctors to the streets, showing that they are with lukashenko, and somewhere else the communists have brought officials and pensioners to the rally, showing what they are lukashenko, and then also conditionally, the rpts gathered businessmen and entrepreneurs, of whom there are also many for lukashenko, then there would be a completely different picture, pro-state parties, that’s the thing, even based on pragmatism, and not just patriotism, they should fight hard for the current government, because, if suddenly the current ... government loses, then the very next day they will all become parties not pro-state , but opposition, and once in germany, and more recently in ukraine, all opposition parties, even if they were some constructive, they were all instantly banned

and dissolved, and when you are forbiddenly dissolved, then a priori you cannot fight with anyone or anything. we have four parties and there is a question with whom they need to fight for power; you can’t really fight with the state, but all our parties are supporters of the state. course, so that the struggle would become a struggle of bees against honey. it is also problematic to fight opponents from the opposition, because we have destructive opponents who saw politics as a kind of instrument to destabilize the country. squeezed out, and the constructive opposition, let's be honest, until it has formed in belarus is unlikely to form in the near future, then the parties will have to fight among themselves, but there is a nuance here, when we have four pro-state parties, the temptation is for them to start fighting exclusively for dominant attention to oneself on the part of the state, then it will not be a struggle among themselves, but a struggle for attention and resources, both administrative and financial, on the part of government agencies, and this, whatever one may say,

leads to the fact that sooner or later in this in the struggle there is some kind of winner, the winner in the struggle for attention from the state becomes the party in power, with all the ensuing problems, we really cannot form... a one and a half party system, a system with one dominant party, this unfortunately leads to the merging of state and party institutions, corruption and this experience has not been successful anywhere; as a rule, it ends with an increase in discontent on the part of the population. even on friday , the topic of financing was directly touched upon several times parties: it’s clear, everyone needs money, it seems logical that if the parties are pro-state, then the state needs to help the parties financially, but as for me, there is help and support. very far from each other, there were also very sound arguments, why we need to work out a mechanism for financing parties , so that some oligarchs do not come and buy parties with fucks, and with them the required percentage of votes in parliament, which would

make decisions that are not profitable country, these specific oligarchs, the logic seems such that no one buys our parties, we must somehow buy them ourselves , another thing is that nothing prevents the oligarchs from buying up the party, because selling yourself is a ticket to... the end, as soon as you sell yourself to someone first time, then the only question is the price. an example is ukraine, where lots are resold and rebought by oligarchs mixed with the state on a regular basis. frankly speaking, i, as a citizen of belarus, would not like to see people joining the party as a priority, because it is financially beneficial. besides, i would understand if the issue of state financing of the party was raised when our parliament would have been formed strictly according to party lists, but. in the meantime, we will block those oligarchs who want to buy the votes of deputies with party funding, but what prevents them from buying up the votes of non-party deputies, according to current legislation , citizens from labor collectives can be nominated as deputies by collecting

signatures, that is, purely theoretically, in parliament it can generally not be a single member of any political party, not so so, then if we finance parties, what are we financing, why? what sounded wonderful on friday was that four pro-state parties should not only divide lukashenko’s electorate among themselves, but also work with neutral doubters, and even with constructive opponents of the authorities. we see their new training manual: behave even more loyally than the most loyal to the authorities, join parties, but nevertheless, there are repentant people who are ready to actively cooperate, many of them are politically active, their attempt... to organize through a round table of democratic forces was not entirely successful, and here these four parties that we have must work with them, it seems to me that the greatest potential in this regard is the liberal democratic party,

the republican party of labor of justice . in general, party building, the process, is very exciting, like all politics , so, as the president said, it will be very interesting, although i would like it to become boring at least for a little while and we could take a breath, but this is unlikely to be expected in the near future.. . here the only thing that makes me happy is that alexander grigorievich launches even such extremely important processes with a smile and friendly jokes towards the meeting participants. better. it’s more convenient, just turn the microphone towards you so that we record everything you say, just in case, i’ll repeat my comment from the main telegram channel. tur, but how can one live without these jokes, my name is igor