Review
[1] The topic of the discussion is very interesting but alsoextremely touchy for any Belarusian social scholar. The most difficult point of any discussion is the current state of Belarusian political field itself. Like the whole society, Belarusian political science is still in the process of transformation (or, simply to say, redefinition) of its subject, approaches and focuses, and this process is far from the completion. That is why a clear and objective research on this topic is very welcome as it can help to understand the peculiarities of Belarusian path from communism to the democratic society. At the same time it is not easy to figure out the underlying processes of development of political science in Belarus because of the level of uncertainty in political perspectives of the country.
[2] From this point of view the proposed paper meet the major goals – it gives an outlook of the process of the creation of a new political science in Belarus with all the contradictions and difficulties that make this development unique, on the one hand, and also prove some similarities and common tendencies in political thoughts and political technologies in all the former Soviet countries, on the other. A Western reader who are familiar mainly with the development of political sciences in the countries of Central Europe or the Baltic republics will probably be a surprise as there were no radical changes and reforms in social sciences in Belarus after the breakup of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, post-soviet development in Belarus was rather slow and calm (although with some contradictions).
[3] The general direction of post-soviet transition of the country was redefined in mid-1990th after the introduction of a presidential republic and the first presidential elections. Quite naturally, political events themselves influenced the development of political science in Belarus so that the lack of radical political reforms resulted in the preservation of the strong Marxist influence on the contemporary spectrum of Belarusian political thought. This is the first feature of the political situation described in Larissa Titarenko’sLarissa Titarenko’s paper. Another unique feature of Belarusian political sphere is the non-significant role played by the current political parties: actually they are almost invisible and non-functional on the political arena. That is why the contemporary political paradigms do not reflect the social positions and programms of the particular political parties in Belarus, rather, they can be described as a result of a significant Russian influence on the development of political science and political situation in Belarus at large. Thus, if the political parties can be divided into two major groups (the first group approving the current political regime while the second group rejecting it), there are many more paradigms of Belarusian political thoughts.
[4] It is for sure thatLarissa Titrenko’s paper shed light on many aspects of the process of development of a political science in contemporary Belarus. I can’t even name another research paper (at least in English) where a reader may find a brief but deep and complex description of the path covered by Belarusian political science since the end of the Soviet times. In particular, Larissa Titarenko showed the role of Marxist-Leninist legacy in social sciences (including political science), the reasons of incomplete institutionalization of political science, the current state of the political education in the universities in Belarus, as well as the major political topics for research and publications. Taken together these sub-topics make a colorful picture of contemporary political science (both in theoretical and practical aspects).
[5] However, this picture can become broader if the author would include some additional information about the research conducted in Belarus on political issues before 1991 and soon after the breakdown of the USSR. Of course, there are only a few names to be mentioned, but doing so the author will be able to show the close connection between the soviet and post-soviet political research. It is not a "top secret" that the ideological control of the Communist party in the former USSR was greater than in Central European states, and this condition hindered the development of political science after 1991: for example, the "old specialists" in political science were not dismissed in Belarus, like in Eastern Germany, so that their influence on the younger generations of politologists (and therefore the influence of Marxism) was significant.
[6] Also, it is worth saying that those scholars who always followed political conjuncture in their writings (under the soviet times as well as during the period of independence) can not be objective in their evaluation of political events, ideas, theories, etc. today. Unfortunately – and it is also a distinquishing feature of Belarusian political science – many political analysts are too close to the current political life, too much involved into political struggle, so that they are "politically engaged". To some extend, for these reasons such political scientists can not prepare objective reports on the state of the art in political science as well as they can not make rational and non-partisan conclusions about what is going on in current Belarus.
[7] At the same time I would recommend the author to avoid some simple stereotypes of mass consciousness when talking about the Belarusian political figures of the early 1990th (it seems to me that these politicians could not change dramatically the objectively low level of political technologies used in their electoral campaigns in those days). It might be more interesting for a contemporary reader to know about current methods of political analysis on both theoretical and practical levels, to learn more about the institutions and centers doing such political analysis for the state and non-state contractors, and about the sources of financial support of all the current political research. To my mind, although Belarusian political science has not been fully institutionalized, it has already received some innovative results related to the national mentality and historical experience of Belarusians that prevent them from any revolutionary actions under the current situation. I can only remind that ten years that have passed after the breakup of the Soviet Union have not been enough in order to create a totally new political regime and a totally new political science.
[8] As a Belarusian scholar living in the capital of the country, Minsk, I would suggest to include into the paper some information about scholars who work in provincial cities in our country. Of course, their input in political research is not theoretical. However, they do important empirical research, participate in the national monitorings and therefore help to construct the natioanl model of political processes in Belarus.
[9] My critical notes and suggestions on the development of political science in Belarus by no means make Larissa Titarenko’sLarissa Titrenko’s report inappropriate. On the contrary, I am sure that Larissa Titarenko can incorporate some additional information into her paper according to my notes, so that the final version of her paper will better describe the situation in the areas of political research and education in contemporary Belarus. Larissa Titarenko’s assessment of development of political science in Belarus will help to evaluate the progress of this academic discipline since 1991 and define its perspectives. This paper will be extremely useful for a Western reader who usually experiences a lack of non-partisan scholar research on such topics made by Belarusian authors.
published 2002
