Who goes there? – Sasha 3% | Dominika Front

It all started with Tikhanovskaya. She has been predominantly recognised as the legitimate president of Belarus. To the extent that she, as the tradition dictates, delivered a presidential New Year’s message on December 31, 2020, and published it on YouTube. Alexander Lukashenko did the very same thing – on All-National Television. It was a true battle of words to win over listeners.

A closer look at personal pronouns can shed more light on the message they conveyed. In Belarusian there exists an implied subject, so this text spotlights only those moments when they were explicitly stated. Lukashenko’s speech consisted of 595 words in total, out of which the pronoun we was used 21 times. Additionally, us appeared 7 times, our 11 times, and no I was uttered. On the contrary, Tikhanovskaya’s speech comprised 700 words. We appeared 25 times; us was to be found 6 times, while our – 9. I appeared only once.

We, as well as us and our, is usually employed to highlight the unity with the addressee(s). Precisely in such a way did Lukashenko and Tikhanovskaya use these pronouns in their New Year’s addresses. For instance, in the sentence: “We have clearly realized what we have and what we can lose irretrievably”, Lukashenka put emphasis on some shared thoughts and realisations. Sometime later, he said: “It means that we do not stand still. The world has changed. So have we. Our transformations are an elaborate and well-considered evolution”. Our and we here do not refer to the readers/listeners but to the country as a whole territory, thus, drawing attention to the inseparable relationship between the land that changes, and its inhabitants.

The pronouns mentioned above can also serve as a means of exclusion. This became visible when Lukashenka said: “You know that some of us, having faced the challenges of the leap year, want Belarus the way it was one year before. [...] All of us, who see the world differently, should realize that our common value is our land in the center of Europe”. It would be very naïve to think that this is just an innocent statement. What strikes one immediately is the feeling of an authoritarian, intolerant way of reassuring the citizens that no disagreeing voices will be tolerated.

At the beginning of her speech, Tikhanovskaya said: “2020 was a year when we, Belarusians, united”, and then goes on listing why, starting each sentence with “we united in X” (where X is the name of the month). The sense of all-encompassing national identity was present not only because of semantics, but also because of this recurring phrase. And when the politician said: “And the new year will bring us back home – to a free Belarus”, one could easily read this as a biting remark towards Lukashenko, hinting that under his rule, Belarus is not a free country. At the same time, comparing free Belarus to home presents the opposition’s leader as a part of this home.

Svetlana Tikhanovskaya spoke solely in Belarusian, while Alexander Lukashenko delivered the whole speech in Russian, except for one phrase – “людзьмі звацца” (Eng.: to be called human), which was in Belarusian. It is a quote from Yanka Kupala’s poem entitled А хто там ідзе? (Eng. And say who goes there?): “И если мы хотим ‘людзьмі звацца’, мы это сделаем!” Since it was lost in the official English translation, here is a more accurate translation of the whole poem, so as to give a broader perspective.

And, Say, Who Goes There?

And, say, who goes there? And, say, who goes there? In such a mighty throng assembled, O declare? Byelorussians!

And what do those lean shoulders bear as load, Those hands stained dark with blood, those feet bast-sandal shod? All their grievance!

And to what place do they this grievance bear, And whither do they take it to declare? To the whole world! And who schooled them thus, many million strong, Bear their grievance forth, roused them from slumbers long? Want and suffering!

And what is it, then, for which so long they pined, Scorned throughout the years, they, the deaf, the blind? To be called human!

(trans. Natallia Valadzko)

Kupala to Belarusians is like Szymborska to Poles or Pound to Americans – he is regarded as one of the greatest Belarusian poets of the 20th century. As his work makes up a substantial part of the contemporary national legacy, the quote should be recognised on the spot. What is more, the Belarusian language is perceived as more personal and more appealing.

The text portrays a group of Belarusians who are miserable and the only thing they desire is “to be called human”. Sure, one can say that in the bloody aftermath of the peaceful protests, it might be a promise for improving the police’s behaviour. On the other hand, personal liberties are being trampled in Belarus every day – it ranks as the 43rd country with the most severe human rights violations, according to the 2020 Human Rights and Rule of Law Index. Wouldn’t it be more logical then to assume that “the last dictator in Europe” made a scornful remark by quoting that fragment?

Unsettlingly enough, Tikhanovskaya refers to the exact same text. She quoted two lines from the poem – the first and the last one. While, in the beginning, the lyrical I of Kupala’s poem poses a rhetorical question to describe the group very generally, Tikhanovskaya did the opposite thing. She tried to enumerate as many representatives of distinct social groups as possible. It was to show that the nation consists of groups that are at times poles apart, and yet, unite under a common goal – building a free Belarus.

Lastly, Alexander Lukashenko had a national flag pin on his jacket’s left lapel. There was a flag to his left, which occupied approximately one-fourth of the frame. Using symbols is an easy and straightforward way of identification with which the symbols represent – in this case, the whole nation. Tikhanovskaya did the same. Nevertheless, she chose a different flag. The politician decided to employ a historical flag which was used at first from 1918 to 1951 and then between 1991 and 1995. It consists of three horizontal stripes – white-red-white. Since then, it has been a national symbol of the opposition to Lukashenko’s regime. Thus, as a way of identifying with the anti-Lukashenko movement, she wore a white shirt and a red jacket, while a Christmas tree with white-red-white baubles could be easily spotted. Her choice was far more direct, striking, and immediate than Lukashenko’s.

Both politicians benefited from the rhetorical tactics of political discourse and used them to their advantage, building bridges between themselves and their targeted audiences. Those weren’t simply speeches – they were powerful political statements, an opportunity to identify with the nation. What is the nation to them though? After 26 years, Lukashenko is very predictable – if you’re not against him, that speech is for you. Tikhanovskaya’s decision to issue her speech shows that she feels and identifies as the country’s legitimate leader.

2020 saw a plethora of problems, unplanned situations, and straight-up catastrophes. Among all these turbulences, the presidential elections in Belarus took place on August 9. The incumbent Belarusian president, Alexander Lukashenko, sought his sixth term in office, since 1994. His primary opponent was Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, a non-partisan politician. On June 25, Radio Free Europe wrote: “[a] popular meme has spread in Belarus, responding to an opinion poll showing President Alyaksandr Lukashenka [sic] has just 3 percent support. Graffiti reading ‘Sasha 3%’ was sprayed on walls, prompting an angry reaction from Lukashenka himself”. Ahead of presidential elections in August dozens of opposition activists, including prominent opposition leaders, were arrested. One would think that the sentiments could not have changed drastically in a month and a half. However, as it can be read on the Belarusian government website, Lukashenko scored 80.1%, while Tikhanovskaya got only 10.12%. After the results had been announced, Tikhanovskaya the latter rejected the outcome and protests broke out throughout the country. There have been reports of citizens being severely injured, some having been run over by police vans; some have been killed. With the beginning of Spring, the riots are very much likely to continue.

Dominika Front