Press under Dictatorship in Belarus

Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 2014

2016

The Freedom of the Press ranking recently published by Freedom House has found Belarus’ media environment to be Europe’s most restrictive. The ranking placed Belarus as 192nd out of 199 countries and territories within the “worst of the worst” category. These results suggest that media freedom in Belarus has neither been influenced by the country’s recent improvements in its relations with the West nor by the rapid spread of digital technologies. Some of the business community’s representatives have been unsatisfied with the ranking’s results, which call for a deeper reflection on the hidden mechanisms of control that afflict Belarusian media.

Alternative Media: Linking Global and Local, 1993

The author analyses emerging of alternative mass media in Belarus in late Perestroika period.

Media Transformations in the Post-Communist World: Eastern Europe’s Tortured Path to Change, 2012

Transitions Online, 2018

Lukashenka's government is steadily enlarging its sphere of control over domestic media while trying to limit Russian influence. For the first time since Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka was elected in 1994, the authorities this year allowed public celebrations of the anniversary of the short-lived Belarusian People's Republic of 1918. In what some foreign observers and media interpreted as a possible further sign of his opening to the West, Lukashenka also for the first time took part in the annual Minsk Dialogue security forum, where he spoke about information security and global security issues and called for a "Helsinki 2" peace process. In June, Lukashenka hailed the "friendly partner relations" with the European Union, which lifted most sanctions on his government in 2016, although he emphasized that issues such as the state of democracy and freedom of expression must take second place to developing economic ties. Such hints of a more "liberal" mindset in Minsk must, however, be set against official attitudes toward the media and information security. In recent months the regime has shown signs of adapting to the changing media landscape even as it develops new mechanisms to clamp down on new media and exerts even greater control over state-run media.

Business as Usual. Continuity and Change in Central and Eastern Europe , 2003

Global Media Journal , 2008

2014

Dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics (USSR) opened the door for each former republic as a new nation to develop its own press system, including its own approach to supporting or constraining media freedom. The Western hope was that despite decades of a largely monolithic press system designed in and controlled from Moscow, those fifteen press systems would individually and collectively reflect major elements of “democratic journalism.” In other words, Western journalism proponents, funders, human rights advocates, and civil society-related nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) hoped for rapid transitions to democratic and transparent governance accompanied by protection of individual rights, including freedom of the press, media plurality, and freedom of speech. Experience since then illustrates that such liberal Western hopes proved largely unwarranted for most of the former Soviet Union. The exception is in the three Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, all of which developed press systems similar to those of most other European countries. By contrast, at the opposite end of the spectrum, some of the tightest controls and most extreme abuses of press rights exist in the three nations of the Caucasus—Azerbaijan, and Georgia—and in the five Central Asia countries—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Our research objective is to identify major political, economic, and cultural factors that have advanced or impeded development of sustainable independent media organizations and professional journalistic standards and practices in these contrasting regions: the Baltics at one end of the spectrum and the Caucasus and Central Asia at the other end. The degree of press control and censorship also seems to have a geographic element, increasing from the relatively liberal in the Baltics in the far west of the former USSR to the staunchly authoritarian in the far east. Having made this observation, add the caveat that Kyrgyzstan on the border with China has a comparatively better track record regarding press rights than its Central Asian neighbors have.

were shaped their whole life by the Soviet rules since 1922 when came under the domination of USSR as colonial. Mass media of the Soviet Union countries carried out one communist party regime based politics was also used in accordance with the purpose and the wishes of this party. Trying to control or giving direction to this area by political actors in almost all communist theories under the influence of mass communication systems was discussed. Historical background of the Central Asian Republics was pushed " the media to being politicized " (Hallin and Mancini 2004, 61). The media adopted the spreading of Soviet ideology and the transmitting this to the community as the main task was seen as all of the political life, not as part of it. The Central Asian countries gained their independence could not escape from political situation of the media in the Post-Soviet period as well. The vast majority of journalists and media organizations operating in the country are directly or indirectly connected to politicians. The leaders of the mass media in this country have "good relations" with the ruling politicians. Articles on order and with the purpose of elevating or defamation someone are in common in newspapers. At the same time, there are confidential censorship and self-censorship by the pressure of political power in Central Asian countries where officially banned the censorship. The news to be published on television and the articles in newspapers are delivered to the community after they are reviewed and approved in advance in a hidden way. Opposition media is too weak in Central Asian countries and one-way power media continues its dominance in this sector. Free activity of the media held under government pressure and control is prevented continuously. Today and the future of the free press is under threat in these five Central Asian countries debarred from wide-ranging and pluralist media.