Flexible tools needed to secure release of political prisoners

Amid the debate among Belarusian pro-democracy activists over whether it would be possible to lift sanctions and recognize Alaksandar Łukašenka’s legitimacy in an attempt to secure the release of political prisoners, it is important to remember that the lives and freedom of prisoners are an ultimate value. In contrast, sanctions and non-recognition of the regime are only tools to achieve political goals.

Deal with Mugabe

Let’s take a quick trip back to 2008. Back then, Belarus was going through a period of liberalization, while Zimbabwe was experiencing political turmoil. Dictator Robert Mugabe faced a strong democratic rival, Morgan Tsvangirai, in the presidential race.

Mugabe unleashed a terror campaign against his opponents, with his security forces killing some 90 opposition supporters, wounding more than 10,000 and forcing 200,000 people to flee their homes. The European Union, the United States and several African countries responded with sanctions and refused to recognize Mugabe as a legitimate ruler.

It seemed like there was no way to engage in a dialog or make political concessions.

However, in exchange for the release of political prisoners and concessions to the opposition, the international community lifted some sanctions. Mugabe reciprocated with letting Tsvangirai briefly be in charge of the government. However, Mugabe’s supporters continued to pull strings.

Ends and means

Can similar compromises be made with the Belarusian regime? This question has been discussed by the Belarusian independent media for quite a while, especially after Łukašenka released some 80 political prisoners in the last three months.

Clearly, securing the release of political prisoners at any price is out of the question. Certainly not in exchange for extraditing exiled opposition leaders, supporting the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine or publicly condemning anti-regime protests.

However, sanctions and non-recognition are tools for influencing outcomes, not some ethical goals.

Universal rules of politics

Sanctions and other interventions are a move that checks, not checkmates. As in the game of chess, a move – even a successful one – must be followed by other moves. Not making moves and waiting for your opponent to surrender is a losing strategy. In dealing with authoritarian regimes, it is important to be flexible, even when the opponent appears to be playing without any regard for the rules.

The no-rule game is actually a myth. After all, the regime must adjust to external and internal circumstances to survive.

Sanctions and non-recognition are therefore fair tools used to achieve humanitarian or ethical-political goals, such as expediting democratic change in Belarus.

Belarusians need respite from crackdown

Conversely, political prisoners’ lives, health and freedom are a value and end in themselves, not political tools. Therefore, it is crucial for pro-democracy groups to push for the release of political prisoners. It should be a higher priority than sanctions and non-recognition.

In addition to these purely moral considerations, however, the prospects for democratic transition are also at stake.

The ongoing repression is demotivating opponents of the government, reducing chances for mobilization and systemic change. If anything can be done to mitigate repression, the opposition must seek to achieve it because the pro-democracy community urgently needs a respite.