Suchergebnisse

The article presents in abstract form the results of the initial historical analysis of the Belarusian protests of 2020 in the context of similar processes in the post-Soviet space. The preconditions and reasons for the mass demonstrations are shown: structural problems and the Ukrainian events of 2014 led to the stagnation of the Belarusian economy; confidence in the election results in society declined with each election campaign; the new generation of Belarusians had incomprehensible values, which were preserved and imposed on the society by the authorities. There were also several triggers of protests: the peculiarities of the strategy of the Belarusian leadership in the context of the cavid virus pandemic Kavid19 reduced the authority of the government; and the inconsistency of the official and actual results of the vote, the brutality of the dispersal of the first post-election protests caused mass outrage. Authorities considered and still consider the foreign factor to be the main reason for the protests. Many politicians and experts support the theory of Russian interference in Belarus. Solidarity of Belarusians is a new phenomenon of Belarus in recent history. In many respects it was able to manifest itself thanks to new forms of communication in society and fresh creative forms of activity: a chain of solidarity, walks and marches on avenues and streets, actions in residential areas, etc. The activity of women, pensioners and workers shows a change in their role in the political life of post-Soviet countries. And the support of the protests of other traditional and new professional groups testifies to the nationwide nature of the demonstrations. The lack of obvious socio-economic demands makes it possible to classify the Belarusian protests as political democratic revolutions, which can be conditionally called "Revolutions of Dignity". The most important result of the Belarusian protests is the discovery of the world of the Belarusian political nation. Despite the polarization and a certain division in society, there is a clear general demand for the sovereignty of Belarus by supporters of S. Tikhanovskaya and A. Lukashenko. Now all political forces will have to reckon with the factor of existence and active participation in the political process of the Belarusian political nation.

The article discusses contradictions and conflicts at work on the industrial enterprises of the BSSR, including strikes, in the second half of the 1950s and in 1960s. The main reasons for the conflict were the facts of corruption, lower salaries, changes in working conditions, and the inefficient enterprise and management system. There were a lot of facts of abuse by the authorities of their service ranks by distribution of bonuses, financial aids, passports to sanatoria, apartments and so on. Although these questions were under control of party's and trade union's committees, the effectiveness of their work was low. The bureaucratic system of supervision and management has shown its inconsistency of practical implementation of promised social justice standards. In the face of weakening repressive legislation workers increasingly decided for various forms of protest and even for escalation of conflicts. An analysis of archival materials revealed 62 facts of refusal to work at industrial enterprises of the BSSR only during the period from 1956 till 1965. Struggle of workers for their rights including strikes of workers created no danger for the political regime, but became a factor which increased the attentiveness of party's and economic authorities to the situation in industry. Administrative and organizational attempts to stop the rot in giving bonuses to the heads, engineers, technical personal as well as office workers were done. Party's and economic governing bodies tried to avoid publicity in considering of conflict situations. Under the dominance of the command and administrative system, the management bodies were not ready for partnership relations with employees. They perceived conflicts in a socialist society as an accidents and used tactics of organizational and psychological pressure in conflict situations and demanded unilateral concessions from workers. In essence, this tactic was selfdeception and, in a strategic plan, did not lead to conflicts' resolutions.