New Challenges for the Tsikhanouskaya Coalition

Some political organizations are once again attempting to strengthen their influence within the democratic movement. Critics are pushing for a reconsideration of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya’s leadership status. However, this could lead to a loss of the democratic forces’ agency on the international stage.

Criticism of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya is intensifying amidst growing discussions about ways to free political prisoners—the pardon of 30 political prisoners by Lukashenka has sparked a new wave of debate. Former opposition leader from the mid-1990s, Zianon Pazniak, proposed engaging in negotiations with the Belarusian regime while simultaneously encouraging Western ambassadors to return to Minsk.

During the election campaign for the Coordination Council, political organizations were able to test their mobilization capabilities and the popularity of their positions among the democratic movement’s activists. The results of the May 2024 elections confirmed the leadership of the coalition headed by Tsikhanouskaya. At the same time, positions advocating for pressure on Lukashenka regime remain popular among democratic activists. As a result of the elections, the bloc led by one of Lukashenka’s staunchest critics—the head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Pavel Latushka—received the most votes. Simultaneously, the rhetoric of the winning coalition was adjusted to emphasize maintaining mobility for ordinary Belarusians.

On the other hand, some opposition members propose a strategy of de-escalation in relations with Lukashenka regime. It is important to note that this approach remains unpopular among democratic activists, with Tsikhanouskaya currently representing the majority voice at this stage.

On the international stage, the democratic leader holds significant authority and advantages (compared to other politicians within the democratic movement). This allows Tsikhanouskaya to advance the civil society agenda (in line with the expectations of the majority of democratic activists) in relation to the regime.

In contrast, stripping Tsikhanouskaya of her leadership status would significantly limit the democratic forces’ access to decision-making centers in Western capitals. This would also result in the dilution of the overall civil society agenda, although it would create space for individual political forces to promote their positions.

In such a scenario, the overall agency of political organizations in communication with Western capitals would be significantly diminished compared to the current situation with Tsikhanouskaya’s leadership status.