If the differences between Lukashenka’s supporters and opponents were purely political, conversations with opponents would not be so fraught. But the polarisation runs far deeper — down to the level of core values. Mutual understanding is therefore impossible without empathy: we need to understand what matters to our opponents, identify the values that still unite us, and draw on them in our communication. This technique is known as moral reframing. Konstantin Nesterovich writes about how it can help overcome polarisation in Belarus.
How moral reframing works
In a series of experiments, Robb Willer of Stanford and Matthew Feinberg of the University of Toronto demonstrated that if a position on a specific political issue is reframed in the language of the opponent’s values, it becomes far more persuasive.
For example, same-sex marriage is usually defended on grounds of fairness: everyone has equal rights, and discrimination is unacceptable. In America, this is the language of liberals — it has almost no effect on conservatives. Feinberg and Willer rewrote the same appeal in the language of patriotism: gay people are Americans just like everyone else; they work, pay taxes, serve in the armed forces, and contribute to the country. The result of the experiment:
- The argument about equality did not shift conservatives’ stance on same-sex marriage. The gap with liberals remained almost the same as after the value-neutral message: 1.6 points on a five-point scale.
- The argument based on patriotism reduced the gap to 0.4 points — almost four times smaller. Conservatives shifted towards a moderate “in favour.”
Why does this work? Researchers cite several mechanisms. Moral values are at the core of one’s identity, not merely opinions. It is difficult to dismiss an argument that draws on a person’s deep-seated convictions, even if they lead to an unfamiliar conclusion. Furthermore, the brain processes familiar moral language more easily: the message seems clear and “about me.” Finally, someone who appeals to shared values is more readily perceived as a like-minded person — and this increases trust.
The values Lukashenko’s supporters and opponents do (not) share
In Belarus, the dividing line runs across all key political issues: views on democracy and the economy, Russia’s war against Ukraine, foreign policy, and the state of education and healthcare.
But politics is just the surface. Data from the Chatham House survey for December 2024 reveals a marked difference between the two camps in terms of core values.
Opponents of the authorities value autonomy — the ability to decide for oneself how to live and what to do. And hedonism — the enjoyment of life. Supporters of the authorities prioritise security — stability, order, and safety. And tradition — familiar norms and customs. This is a classic picture: sociologists observe a similar divide between “progressive” and “traditionalist” camps across Europe.
However, the two camps converge on some of the most important values. Benevolence is important to both: helping those close to you, being honest and dependable with the people around you, and not abandoning others in times of trouble. Universalism sits alongside benevolence: justice, equality, and care for people and nature as a whole. It matters to representatives of both camps, though opponents of the authorities value it slightly more.
Sociologists have previously described the importance Belarusians place on caring for those around them. Henadz Korshunau referred to this as “local sociality”. Grassroots solidarity begins within the immediate family circle but spreads outward from there. In the spring of 2020, when the state was effectively denying the existence of the COVID-19 pandemic, Belarusians raised money themselves, sewed face masks, and delivered meals to doctors. In the summer and autumn, the same mutual aid spilled over into neighbourhood chat groups, solidarity funds, and queues to send parcels to prisons.
Solidarity in 2020 was demonstrated primarily by opponents of the authorities. But the demand to immediately stop the violence against protesters and to investigate such cases was shared by the whole of society. In other words, benevolence is a common foundation for Belarusians, even in conditions of polarisation. For moral reframing, this means that there is a language understood by both sides of the divide.
How to use moral reframing
The key reframing strategy for Belarus is to construct messages based on benevolence. Such language is neither “ours” nor “theirs” — it sounds convincing to both sides of the political divide.
Example 1. Economic reforms are usually promoted through the lens of entrepreneurship: competition, opportunities, risk. In Schwartz’s framework, these are the values of achievement and stimulation. However, they are relatively unimportant to Belarusians in both camps. Perhaps this is precisely why the idea of doing something about loss-making enterprises often fails to resonate with Belarusians. Reframing could anchor the idea of reform in territory where both camps’ values converge — concern for loved ones and the future of one’s children:
“Reforms are needed so that your son doesn’t have to move to Warsaw or Moscow in search of a decent wage. So that your grandchildren can find work in their home town, and your parents have a doctor at the local clinic and a decent pension.”
Example 2. The release of political prisoners. The democratic camp often speaks of the undemocratic and unlawful nature of the repression. For supporters of the authorities, this is an alien language. Reframing through benevolence helps to formulate a message that is hard to argue with:
“Right now, thousands of people are sitting in cells, falling ill without medicine and going years without hearing the voices of their loved ones. Decent people do not rejoice in the suffering of others. However you look at it, this is a tragedy — and the sooner it ends, the better for everyone. It’s simply the humane thing to do.”
Another strategy is the one used in the original experiments by Feinberg and Willer: to draw on the values of the specific segment you are addressing. This means that when speaking with supporters of the authorities, you need to talk about security.
Example 3. European integration is often framed in terms of freedom of movement, political freedoms, and tolerance. However, those who value security more highly perceive this as a list of potential risks. But European integration can be framed differently:
“The European Union is the region’s best guarantor of security. Between 1991 and 2024, there was just one military conflict in the former Eastern Bloc countries that joined the EU. In the other countries — Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and others — more than twenty wars of varying scales were recorded during the same period. A united Europe knows how to ensure that neighbours do not go to war.”
None of these “reframed” messages requires the recipient to give up what is dear to them. They simply link a specific political decision to a value the person already holds.
What not to expect from moral reframing
This communication technique can help media professionals and politicians be heard on the other side. Reframing is more effective than the usual appeal to one’s own values because it is more persuasive. It is also more empathetic: rather than writing your opponent off as evil or stupid, you find out what matters to them.
However, no form of communication can eliminate the root causes of the divide. Behind the polarisation in Belarus lie differing life experiences. Opponents of the authorities are more often men with higher education from major cities, employed in the private sector. They benefit from the post-industrial economy and globalisation, and therefore value openness to new ideas and independence. Supporters of the authorities are more often women from small and medium-sized towns without higher education, working in the public sector. Their position is far more vulnerable. Hence their anxiety about security, which they find in the state’s protectionist policies.
Even a perfectly formulated message will not change the fact that a woman in a small regional town and an IT specialist in Minsk have, in some respects, different interests. Therefore, shared values need to be wrapped around proposals that genuinely address the lived realities of different Belarusians. Moral reframing is a supplementary tool, not a cure for polarisation.