| Abstract [eng] |
After the 2020 presidential election of the Republic of Belarus, which was won by A. Lukashenko, his rival S. Tsikhanouskaya and the Coordination Council of the Belarus moved their activities to Lithuania. However, such activities of the Belarusian opposition in the country have raised concerns that the organization may be spreading incorrect information about Lithuanian history and interpreting its historical memory to push it’s own agenda. In reaction to such anxieties, this paper examines the narratives of memory used and supported by institutions of Belarusian opposition, and their relationship with dominant collective memory narratives in Lithuania. The aim of the research is to discover the goals that are supported by the collective memory narratives disseminated by the Belarusian opposition, and whether such interpretations contradict established narratives of memory in Lithuania. In order to find the memory stories and narratives that the Belarusian opposition is trying to create, collective memory theories were employed. This included the theory of memory regimes and mnemonic actors developed by Michael Bernhard and Jan Kubik. In order to find useful data, social media analysis methods were used. After this, a case study was performed, during which the essence and thematic connections between data was searched for and based on which a conclusion was formed. The messages and posts that were shared on both websites and social media of S. Tsikhanouskaya's office and the Coordination Council during the 2020-2025 period. The analysis shows that the Belorussian opposition presents four separate collective memory stories: one about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, one for the 1863-1864 uprising, one for the the Soviet Union and secession from it, and finally, the narrative of Vytis and “Pahonia” as symbols of memory. It was found that most of these narratives show an alternative, but not contradictory, interpretation of historical memory. However, at the same time, the isolation of “Pahonia” as a symbol of Belarusian memory contradicts the dominant narrative in Lithuania, that Vytis and similar symbols are exclusively Lithuanian places of memory. Notably, the Belorussian opposition, in their online communication seems to be lacking in desire, in it’s GDL narrative, to cultivate memory of periods before 15th century, despite previous research presenting a notable connection between Belorussian opposition and memory narratives of this specific era. This might be an indicator, that at least in the online sphere Belarussian opposition is avoiding certain memory conflicts due to reasons that this work could not explore. |
