How to sustain and strengthen public dialogue under authoritarianism, repression, propaganda and exile
Public communication is more than a collection of messages in the media and on social platforms.
It is a system of interaction among media, political and civic actors, experts and citizens, in which shared problems become subjects of discussion, different positions can be represented, and participants can be heard and engage with one another’s arguments.
For Kantrapunkt, it is important to examine what happens to this system under authoritarianism, repression, propaganda, forced migration and political polarisation.
When independent media are forced to operate from abroad, public dissent inside the country becomes dangerous, and different groups in society increasingly cease to share a common information and communication space. This changes society’s very ability to talk about itself and its future.
We study not only what undermines public dialogue, but also which norms, institutions and communication practices make it possible to sustain and strengthen it
Five dimensions that shape the very possibility of public dialogue
Who has the opportunity to be visible, heard and recognised as a legitimate participant in public debate — and who remains at its margins. How this is shaped by political status, expertise, media visibility, gender, age and other social positions.
How people decide whom to trust in a fragmented information environment; how the authority of media, experts, political and civic actors is established and eroded; and what happens when different groups stop recognising shared sources of information and common rules of debate.
What allows people with different positions to remain participants in a shared public debate. At what point disagreement turns into exclusion, dehumanisation, information isolation, or refusal to recognise another person as a legitimate interlocutor.
How responsibility changes when a person’s statement becomes part of public debate. How public communication affects trust, the reputations of people and institutions, political decisions, and norms around what society considers acceptable.
How repression, censorship, propaganda and forced migration reshape the structure of public debate. What happens when independent media, expert, civic and political organisations are based outside Belarus but continue to participate in Belarusian public communication.
Independent media do more than report the news. They make problems and social groups visible, provide a language for describing reality, ensure access to different positions, and create spaces for public debate.
After 2020, the Belarusian media system was radically reshaped. A significant share of independent media was forced to leave Belarus, access to their content inside the country is restricted, and accessing independent information can expose audiences to risk.
Can a shared Belarusian public debate be sustained under these conditions, and what is needed for it to develop?
Public communication always has consequences. The words of public actors can affect trust, reputation, political decisions, and the norms of public debate.
The intention to speak “only to one’s own circle” therefore does not remove responsibility once a message becomes public and begins to influence a wider audience.
What genuinely has public significance? Where is the boundary between society’s right to know and an individual’s right to privacy, safety and dignity? When does making something public help society understand an important problem, and when does it become an exploitation of someone else’s vulnerability?
Since 2020, Belarusian public communication has existed simultaneously under different political, legal and social conditions.
Some Belarusians remain in the country. A significant share of independent media, civil society, and expert and political communities operate in exile. People live in different countries, face different problems, and gradually share less of the same everyday experience.
What allows Belarusians in different countries and political conditions to remain participants in one shared public debate?
The study asks not only how contemporary propaganda works, but also what a system of public communication in a democratic Belarus should look like so that state media and institutions do not reproduce a propaganda model.
Iryna Sidorskaya is a co-author of the report, prepared as part of a joint project by the Belarusian Association of Journalists and Reporters Without Borders. This work is also included in the “Belarusian Propaganda” research series.
In this series, Iryna Sidorskaya examined what happens to communication between people under political conflict and propaganda: how “weak” social ties break down, how denunciation becomes a form of communication, how dehumanisation and trolling operate, and what helps preserve the possibility of dialogue.
A separate continuation examined the role of independent media: how they can help preserve ties among Belarusians and sustain a shared public debate.
In her columns for Zerkalo, Iryna Sidorskaya analyses public communication as a space in which relations between power and society become visible, trust and reputation are formed, and the boundaries between public and private are negotiated.
Political representation, the right to a voice,
trust and legitimacy, boundaries between public and private and norms of responsible communication
Political representation · legitimacy · communication with society
Representation · political institutions · civic participation
Media · public sphere · privacy · journalistic accountability
Public accountability · reputation · community norms
Social media · new public space · state and communication
Public communication is connected to Kantrapunkt’s other research areas — from propaganda and gender to the consequences of forced migration
Propaganda does more than spread a distorted picture of reality. It changes the very conditions of public discussion: undermining trust, creating enemy images, excluding some people from the circle of legitimate interlocutors, and replacing discussion with a predetermined interpretation.
Belarusian Propaganda →Gender affects who, and under what conditions, gains visibility, authority and the right to a voice in politics, media and public discussion.
Gender, Media and Power →Migration changes not only where people live, but also professional and social networks, audiences, and a person’s ability to participate in public discussion. At the same time, it raises the question of preserving ties between Belarusian communities inside the country and abroad.
Underutilized Human Capital →A democratic society requires more than elections, independent media and political institutions
It also requires people and groups to recognise one another’s right to a voice, access information, present different positions, disagree, demand arguments, and preserve at least a minimal degree of trust in shared rules of discussion.
Under authoritarianism, repression, propaganda and exile, this capacity does not sustain itself.
For Kantrapunkt, this means studying what allows a society not only to keep talking about itself amid fragmentation, but also to develop the norms, institutions and practices needed for a more open and responsible public dialogue
