There’s an indicator of a leader’s relationship between himself and the surrounding reality. In psychology this is know as the locus of control, meaning the tendency to see the source by which his life is directed as either an external means, or primarily from oneself.

Locus of control can by external and internal. If a leader has developed an internal locus of control, they are more likely to accept responsibility for unexpected problems in the sphere of his own competency on himself. This kind of leader attributes the problem to their own character, actions or abilities.

A leader with and external locus of control deals with this matter differently. He’s more likely to shift responsibility for whatever happens to someone else. The role of  someone else could be filled by anyone: the opposing party, the media, those in office in neighboring governments. The scapegoat could be the people sweeping the sugar from the shelves. “He has three at fault: God, Nature, and the weather” say those working under the leader with and external locus of control, characterized by being short-tempered, overly defensive and aggressive.

The formula explaining the failure, peculiar to the leader with an external locus of control, have been shown by the Belarussian leadership in their concern of the country in the economic crisis.

We’re reminded of the film “The Diamond Arm,” featuring Yuri Nikulin. Members of the public without warning burst into a hotel room, in which the circumstances are intimate. The half-dressed heroine, played by  Svetlana Svetlichnaya, trying to redeem herself in terror cries out, “It’s not my fault! He came here himself!” Well yes, it came, but the president and the government should have carefully thought it out, and in turn accepted systematic measures to prevent or soften the negative impact. The spontaneous economic crisis should have been put under control by the president and the government. Democratic means were supposed to be used for that.

In order to develop the economy, the government could have projected the crisis, and that means planning it out, forecasting its consequences, and through the creation of special circumstances lead an educated handling of it. You say it would be difficult for the people? Isn’t it difficult for people now? And who expects a crisis to be easy? The Greek translation for crisis is a turning point, a change, and finally a solution. At least a turning point would be predictable and clear to everyone.

Unfortunately, the authorities are worrying about elections, so they kept quiet about the crisis, promising higher wages. Once the people were told to expect growth, they expected it. And it’s well known that the greater the difference between expectations and reality, the greater the worrying. That’s how the economic crisis provoked with so many Belarussians, giving their vote in December for Alexander Lukashenko, the presidential election crisis.

As life has shown, projecting and competently handling the economic crisis is something the Belorussian ministry hasn’t been able to do as of yet. It has little to do with executives having diplomas, academic degrees or experience.  Modern economics require a different kind of specialist with a developed economic mentality, skills in crisis management, serious preparation which our universities do not offer yet. I’ll point out that people capable of solving economic problems  were among those who came on to the square on December 19, 2010.Unfortunately, the planned dialogue of the candidate was never heard, rather bludgeoned away by the judges and unjust sentencing. Many of those young people, going to the elections for the first time, thirsting for economic reform, are now behind bars, now concerned over, what Fedor Mirzayanov spoke of in his final remarks at court, a crisis of faith in the justice of the Belarussian justice system.