The Belarusian opposition has a very short list of demands: Belarus' self-appointed President Alexander Lukashenko must step down, political prisoners must be freed and new elections must be held.

But there is one more condition that is hidden in the woodwork: the constitutional changes made by Lukashenko that allow him to stay in office until he dies and give him almost total control over the political apparatus must be abandoned.

Previously Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, the nominal winner of the disputed August 9 elections last summer, said that the first thing she would do if confirmed president would be to quit and so force new elections. But there was one caveat. The very first thing she said she would do is return the country to the 1996 version on of the constitution, the original version with presidential term limits, amongst other things, before Lukashenko tampered with it.

With the mass protests on hold during the icy winter months, the focus in the stand-off between the people and Lukashenko has turned to the constitution.

Lukashenko has been proposing for several years to make changes as a sop to the protest movement, but never followed through. Now he has to do so after meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who sees changing the constitution as the easiest way of easing Lukashenko out of office. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov flew to Minsk last autumn and told Lukashenko “remember your promises” in an apparent reference to commitments Lukashenko made to Putin during their meeting in Sochi.

Lukashenko called an All People’s Assembly in February where he promised to deliver a draft of the amended constitution, but in the end came up with nothing, only promising vaguely that a draft would be ready “by the end of the year.”

Now the opposition has gone a step further. Rather than just revert to the 1996 constitution they have drawn up their own draft constitution and put it forward.

New constitution

At first glance, Tikhanovskaya’s draft constitution looks very attractive for many Belarusians. Instead of a rigid presidential vertical, a parliamentary-presidential republic is proposed, strengthening local self-government and expanding civil rights.

The basis of the draft was copied from the current 1996 constitution. But already with articles 13-14, serious differences appear. The opposition draft version involves a significant reduction in the role of the state in the economy and social sphere. Thus the provision that the state regulates the work of the public and private sectors in the interests of society has been removed. It speaks about the equality of all forms of ownership, but only specifies an encouragement of entrepreneurship.

The clause stating that private property should “not harm humans, nature, historical and cultural heritage” has been removed. The reformulated "ecological" article no longer contains the "human right to a healthy environment." The concept of "gender equality" has been introduced, but in an abstract way, in contrast to the 1996 constitution, where the state's obligations to ensure the equality of women are spelled out in detail – a throwback to one of Karl Marx’s central ideas – in remuneration, in promotion at work, in occupational safety and health.

The current constitution recognises private and state property, but it also says that "the state promotes the development of co-operation." In the opposition's draft, the clause on co-operation was removed. One of the additions spells out a provision on the “openness of foreign and domestic trade and investment.”

The draft constitution also provides for the full independence of the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus (NBRB), which will have to submit a report to the parliament only once a year. Taking into account the country's high indebtedness to external creditors, it is obvious that the credit and financial policy in this configuration will be largely determined by the external players, Vedomosti said in a comment.

The opposition also removed the clause that "the state guarantees workers the right to take part in the management of enterprises, organisations and institutions." Of course, in modern Belarus, under the leadership of Lukashenko, this right exists only on paper. But according to the draft, grassroots self-government is also unnecessary for the opposition.

Another clause that has completely disappeared is the statute that agricultural land, forests, mineral resources and water are the property of the state. The draft only says that "the state exercises control over the rational use of land and other natural resources."

The draft constitution formally guarantees both free education and healthcare, but a clause on medicine insurance has been added, suggesting a system of mandatory insurance similar to that of Germany may be introduced.

Another potential change to state funding for services that are currently free under Lukashenko’s rules is the language referring to higher education: instead of guaranteeing free higher education in state institutions, the draft version talks about an opportunity to have higher education with “state funding”.

The section dealing with conscription to military service was also watered down, replacing the idea of conscription with "military duty," similar to the system used in Ukraine since 2014.

The draft also adopts some Western principles, such as an outright ban on the death penalty.

And the Russian language remains the state language, along with Belarusian.

Mixed presidential republic with parliamentary democracy

The biggest changes to the existing set-up would move Belarus away from a presidential republic to a parliamentary democracy.

The proposed changes would weaken the president’s considerable powers and local executives would be elected, but not directly by citizens but by local deputies. This clause has come in for criticism, as it puts a barrier in between the voters and the local representation, weakening the democratisation of the country.

The authorities immediately attacked Tikhanovskaya’s version of the constitution. The very next day after it was presented by the opposition, the authorities announced the creation of a commission to develop its own constitutional draft.

Having done very little to propose concrete changes to the existing constitution, it seems that the opposition’s decision to draw up its own draft version has spurred the authorities into action.