Shortly after securing a seventh term in a widely disputed presidential election in January, Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko has dismissed his prime minister and the head of the central bank, marking the latest stage in a year-long overhaul of the country’s leadership, writes Artyom Shraibman in paper published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Prime Minister Roman Golovchenko, a former security officer who had held the role since 2020, was replaced by Alexander Turchin, the governor of the Minsk region. Golovchenko was moved to the Belarusian central bank, displacing the technocrat Pavel Kallaur.

Lukashenko has described these changes as part of a “generational shift,” to manage the country when he finally steps down. Yet, the new officials remain largely without real authority and the reshuffle is part of Lukashenko’s regular round-about of appointments that enhance his grip on power, according to Shraibman.

“Belarusian economic policymaking is drifting in the same direction as the regime as a whole – towards increasing consolidation and Soviet-style management practices,” he said.

During Golovchenko’s time as prime minister he had to deal with various crises, including mass protests following the 2020 election and Western sanctions imposed after the country backed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Despite the initial economic shock, Belarus adapted swiftly, with GDP expanding 3.8% in 2023 and 4% in 2024. However, Shraibman notes that ongoing economic difficulties stem largely from external factors such as sanctions, war and mass emigration, as well as Lukashenko’s own policy decisions, including price controls. “It’s hard to imagine how Golovchenko could have done any better with the cards he was dealt,” he observed.

Lukashenko’s decision to move Golovchenko to the central bank, rather than sidelining him, suggests satisfaction with his performance. Shraibman highlights the contrast with Russia, where President Vladimir Putin’s allies often remain in office for decades.

The departure of Kallaur, who had modernised the Belarusian central bank by introducing inflation targeting and a free-floating currency, signals a further shift toward Soviet-era economic controls.

“For a decade, Kallaur was the most competent person in this role since the collapse of the Soviet Union,” Shraibman said. Curiously, Lukashenko appeared content, for a time, to let the central bank be run by professionals – a rare experiment in technocratic governance that seems to have now run its course. Golovchenko, despite being an effective manager, has no background in finance. “Now, the central bank will be headed by someone who is entirely loyal to Lukashenko, has no relevant experience and likely doesn’t understand the macroeconomic risks of his own pliability,” Shraibman warns.

The appointment of Turchin as prime minister is equally telling. Having risen through the ranks from tax inspector to governor, he was once viewed as a reformist, advocating economic liberalisation and tax incentives for IT firms. However, after Belarus’s brief experiment with economic modernisation ended in 2020, Turchin, like other would-be reformers, adopted the regime’s rigid political course.

“It’s difficult to imagine he will run the government any differently than Golovchenko,” Shraibman states, noting that power in Belarus remains so centralised that even the prime minister has little room for initiative.

Economic pressures may, however, force a policy shift. Belarus’s recent growth has been driven by consumer demand and Russian defence spending, but both factors are waning. This, combined with a negative trade balance and pressure on the Belarusian ruble, will test the government’s ability to sustain its economic model. Lukashenko acknowledges these challenges but is reluctant to lift price controls for fear of triggering inflation. As Shraibman puts it, “Turchin, a believer in markets, will have to find new ways to deliver the very Soviet goal of controlling prices.”

Turchin’s appointment illustrates the paradox of Belarusian governance: a competent technocrat placed in a role where genuine reform is impossible. “In different circumstances, Turchin could have achieved a lot in this post,” Shraibman notes. Instead, his premiership is likely to be defined by efforts to manage the consequences of an economic model increasingly shaped by political loyalty rather than market realities.