The Belarusian leader, Alexander Lukashenko, spoke to the public and the National Assembly with a pointed emphasis on culture, outlining a measured shift toward what he framed as a cultural import-substitution approach. He argued that safeguarding and reviving past achievements remains important, but simply protecting heritage is not enough. He urged Belarusians to move beyond celebrations and practices that clash with Christian traditions and moral standards, signaling a broader project to reaffirm national cultural identity and anchor public life in shared values tied to Belarusian history and faith. The message positioned culture as an active, living force, not a static relic, and called for a careful recalibration of cultural norms so that they better reflect a society rooted in tradition while open to legitimate change that strengthens communal bonds. In this view, culture becomes a constructive program—an ongoing effort to align social life with higher moral benchmarks and to foster local artistic expression through tangible public support and encouragement.
Lukashenko’s remarks framed the shift as a recognition that imported cultural influences should gradually yield space to indigenous traditions. He urged citizens to actively promote their own customs, symbols, and artistic voices, highlighting the vital role that artists and creators play in shaping a robust cultural landscape. The discourse presented culture as something dynamic, capable of evolving under the guidance of a national conscience, a sense of spiritual heritage, and communal responsibility. It portrayed cultural policy not merely as preservation but as a proactive strategy to strengthen the moral fabric of society and to back local arts with concrete measures and state backing that empower creators and communities alike. This perspective emphasized cultural sovereignty while underscoring the need for artistic freedom to contribute to a shared national narrative.
Within remarks tied to his address, Lukashenko also addressed public perceptions of his presidency and upcoming constitutional questions. He asserted that the current constitution was not designed to serve his personal advantage, clarifying that his age and tenure would not justify altering constitutional terms for private benefit. He stressed that constitutional decisions must serve the long-term interests of the country and its citizens rather than personal timelines. The message aimed to reassure listeners that governance would be guided by collective needs and established legal principles instead of individual ambitions, reinforcing a commitment to the rule of law, transparency, and accountable political processes. The overall tone sought to reassure the public that constitutional choices would be made with the people’s welfare in mind, not personal ambitions, and that any changes would adhere to a principled, orderly process.