Communism's Best Feature is Preserved in Belarus
Belarus Communal Land

Forest Color -- Forest           Agriculture and other public land -- Agriculture and other public green space

Click to enlarge image.  Map Data (c) OpenStreetMap.

Communal land ownership has a profound positive impact on biodiversity, wealth equality and access to green space.

Legally mandated communal land was first enacted in the Soviet Constitution and, with the spread of Communism, came to cover Eurasia. It is still central to the ideology of the five remaining single-party Communist countries: China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and North Korea. Besides them, Belarus is the only country where communal land ownership is still enshrined in the constitution. 

Belarus today consists mostly of forests and farmland, and also boasts the largest remaining swamps in Europe. All of it is communally owned land. By virtue of the fact that so much land has been left untouched, Belarus is a hotbed of biodiversity.

The most tangible benefit of communal land ownership is the almost total absence of car-dependent suburban development. Apartment living is the norm, and detached single-family homes are limited to small lots clustered around population centers (the land under detached homes is rented to the homeowner on a 100 year lease). Apartment buildings have attached yards and playgrounds. Children walk to school and have easy access to green space. Older people don’t lose their mobility when their driving skills degrade.

Communal land is also great for recreation and tourism. There are tranquil off-road forest and agriculture bike trails all over the country. River tourism is also very popular, and river banks are kept in their natural state even in cities.

If you go farther from Minsk, you can find timeless car-free villages that exist in the West only at theme parks. In cities, sidewalks are extra wide, easily accommodating pedestrian and bike traffic.

Agro Tourism

Still, the future of communal land ownership is not assured. Following the disputed election in 2020, the Belarusian opposition gained international recognition and funding to form a government-in-exile. They drafted a democratic constitution with the help of 28 international experts (all from countries with privatized land). The opposition-sponsored document would repeal all constitutional protections for land and allow mass privatization. This makes it toxic for the Communists and crypto-Communists that form the Belarusian ruling elite, as well as for ordinary citizens who would lose access to green space.

The current Belarusian constitution and the opposition version actually have a lot in common. Both provide for basic human rights like housing, free universal medical care and a healthy environment. The constitution can gradually evolve to bring it into line with Western norms, but the large-scale land privatization that the opposition envisions would be an irreversible mistake.

The Baltic and Warsaw Pact countries lived under Communism for little more than 40 years, and they were able to return confiscated land to its original owners or their direct descendants. After a century of communal land ownership, Belarus does not have that option. 

People here fear a repeat of the catastrophic Russian privatization that began in the 1990’s. Huge swaths of land went to wealthy insiders like the billionaire wife of Moscow’s infamous mayor Yuri Luzhkov, who ended up with 175,000 acres. The oligarchs did even better, as they grabbed land above huge oil and mineral deposits.

Even if Belarus could avoid the Russian scenario, any land privatization scheme would have far-reaching consequences. Suburbanization and car dependence, with all their environmental harms, would increase. Rich people would inevitably end up owning the land, and class divisions would be aggravated. Biodiversity would be lost as nature itself is privatized, and city dwellers would lose access to it.

Global heating is forcing a reappraisal of the development schemes used in the West. Communal land ownership gives Belarus a proven model for sustainable development: dense, tight-knit settlements surrounded by expansive public green space.