Belarus has brought its highest scientific ranks under a new layer of political scrutiny. Decree No. 367, reported by the media on 21 October 2026, gives the country’s Security Council a role in checking candidates for the National Academy of Sciences and narrows the space for members to speak or organise publicly.
The same measure reduces the academy’s permitted membership and appears to give President Alexander Lukashenko a route to award academic titles without the usual elections. Taken together, the changes make access to Belarus’s scientific establishment depend on more than research and professional standing.
A security test for scientific candidates
Under the reported provisions, candidates seeking to become academicians or corresponding members of the National Academy of Sciences will be examined for what the authorities classify as “extremism”. The screening could extend to people who have received administrative penalties or who were arrested in the past for taking part in political protests.
A report by Zerkalo said the decree had placed the academy under tighter political control. The report does not establish that every appointment will be decided on political grounds, nor does it show how each future case will be handled. It does, however, describe a formal role for a security body in deciding who can reach the upper tier of the scientific system.
That changes the balance of the selection process. Academic recognition is normally built around the quality of a researcher’s work, professional reputation and the judgement of colleagues in the relevant field. A security review adds another test: how the state interprets a candidate’s previous political conduct.
A past administrative penalty or arrest does not, in itself, say anything about the value of a scientist’s research. It could nevertheless become relevant to a candidacy if it is included in an official assessment. A researcher’s public history would then sit alongside their publications, discoveries and institutional contribution when their career is considered.
The uncertainty may be as influential as any individual decision. If scientists cannot tell which past actions will be treated as disqualifying, they have an incentive to avoid activity that might later be scrutinised. The effect would not require a sweeping purge. Selective exclusions, or simply the prospect of them, could alter who applies and who is prepared to put themselves forward.
Restrictions follow members beyond the laboratory
The decree also prohibits academicians and corresponding members from taking part in organisations, formations or events deemed to have an anti-state orientation. It further bars them from publishing anti-state material on the internet or through personal social-media accounts.
Those terms leave substantial room for official interpretation. A rule that appears to regulate institutional membership can reach into personal accounts, public events and political expression outside the workplace. The status of a senior scientist becomes linked not only to their professional activity, but also to the authorities’ view of their affiliations and statements.
That can encourage self-censorship without every case ending in a visible sanction. Researchers may decline to join public debates, avoid contentious subjects or limit contact with groups and colleagues abroad. Such behaviour is a possible consequence of the framework, not evidence that every member of the academy is already acting under those constraints.
For science, the distinction matters. Research depends on testing accepted ideas, exposing problems and exchanging criticism. Institutions that make advancement contingent on avoiding politically sensitive speech may still produce papers and run laboratories, but the range of questions asked and disagreements aired can gradually narrow.
The restrictions also blur the line between scientific independence and political compliance. A scientist who challenges an institutional decision or comments on public policy may have to consider whether an argument could later be recast as hostile activity. The result is a professional environment in which silence can become the safest career strategy.
Presidential power moves into the appointment process
The reported changes do not stop at screening. They also allow Lukashenko to confer academic titles without the academy’s ordinary elections, creating a direct presidential route into its membership.
The provisions do not identify which people would be appointed in this way or how often the power would be used. Their significance lies in the existence of an alternative to the academy’s internal process. Alongside evaluation by the scientific community, there would be a channel controlled by the presidency.
That gives the head of state influence at the point where academic status is granted, while the Security Council can shape the field of eligible candidates beforehand. The two powers operate at different stages, but together they reduce the academy’s exclusive control over its own composition.
The consequences extend beyond individual honours. Academicians and corresponding members help set research priorities, guide institutions and shape the careers of younger scientists. Deciding who occupies those positions therefore affects which expertise is given authority and who will influence the next generation of Belarusian research.
It also changes the meaning of an academic title. If it can be reached either through professional elections or through a presidential decision, the source of a member’s authority may become harder to separate from the political system that granted it.
A smaller academy, with more at stake
Decree No. 367 reduces the academy’s maximum membership at the same time. The number of academicians is to fall from 100 to 90, while the number of corresponding members will drop from 145 to 120.
A lower ceiling does not by itself prove that appointments will be politically controlled. But fewer positions make each decision more consequential, particularly when candidates are subject to security checks and the president has a direct appointment option. Whoever defines the eligibility rules and interprets the restrictions gains greater influence over a smaller pool of places.
The timing matters for a country already losing specialists and facing continuing international isolation. A narrower academy could mean fewer senior researchers available to lead institutes, supervise programmes and train younger scientists. If political screening further limits the acceptable candidate pool, the institution may lose people whose expertise is strong but whose past conduct is viewed unfavourably by the authorities.
The impact may not appear immediately in publication totals or laboratory results. It could emerge in less visible ways: in the choice of research directors, in the subjects young academics decide not to pursue and in the willingness of experienced specialists to remain in Belarus. Some may leave; others may adjust their public communication or research priorities to fit the boundaries they expect.
International cooperation could suffer as well. Scientific work relies on conferences, joint projects and relationships with institutions abroad. When contacts, public comments or past political activity can become part of a career assessment, researchers may keep their networks narrower and foreign partners may find the academy less independent than its formal role suggests.
The test will be in how the powers are used
The decree’s eventual effect will depend on implementation. Key questions include what the Security Council treats as extremism, how broadly anti-state activity is defined and how often the presidency uses its ability to bypass internal elections. The reported measure creates the tools, but it does not reveal the outcome of every future appointment.
It does establish a new principle for Belarus’s scientific elite: political assessment can stand at the gate to the country’s most prestigious research institution. The immediate change is administrative, but the longer-term issue is institutional. If scientific achievement has to compete with an official test of loyalty, the National Academy of Sciences may retain its professional title while losing much of the autonomy that gives that title meaning.
