Belarusian state media are preparing the public for a measure that could strip political exiles of their citizenship. The proposed route would target people born in Belarus who live abroad and have been convicted of “extremist activity” or of causing serious harm to state interests.
It would also put President Alexander Lukashenko’s government in direct tension with Article 10 of Belarus’s Constitution, which prohibits depriving people born in the country of their citizenship. No mass revocation has been established: the immediate development is a campaign presenting the possibility as legally available and politically defensible.
A constitutional guarantee under strain
The reported campaign, covered by Belsat, points to presidential decrees and disputed provisions of Belarus’s citizenship law as the potential legal machinery. Under the approach being discussed, a court conviction would provide the formal basis for deprivation, while the person’s residence abroad would be an additional condition.
That combination matters. Leaving Belarus would not merely be a fact about a person’s circumstances; it could become part of the punishment. Someone remaining in the country might face prosecution or imprisonment. Someone who had left could face a conviction and then lose the legal connection to the state that issued their passport and other documents.
A conviction would not, by itself, settle the constitutional question. Article 10 is an explicit protection for people born in Belarus, and an executive decree or ordinary law cannot automatically override it. The dispute would be sharper in politically sensitive cases, particularly where the underlying offences are framed in broad language and the courts operate within an authoritarian system.
“Extremist activity” is already a prominent label in the Belarusian authorities’ cases against opposition figures, independent organisations and critical voices. “Serious harm to state interests” could provide another wide category for characterising political conduct as a threat. The actual reach of the measure would depend on the wording of future decrees, the convictions used to justify it and the administrative procedures that followed.
Why the threat is aimed beyond Belarus
Ales Mikhalevich, a Belarusian lawyer who is now a member of the Czech Bar Association, has described such practices as characteristic of totalitarian regimes. He argues that the principal purpose would be to curb the political activity of the Belarusian diaspora.
Much of the country’s opposition work now takes place outside Belarus. Activists and journalists in exile run media projects, organise support networks, document alleged abuses and seek backing from foreign governments. A citizenship measure would add a further lever to the pressure created by criminal cases, extremist designations and proceedings held without defendants present.
The effect could begin before the first large-scale revocation. People abroad might think twice before attending a demonstration, publishing criticism, donating to an opposition organisation or maintaining visible links with political groups. Relatives and contacts inside Belarus could also become more cautious about their relationships with émigré activists.
That is the practical force of an unclear threat. The authorities would not need to publish a complete list of prohibited behaviour for uncertainty to have a chilling effect. If citizens cannot tell which statements, donations or contacts might later be described as extremist or harmful to state interests, some may limit their activity simply to reduce the risk.
Documents, travel and legal identity
Loss of citizenship would have consequences well beyond its political symbolism. It could complicate the issuing or renewal of documents, restrict access to consular services and make international travel more difficult. The impact would vary from person to person, depending on whether they held another nationality or had a secure residence status in their host country.
Statelessness would not follow automatically in every case. It could, however, become a serious concern for people without another citizenship or stable legal status abroad. The precise consequences cannot be assessed until the relevant decrees and procedures are known, but the potential harm is clear: a person could lose the formal protection of their own state while remaining exposed to decisions taken in absentia.
The proposal also raises questions under international law. Critics regard politically motivated deprivation of citizenship as incompatible with international norms, although the definitive legal assessment would depend on the final rules and their application. The constitutional conflict is more immediate: a safeguard written into Article 10 could be treated by the authorities as an obstacle to work around rather than a rule to follow.
A problem for a future government
Mikhalevich points to the Czech Republic and Poland, where, after the fall of communist rule and the establishment of democratic governments, citizenship was restored to some people who had previously been deprived of it. His comparison suggests the potential legacy of the current policy.
If citizenship is used against political opponents, a future Belarusian government could face demands to reverse the decisions, restore documents and repair the practical damage. That would involve more than correcting a register. It could require restoring access to travel, consular protection and other rights connected to citizenship.
For now, the key development is the public normalisation of the threat, not evidence that Belarus has already begun a mass revocation. The next test will be whether the campaign produces concrete decrees, convictions and administrative acts. For the diaspora, the warning is already significant: leaving Belarus may no longer provide dependable legal distance from the state’s political reach.
