Anatomy of Schism: Internal Conflicts of Political Emigrations

Continued. Read the first part in “Two Waves, One Risk: How Political Emigration Turns into a Diaspora.”

We have already shown how the structural patterns of the Russian emigration of the 1920s repeat themselves in the Belarusian emigration of the 2020s. Institutions in exile. Financial exhaustion. The loss of interest of host countries. Gradual assimilation. What remained outside the frame is the most painful aspect – internal conflicts.

Today the conflict between Siarhei Tsikhanouski and Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and her Office is no longer a rumour. It is the subject of international press. And it is a reason to look at the situation not as a family drama but as a structural crisis.

Why? Because the models we see are familiar. Russian emigration of the 1920s. Spanish republican of 1939. Iranian diaspora. Cuban. Syrian. Contemporary Russian. The only difference: with the Tsikhanouskis, all of it unfolds in the digital age, where a family quarrel becomes political content within an hour.

Five Types of Capital

Legitimacy in emigration is not a monolith. It is a set of different capitals that may belong to different people.

Symbolic: sacrifice, prison, biography. Media: recognition, audience. Organizational: team, structure, money. Diplomatic: recognition by states and institutions. And the mandate of risk – the right to speak on behalf of those who stayed inside.

In a normal political system, all of this is consolidated around one centre. In emigration – it is scattered. And a struggle begins over whose capital is “genuine”.

There is also a fifth figure, usually forgotten. The one who has neither symbolic nor diplomatic capital but controls resources. Money. Contacts. Logistics. An external patron. He does not claim a public role – and that is precisely why his influence is often underestimated.

With the Tsikhanouskis, Siarhei is symbolic and media capital. Five years of imprisonment. Personal recognition. The reputation of a man who has been through repression.

Sviatlana is diplomatic and organizational. And here precision is needed – the kind that is usually absent from public discussions.

Her international recognition is not universal. And it does not mean recognition as head of state.

The Office’s formulations are cautious: “legitimate representative of Belarusians on the basis of the results of the 2020 elections.” The European Parliament does not recognize Lukashenka – and supports the democratic forces “led by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya.” Ukraine speaks more directly: “For us, she is the head of the United Transitional Cabinet and the leader of the Belarusian democratic forces. But not president.”

This is political recognition. Not legal.

The difference is fundamental. Legal recognition is diplomatic immunity, the right to sign treaties, to represent the state at the UN. Political recognition is a gesture. It means: “we consider the 2020 elections falsified.” But it does not create a subject of international law.

The recognition of Tsikhanouskaya as “elected president” works as a political signal. Nothing more. And this is not a diminishment – it is precision, without which analysis turns into propaganda.

Now the Office. It has administrative control, and this is not an abstraction. It is a concrete set of resources: access to the calendar (who and when gets into the schedule), control over the press service, control over international contacts, distribution of resources.

Whoever controls the calendar controls the agenda. Even if formally the leader makes the decision – the range of questions that reach him or her has already been filtered. That is why the episode with the “cancelled CNN interview” in New York acquired such significance. Siarhei was not challenging the interview. He was challenging the Office’s monopoly on shaping Sviatlana’s calendar.

The conflict arises when each bearer of capital considers their capital the only legitimate one. Siarhei: “I suffered, I am the historical leader, I have the right to influence.” The Office: “We are a structure that works. We are professionals. We have the right to discipline.” Both positions are rational. Together they create a conflict that has no institutional resolution.

Six Emigrations: What the Mirror Shows

Russian Emigration of the 1920s

The most direct analogy. Many emigrants expected their stay abroad to last months. The fall of the Bolsheviks, return, restoration. It did not happen. The temporary camp became a permanent political society.

There was a common historical capital: the army, the imperial past, the memory of struggle. But there was no agreement on the future of Russia. Monarchy? Parliamentary republic? Military dictatorship? Some emigrants – the Smenovekhovtsy – argued directly that the Bolsheviks were in some sense acting in the national interest.

Research describes fragmentation into ever smaller groups. Monarchists. Liberals. Eurasians. Mladorossy. Each group claimed the right to speak on behalf of “genuine Russia.” A former or symbolic leader demanded recognition that had already been attached to another organization.

The same structural problem as with the Tsikhanouskis.

And the same figure of an external patron – only in the 1920s these were wealthy emigrants and foreign sponsors supporting competing centres. The patron has no public legitimacy. But through resources he shapes the dependence of the symbolic leader.

One difference: the White emigration was more numerous and included military structures. Siarhei Tsikhanouski does not lead an army. The analogy is not in scale but in mechanism.

Spanish Emigration of 1939

Here is the most precise model of a conflict around a political office.

Negrin against Prieto. Socialists against communists. Competing aid structures: SERE, associated with Negrin, and JARE, controlled by his opponents. This was not a dispute about personalities – it was a struggle for the legitimacy of the government, for control over finances, for the distribution of aid to refugees, for access to international governments, for the right to represent the republican tradition.

The Spanish case is especially important for understanding Prakapyew’s role. SERE and JARE are instruments of political influence created around competing patrons. Whoever controls the channel of resources controls the political line. Siarhei’s American direction becomes just such an alternative channel that Prakapyew seeks to monopolize.

When a political leader is in emigration, the structure that controls the calendar, the press service, international contacts, funds and legal representation acquires power not necessarily proportional to personal popularity. A person with a stronger historical or moral reputation may turn out to be organizationally dependent on a less known team. This is the central conflict of Tsikhanouski with the Office: who is the bearer of legitimacy – the person or the apparatus.

Iranian Diaspora

A different type of conflict. Monarchists, republicans, the left, MEK, liberals, national minorities, federalists – all against the Islamic Republic. But no agreement on the future of the state.

Who will become the transitional leader? Monarchy or republic? Centralized or federal state? Who controls external funding? Which forces have the right to negotiate with Western countries?

The phrase “we are all against the regime” does not create political unity. It is an illusion that collapses at the first question about the future.

And again – competing patrons. Pahlavi supporters, MEK structures, republicans: each camp has its own sponsors and organizers, not necessarily public politicians. Prakapyew in this framework is a typical competing patron.

With the Tsikhanouskis, the dispute has not yet reached such an ideological scale. But the logic is similar. Sviatlana – institutional, diplomatic, coalition approach. Siarhei – personalized politics, direct communication, an independent channel of influence, especially in the USA.

The main risk of the Iranian scenario: personal conflict replaces programmatic conflict. The emigration stops discussing the future of the country and starts discussing who humiliated whom, who owes what to whom, who paid for housing, who was not given an invitation, who has more personal merits.

In September 2026 this shift manifested in the public dispute between the Tsikhanouskis about the rehabilitation of their son and family contribution. Siarhei refuted the version in which Sviatlana appeared as the only person caring for the child. And at the same time criticized the political biography created by her Office. This is the substitution: a dispute about the future of the country turned into a dispute about personal merits.

Cuban Emigration

After 1959 – hundreds of organizations. Batista supporters, democrats, liberal anti-communists, left-wing opponents of Castro, groups seeking to restore property and the previous order.

All agreed: the regime must change. They disagreed on the main thing: what comes after. Restoration of previous institutions? Continuation of social transformations? Liberal democracy?

Cuban groups competed for American support, for access to radio and newspapers, for influence over the future administration, for the right to speak on behalf of the Cuban people. In the press, emigrant leaders not only attacked Castro – they argued with each other, pre-emptively taking places in the future government.

Here is a direct parallel with Prakapyew. The American direction is the main resource. Access to Washington is not merely a diplomatic channel but political capital convertible into influence within the diaspora. A patron controlling access to the American political system gains power over the leader himself.

Syrian Opposition

The Syrian National Council and later the National Coalition claimed the role of official representative of the revolution. But they did not control all armed groups, civil councils, activists inside Syria.

Between emigrant politicians and people on the ground – deep distrust. Syrian activists accused the emigration structures: far from real suffering, dependent on foreign states, fighting for positions, poorly controlling the situation inside the country, claiming representation without a real mandate.

Emigration leaders replied: it is precisely we who are capable of talking to governments, receiving international aid, creating a diplomatic coalition.

An almost universal dilemma of emigrant politics: people inside the country possess experience and risk, people abroad possess resources and access to the outside world. Prakapyew in this framework is an external organizer: he proposes to Siarhei the role of an alternative centre, but has no mandate from those inside Belarus.

Siarhei after his release might have believed that his direct experience of imprisonment gave him a special right to speak on behalf of Belarusian society. Sviatlana’s Office might have believed that international representation requires a professional structure, not a revision of decisions depending on personal emotions. Both positions are rational. Each becomes destructive if it denies the other.

Contemporary Russian Emigration

After 2022 – not one centre but many. Liberal journalists, human rights defenders, anti-war activists, businesspeople, regional groups, former officials, people who left for personal reasons.

The main conflict is status-based. Who has the right to speak on behalf of “new Russia”? Who represents citizens inside the country? Who can accept money from Western foundations? Who maintains a connection with Russian society? Who is a political leader and who is only a media one?

The same figure of a media patron as with Prakapyew. The one who supports a promising leader, providing a platform, contacts, funding. Such patrons rarely hold public positions. But they control access to audiences and resources.

Siarhei is a figure with high personal recognition but without a mature organization. Sviatlana is a leader around whom an international institutional network already exists. Conflicts of this type arise between four types of capital: moral, media, organizational, diplomatic. None replaces the others. A person may be a symbol but not a manager. May be a good diplomat but without mass support. May possess media recognition but be unable to build coalitions.

Comparative Table

Emigration	Main internal conflict	Analogy with the Tsikhanouskis	How it ended or is developing
Russian, 1918–1920	Monarchists, liberals, socialists, military argued about Russia’s future	Historical symbol and former leader do not coincide with the new organizational system	Fragmentation into movements; no single centre emerged
Spanish, 1939–1940	Negrin against Prieto, dispute over government and funds	Conflict between legitimacy, leadership and control over resources	Competing aid bodies and political centres
Iranian, after 1979	Monarchists, republicans, the left, MEK	Struggle against the regime did not create agreement on the future	Diaspora remains fragmented
Cuban, after 1959	Democrats, Batista supporters, left-wing anti-Castro groups	Struggle for the right to define the “true” opposition	Influential but heterogeneous diaspora
Syrian, after 2011	Emigration leaders against activists inside the country	Office abroad claims representation without control	Distrust weakened the opposition’s legitimacy
Russian, after 2022	Liberals, nationalists, media centres	Competition of moral, media, organizational capital	No single centre
Belarusian, 2020s	Siarhei Tsikhanouski against Sviatlana’s Office	Symbolic capital against organizational and diplomatic	Conflict continues

Seven Types of Conflict

First: conflict of two legitimacies. One leader says: “I am legitimate because I suffered.” The other: “I am legitimate because I created a working structure.” With the Tsikhanouskis this is formulated as follows. Siarhei relies on the experience of a political prisoner, blogger, one of the symbols of 2020. Sviatlana – on the result of the presidential campaign, international recognition, the created Office. The problem arises when one legitimacy is declared the only genuine one.

Second: conflict of person and apparatus. The leader expects the structure to be an extension of his will. The apparatus believes the leader must follow communication rules. This happened in Spain, Cuba, Syria, in the Russian emigration. With the Tsikhanouskis this manifested in questions of interviews, trips, awards, the press service, access to international contacts.

Third: conflict of the old leader and the new reality. After a long absence a person returns and discovers: the name survived, the team changed, allies became independent, the agenda moved forward, and the family partner turned into a public leader. This is close to the experience of Russian military emigrants who expected a quick return but faced a new reality and gradual loss of influence.

Fourth: conflict between the centre abroad and society inside the country. The structure controls external connections but not society at home. Two mandates arise: the mandate of risk and the mandate of access. If they are not connected – mutual accusations begin, of being out of touch with reality or lacking professionalism.

Fifth: conflict over resources. Not only about money. Resources are invitations, visas, interviews, awards, grants, trips, access to presidents and parliaments, the right to speak on behalf of the country, the attention of independent media. The Magnitsky Award story shows how an organizational episode becomes a political symbol: Siarhei saw exclusion from the system, the Office – an ordinary communication problem. A special subtype – the struggle for control over the channel of resources. With the Tsikhanouskis this is Siarhei’s American direction, supported by Prakapyew.

Sixth: conflict of personal and collective history. Leaders try to prove not only political rightness but also a personal right to recognition: who did more, who took greater risk, who supported the family, who saved the organization. With the Tsikhanouskis this conflict entered the family sphere. The dispute about the rehabilitation of the child became a continuation of the dispute about whose merits were underestimated.

Seventh: conflict between unity and pluralism. The Office demands discipline: a single voice, a single diplomatic line, coordinated statements. An independent leader demands pluralism: the possibility to argue publicly, criticize the team, propose a separate strategy. Complete unity turns the organization into a closed apparatus. Complete freedom – into a set of personal projects.

Model of the Tsikhanouski Conflict

Four centres and the fifth figure standing behind them.

Siarhei Tsikhanouski – the symbolism of release, personal experience of imprisonment, direct contact with the audience. Weakness: absence of comparable international and organizational infrastructure, confrontational style.

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya – international recognition, the 2020 presidential campaign, diplomatic connections, the formed Office. The nature of recognition is heterogeneous: winner of elections in some capitals, head of transitional structures in others, national leader in still others. There is no formal recognition as head of state in any case. Vulnerability: dependence on apparatus communication, accusations that the structure is distancing itself from other political centres.

Sviatlana’s Office – institutional memory, professional diplomacy, international contacts, administrative control. Access to the calendar, control over the press service, control over international contacts, distribution of resources. Whoever controls the calendar controls the agenda. Even if formally the leader makes the decision, the range of questions that reach him or her is filtered by advisers. Vulnerability of the Office: perception as a closed circle of advisers who control access to Sviatlana and make decisions without sufficient transparency.

Siarhei’s independent allies – seek to turn him from the leader’s spouse into a separate political brand. Resource: the ability to propose an alternative agenda. Weakness: the risk of intensifying the personal conflict and presenting the struggle for autonomy as a struggle for power.

External patron (Vadzim Prakapyew) – not a public politician. Does not claim legitimacy. Controls resources: financing trips, organizing trainings, providing contacts, shaping the media plan. Through this control he gains influence without holding a formal position.

The Figure of Prakapyew

Prakapyew is not a random ally. He had his own long-standing conflict with Sviatlana’s Office, which arose long before Siarhei’s release.

He publicly accused the Office of passivity, lack of a plan, inability to move from international diplomacy to practical struggle against the regime. He proposed that Sviatlana play a more symbolic role – following the model of a monarch – while real governance should be carried out by a strong political centre. He formulated it more clearly: the Office became a “ministry of foreign affairs” rather than an instrument of liberation; the team preferred a monopolistic game of consolidation; the transitional cabinet was created hastily and without sufficient resources.

The conflict with the Office did not arise because of Siarhei. Siarhei became a new political channel for Prakapyew. A direct parallel with the Spanish case: competing aid structures arose not because of personal dislike but because of the struggle for control over resources and the political line.

Siarhei himself said that Prakapyew helped him with tickets to the USA, proposed a week-long training on American domestic and foreign policy, wanted to prepare him for independent work in the USA. This is no longer friendly support. It is a patron – political project relationship. Siarhei provides recognition, a dramatic biography, direct access to the audience. Prakapyew – money, contacts, political ideas, organizational direction.

According to open sources, Prakapyew became for Tsikhanouski a “chief political ally and consultant.” He supported the idea of a long-term move to the USA. He said the Belarusian regime would not like it if the democrats gained a strong voice in America.

Prakapyew possesses neither symbolic nor diplomatic capital. But he controls access to resources: finances, contacts, logistics. A classic external patron. His power is not publicly visible but determines the protege’s possibilities.

Sviatlana and her Office – already a formed international system. If Siarhei had joined it, he would have found himself inside someone else’s hierarchy – with the role of spouse, symbol, one of the public participants. The American project allowed him to become a separate political leader, an independent speaker, a representative of the Belarusian theme in the USA, a possible intermediary between the opposition and American politicians, an alternative centre of influence.

For Prakapyew this is also advantageous. He received not just an ally but a figure with far greater symbolic recognition than his own. Siarhei could be for Prakapyew what Sviatlana herself became for the opposition after 2020: a person with broad symbolic capital around whom political infrastructure can be built.

The parallel with the Cuban emigration is direct. The American direction becomes the main resource for which emigrant groups struggle. Access to Washington is not merely a diplomatic channel but political capital convertible into influence within the diaspora.

Political and personal benefit for Prakapyew. Creating a separate line for Siarhei weakens the monopoly of Sviatlana’s Office, forces Tsikhanouskaya to reckon with an alternative centre, gives access to the American political audience, turns the Belarusian theme into a question discussed not only in Vilnius and Warsaw but also in Washington, allows him to take the role of chief adviser, to prove the correctness of his own criticism of the Office.

The personal factor also matters. Prakapyew’s project to create the “Pahonia” regiment did not turn into an independent large structure. He himself said that the idea of a full-fledged regiment failed, and the personnel dispersed to different units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Supporting Siarhei gave him the opportunity to return to the centre of the Belarusian political discussion, replace the failed project with a new one, and promote his American strategy through a more popular figure.

This does not mean a mercenary intent. But the political calculation is obvious. Prakapyew needed a large bearer of legitimacy. Siarhei – a person who would help him quickly enter the American political environment.

Prakapyew resembles several types of figures from the history of political emigration. As part of the Russian White emigration, he thinks in categories of a centre of force, a power bloc, future liberation. But he has no full-fledged army, so political ideas have to be embodied through symbolic leaders and international contacts. Like some leaders of the Spanish and Syrian exile, he acts outside the country, trying to create a government, a diplomatic mission or an alternative political centre. As in the Cuban and Iranian emigration, he supports one figure against another and through this forms his own coalition.

What remains a hypothesis. Open sources confirm Prakapyew’s long-standing public criticism of Sviatlana’s Office, his assistance to Siarhei in organizing trips and political preparation, his role as “chief political ally and consultant,” his interest in the American direction.

But they do not prove that Prakapyew consciously created the conflict from scratch. Do not prove that he fully controls Siarhei. Do not prove that his motive was personal revenge on the Office. Do not prove that a formal plan to replace Sviatlana exists.

The most convincing is the mixed version: political conviction, personal grievance over exclusion from the decision-making centre, and the desire to regain influence converged in one project around Siarhei.

Vadzim Prakapyew probably did not create the conflict between Siarhei and Sviatlana from scratch. However, he could have become its main political amplifier: propose to Siarhei an independent American trajectory, provide initial resources, shape an alternative interpretation of events, direct personal dissatisfaction against Sviatlana’s Office. His possible benefit – restoration of his own influence and creation of a political centre in which Siarhei would be the leader and Prakapyew the closest strategist. Prakapyew himself formulates this differently: “Behind Tsikhanouski stands Vadzim Prakapyew – his chief political ally and consultant.”

The figure of Prakapyew shows: the Tsikhanouski conflict does not reduce to a family drama or a dispute about leadership. It is a classic conflict of emigrant politics, in which an external patron, lacking public legitimacy, through control over resources forms an alternative centre of influence. This model was reproduced in the Russian, Spanish, Cuban, and Iranian emigrations. The only difference: with the Tsikhanouskis this conflict unfolds in the digital age, where any episode instantly becomes public.

Five Limitations of the Analogy

First: there is no civil war in Belarus. No mass military evacuation and no split along army lines.

Second: there is no government-in-exile in the classical sense. Sviatlana’s Office possesses international recognition but is not a full-fledged state.

Third: Siarhei and Sviatlana are a married couple. Personal claims here intertwine with political ones more strongly than in any historical analogy.

Fourth: events unfold in a digital environment. Any family quarrel instantly turns into political content. Supporters form around individual videos and posts.

Fifth: the figure of the external patron becomes publicly visible. In historical emigrations, the role of sponsors and organizers often remained in the shadows. In Prakapyew’s case, his influence is discussed in the press, and Sviatlana’s adviser Franak Viachorka publicly comments on his actions. This makes the structural conflict more transparent – and at the same time more vulnerable to external interpretations.

This is not a repetition of the Russian emigration of the 1920s. It is a hybrid: the Spanish dispute over political legitimacy, the Syrian conflict between emigration and society inside the country, contemporary digital competition of personal brands.

Conclusion

The deepest similarity between historical emigrations and the Tsikhanouski conflict is not in ideology. It is in the structure of power.

After emigration, the previous political hierarchy is destroyed. In its place – several types of authority. The one who was the first to start the struggle. The one who suffered. The one who received international recognition. The one who controls the organization. The one who attracts an audience. The one who possesses resources. The one who is able to speak with society inside the country.

When all these types of authority belong to one person – the conflict is limited. When divided – a struggle for representation begins.

With the Tsikhanouskis, Siarhei and Sviatlana possess different parts of political legitimacy. Behind Siarhei stands an external patron who controls resources but does not claim a public role. The conflict cannot be explained only by personal incompatibility or poor work of individual advisers. It is a dispute about who is the subject of the Belarusian political emigration: a historical leader, an internationally recognized leader, an apparatus, an external patron, or a broad coalition.

Historical examples show that such a conflict becomes manageable under three conditions. The parties recognize each other’s different types of legitimacy. Financial and organizational procedures become transparent. Personal family claims are separated from public political activity.

Without this, emigration fragments not because it lacks a common enemy. But because it lacks an agreed answer to the question: what should happen after victory and who will have the right to declare it.

---

Author: Klement Vileiski Editorial: Acta Fragilia

The article was prepared on the basis of a comparative analysis of internal conflicts of political emigrations of the 20th–21st centuries. All conclusions are analytical and do not claim to be final historical assessments. Formulations concerning Vadzim Prakapyew are in the nature of a verifiable hypothesis, not an established fact.