Belarus offers an exceptional case of an authoritarian State in Europe. The functioning and legitimating of a specific political regime is operated trough the message about history and identity of the country. In order to analyse the fragility of Belarusian historians who acquiesce to authoritarianism and write history on "political command" we can recourse to the paradigm of personal strategies suggested by A. O. Hirschman. This theory suggests three types of reaction which actors can adapt towards the system: Exit means leaving the system by protest, Voice means expressing disagreement and Loyalty refers to allegiance to the system. According to the A. O. Hirschman paradigm, the Belarusian historians are loyal, they accept manifestly the rules of the system. We need to introduce the concept of Pragmatism suggested by G. Bajoit in order to explain the choice of historians to stay in the system without protesting. The category of Pragmatism allows us to seize subtleties of cases, which do not enter into too large and too inclusive concepts of A. O. Hirschman. The ‘posted - up’ pragmatic Loyalty, which is the only possible option in Belarusian context. The most important consequence, which implies pragmatic opportunism of historians is the acceptance of political control. Historians, who agree with the social rules, even without approving them, contribute to maintain, to reproduce and to legitimise the authoritarian rules. Belarusian social and political system, which is anchored in Soviet heritage, makes the Voice more improbable than Exit. The political control under the history writing is way of legitimating of an authoritarian State.
