Serfdom is rather a difficult concept as it means different things in different countries. The serfdom of the high European feudalism was not really like the serfdom in Russia where it went on till 1861. That was more like slavery as the peasants who had originally been tied to the land while their masters were tied to service to the Tsar until Catherine II freed them from it, became, by various gradations, those masters' property who could be bought, sold or gambled away. The difference between that and the slavery in the American South was that the Russian peasants (serfs or slaves) were still liable for military duty and were taxed through their village commune.
Is this what President Lukashenka has in mind? Well, no, not quite.
According to this blog in the Financial Times [you have to register to read it and other blogs but it is free]
Lukashenko has announced plans to introduce legislation prohibiting farm labourers from quitting their jobs and moving to the cities. “Yesterday, a decree was put on my table concerning – we are speaking bluntly – serfdom,” the Belarus leader told a meeting on Tuesday to discuss improvements to livestock farming, gazeta.ru reported.What it really reminds one of is the position of the peasants in the Soviet Union after collectivization ( the ones who survived the process, the subsequent state induced famine and deportation). They were all members of kolkhozes (collective farms) and sovkhozes (state farms) but, unlike other citizens of that great country, they had no passports by which, of course, I mean internal passports since nobody had foreign ones. Without a passport you could not go anywhere in the country so the peasants were tied to the land. They could not leave their kolkhozes unless their turn for military service came or they were arrested for nor fulfilling their plan or making nasty comments or even jokes about it.
The serfdom decree would beef up the power of regional governors and “teach the peasants to work more efficiently,” Lukashenko said. Governors who failed to ensure timely and efficient harvests in their regions would get the sack, he added.
One can't help wondering whether the "Governors who failed to ensure timely and efficient harvests in their regions" would merely get the sack. If so, times have certainly become more lenient but the outcome from the point of view of production will be the same: a disaster.