Uladzimir Matskevich: It is not necessary to waste one's breath

The latest examples with the arrest of the student-photographer and the detentions of the ecologists have shown once again the Belarusan reality to those who still believe that public work should be out of politics. What can Belarus’ civil society...

The latest examples with the arrest of the student-photographer and the detentions of the ecologists have shown once again the Belarusan reality to those who still believe that public work should be out of politics. What can Belarus’ civil society answer when it is accused of excessive politicization and how can it resist the forces interfering with the strengthening of common positions in the circle of democracy-oriented citizens?

The EuroBelarus Information Service has addressed these questions to the chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of the EaP CSF National Platform Uladzimir Matskevich who is sure that anyway there will always be reproaches concerning the tactics and strategy of actions, "I do not see another way, but to talk, argue, and convince".

Life teaches nothing

- There is such a foolish expression - "Life will teach and sort things out". Not at all. Never has history taught anybody anything yet. In the same way - life, per se, will not sort things out. Life can kill somebody, cripple, bring someone to the top, glory, prosperity, riches, but not to teach anything. Therefore, a person who has unintentionally become rich can be quickly ruined, having learned nothing. A person who has received national glory and recognition can be a fool and villain. So, life teaches nothing. People are taught by other people and reflections, analysis, comparisons. The recent incident with Tatiana Novikova and Irina Sukhiy, probably, has taught themselves something. But other people, especially those who cannot talk about it with them, are taught nothing by this case. Someone can really believe that Irina Sukhy is able to use foul language on the porch of an office building; someone considers that the ecologists have committed certain errors. Many people will stick to the positions, which have been indoctrinated to them for decades - politics is a dirty business; in our country, it is only the president who is engaged in politics, etc. For this reason, our task is to convince people that it is not like that.

Without a struggle, there is no development

- Inside the National Platform, its own micro-political struggle can already be observed. There are some factions united by common interests - as in any association of people. In any small labor collective, in any small village, there are always separate interests and groupings, which clash with each other, compete. And there is nothing terrible in it. It is important that this struggle were conducted in civilized frameworks, cultural forms, and promoted progress and development, but did not turn into a squabble absorbing all participants. I am convinced that without a struggle, without a competition, without opposition, there can be no development. It is impossible to foreknow intuitionally the truth. We can only come nearer to the truth. And we can come closer to it only through disputes, conflicts, confrontation. In this sense, in any public association, there are people who adhere to various points of view, and everyone is ready to insist on his/her own position. The only thing is whether these people can not only criticize, but also self-criticize? Whether they are able to see in the opinion of the opponent something that can improve their own position? Therefore, in any conflict, it is important not to avoid the conflict itself, but to treat it in a civilized manner.

We should not mill about

- We learn lessons and we treat seriously opinions of our opponents, especially if we hear them for the first time. Another thing is that we have heard many of these opinions already for way too many times. We have already discussed these questions years ago and made certain decisions, even though not the best ones. But the decisions accepted then, as a result, have led to the progress of the National Platform. These questions are already in the past - though many people even do not know about it. Therefore, periodically, there appear the theses, which we analyzed and criticized long time ago. In order not to mill about and not to roll constantly back, it is necessary to involve history in such conflicts and discussions, to remind people that we did already solve some questions long time ago and we did develop a consolidated position. But it turns out that we always have some people who want to begin all over again - today I am not interested in politics, but suddenly something has touched me or agitated me, and I have thought for the first time about politics. After that, I, clever and revolted, come to a political party or a public organization where I propose my solutions of problems. Of course, not everything that was here before you will be right, but you at least have to learn what was there before you. Otherwise - be ready that nobody will listen to you.

Nobody hampers anybody’s activity

- Within the framework of the National Platform, we often face situations when people come with ideas, which seem to them to be correct and good. But we have already tried them and got convinced that these ideas, for example, do not work. Or people come with ideas, but without considering the real resources. Here, it would be great to bring people to the streets, a rally with 100 thousand participants. Certainly; of course; great. But how? They say, there is the Internet. I personally have checked it and I know the efficiency of the Internet. But people, instead of checking it up, start to say, “You understand nothing; you have become outdated; you are a skeptic.” OK. You do it! I cannot enforce my vision and understanding upon you. My life experience, my work experience cannot help those who do not want to listen to me. All this complicates my movement, complicates the consolidation of people around me. Well, let it be! In that case, you can act independently in the way you consider it necessary. Who hampers you?

It is impossible to leave politics behind

- Today there are already two stable points of view concerning the interaction with the authorities. The first point of view - it is impossible to agree with these authorities; they understand nothing and reckon with nobody. The second point of view - after all, there are people as well there; it is possible to agree on these or those questions with them. We even know some people in power with whom it is possible to agree. And between these two extreme points of view - there are intermediate ones. For example, we know that in power there are many good people, professional, responsible, diligent. They are compelled to obey the rules of the system in which they work. And they are ready to talk, but only if they are not forbidden to do so. But the thing is that these conversations cannot be fruitful because these worthy people do not accept any important decisions or their decisions are not independent and final. It turns out that today in the country we simply do not have the people in power with whom it is possible to talk about the necessity of reforms or to discuss any important questions. With whom did the ecologists wanted to talk about the atomic power station building? With the head of this building? With the chairperson of the Ostrovets District Executive Committee? With the Minister of Energy? With the Prime Minister? With the head of the Presidential Administration? About what can you possibly agree with them concerning this question? After all, it is absolutely clear who makes such decisions in Belarus. But to agree with the president - it is already politics.

Behind beliefs there is always force

- Take any question - a privatization question, a question of the Belarusan language, a question of everybody’s dactyloscopy, a question of building a technopark in Smolevichi by a Chinese construction company... Whomever you may want to talk with - all these questions are solved at the top level. It is politics. And still, nobody has enough force to present any strong arguments and mechanisms of influence concerning any question. Even if all inhabitants of any residential area address with one general question to the president, it will not lead to what many people expect - to 100 thousand people on the streets. Therefore, none of Belarusan initiatives has any forces to influence the persons who make decisions in the country. Imagine you are a parent whose child declares that he/she does not want to go to school, but wants to play with children in a kindergarten. You try to convince him/her, but the answer is “I don’t want”. What shall you do? You force your kid whom you cannot convince. Yes, more often than not, in the case with their child the parents manage to convince him/her because the position of a child is weak; the kid just does not consider culture, the parents’ jobs, socialization, and many pedagogical factors. But after all – in the same way the inhabitants of Smolevichi, opposing the technopark, do not consider many aspects. For dictatorship - they are as a child who does not know much. And the Belarusan dictatorship very often treats the Belarusan people like a child. It tries to convince people with simple arguments. When the people show obstinacy, it uses force.

Any purpose has its price

- Before going to negotiations with the authorities, it is necessary to take care of two things. The first one - your arguments should be not childish but serious; they should be able to block arguments of the authorities. But neither inhabitants of a separate area, nor group of ecologists can independently work out such arguments. It takes joint efforts of scientific centers, experts, project makers, scientists, etc. And the second one - the authorities, understanding that their arguments are quite weak, resort to force. What can you propose as a reply? Brutal force can be used against anyone - like it was on the Square in December 2010. Force can be applied against a professor with a status; this force will deprive him of this status, social capital, job, etc. The authorities have a whole set of various ways and mechanisms of using this force. For this reason, I constantly call to study successful precedents of opposition to the authorities. For this reason, I think that we should have positions when the authorities cannot do anything against us, without resorting to criminal methods. For this reason, I call for determination the people who are ready to pay a certain price for their aspirations and purposes. And if you are not ready to pay the high price for the achieving of results, then it is not necessary to waste your breath and it is not necessary to pretend that you need it.