Yauheni Preiherman: It is necessary to seek for non-categorical formulations

The European Dialogue on Modernization with Belarusan society has a high potential, but meanwhile is not very constructive, and sessions of some working groups do look like a slapstick comedy. Such an opinion was expressed in the interview to the...

The European Dialogue on Modernization with Belarusan society has a high potential, but meanwhile is not very constructive, and sessions of some working groups do look like a slapstick comedy. Such an opinion was expressed in the interview to the EuroBelarus Information Service by one of participants of the dialogue, the director for studies of the Discussion analytical community “Liberal Club” Yauheni Preiherman.

“To cry with one eye and laugh with the other” - this is what the English would say about many Belarusan expert opinions and evaluations. To carry two faces under one hood - to say one thing, but to think absolutely another one - this practice is unfortunately rather widespread in our realities.

In his recent publication “Five first problems of the European Dialogue on Modernization with Belarusan society”, analyst Yauheni Preiherman has expressed a number of ambiguous opinions concerning the problems and prospects of the dialogue on modernization. In spite of the fact that it is easy to speak, but it is difficult to do, the representative of the “Liberal Club” has agreed to discuss the sharpest and most pressing questions.

“It is necessary to kindle the Belarusan authorities’ interest”

- You write “of course, nobody has illusions that official Minsk can be so easily attracted to take part in the program. However, at least, it is necessary to refuse actions and formulations, which automatically make such participation impossible”. Could you please specify what actions and formulations you mean?

- We do remember that Štefan Füle, when he declared the launching of the dialogue on modernization, officially said that this dialogue is aimed at the Belarusan opposition. Certainly, we can understand the first part of this formulation, where it mentions Belarusan society, as a very wide one, but for the authorities the accent is on the part in this formulation where it concerns the Belarusan opposition.

- What are the concrete steps in order to attract the state structures to this dialogue, in your opinion? In what formulations? And what is needed to be done so that the authorities would enter this dialogue?

- First, it is necessary to refuse the current formulations, to change them in the documents as well. Second, the Belarusan authorities should be informed that the Europeans are really interested in making the present Belarusan authorities participate in the dialogue, especially in the spheres, which have a practical value for the country. After that, it is necessary to begin a conversation on concrete, program things, which can be of interest to the Belarusan state. It is necessary to get the authorities interested in the questions, which they consider the most actual today. There are such topics, and it is necessary to inform them particularly that already today, despite all disagreements and sanctions, there is a possibility to speak about concrete directions. Technical meetings at the diplomatic level should be extended; it is necessary to expand the subjects of these meetings, to involve in these conversations our officials of the average and low levels. Thus, I do consider that in this respect there are no illusions because it is absolutely clear how in Belarus all EU initiatives are being perceived. To create another perception of this program in today's conditions is a rather difficult task. Nevertheless, it makes sense to try to change this perception. I personally think it is valuable even to carry out these separate meetings, round tables with attraction of officials who live disconnectedly from the world and from discussions in civil society. I see that the people, who work in the state structures, are basically ready to participate in this work for the sake of the prospect. But if to speak substantially, they simply do not know many things and have no idea of the discussion that is going on now in civil society.

- Hardly do you believe that the dialogue on modernization can be conducted only with representatives of the power?

- Of course, not only. We perfectly understand all existing problems and that it is one of few channels with the help of which it is possible to involve the opposition in the discussion. From my point of view, it is necessary to seek for non-categorical formulations. But today I still see that the formulations just look categorical.

“The absence of procedures hampers the dialogue”

- Can you offer certain elaborated and less categorical formulations, which could become an alternative to the present ones?

- It can sound as a program for Belarus in which all interested parties take part, including the state structures and the opposition. And today, it seems to me, it is more important to talk already about secret negotiations. And I would emphasize it. But, as I understand, the very format of this dialogue irritates the authorities. When they see it, they simply jump aside from it as if from something absolutely unacceptable. For this reason, I believe that the formulations are to be changed for something more attractive and understandable for everybody.

- Doesn’t it seem to you that in this case official Minsk will insist in general on a bilateral format of the dialogue with official Brussels?

- Certainly, at the diplomatic level, Belarus will constantly speak about its readiness to participate in discussions without attraction of anyone else. Here, there is another question. Regardless of all complexities in these relations, thematic meetings between Belarus and the EU take place from time to time anyway. And I see the benefit already in the increase of the quantity of these thematic meetings within the framework of the dialogue. Let it be seminars, lectures, with a neutral character, but they can be fruitful as well.

- You are a participant of the dialogue on modernization; you are a member of one of working groups. Have you shared your suggestions concerning the formulations and, if yes, how have other participants treated it, including Europeans?

- I was not present at the first meeting. But during the second one I saw absolute chaos in the teamwork of the third and fourth working groups. And basically, the things that I have written about it in the publication are my general observations concerning the dialogue on modernization with Belarus, which need to be discussed in the first turn, from my point of view. I raised some questions during the last meeting and I discussed them with representatives of the EU. One of the key problems, which I have outlined, is the absence of procedures within the framework of the dialogue. Meanwhile, it is difficult to say in what format we will discuss it, but personally I will ask this question anyway.

“Expert programs instead of political ones”

- As for the purposes of the dialogue, you write, “... However, these tasks have an abstract character. They do not describe clearly the result that the European Dialogue should achieve. The experts of the thematic working groups have no accurate and uniform understanding of the purposes of the program. Also, the European diplomats participating in sessions of the groups cannot answer the question about the end-product”. Then, you specify 4 positions concerning the purposes, which are voiced at sessions. Still, it is not clear who expresses these positions or who, what subjects set such purposes?

- I shall underline that it is a question of the third and fourth groups. The process of substantial work seems to have started yet, but the participants meanwhile have a rather vague idea about the purposes we are going to achieve. I perfectly understand that not always is it possible to formulate from the very beginning the exact and complete purposes, which will not be then transformed during the process. But if we gather as a working group of experts and if we discuss various questions, it should be clear then what result of all this has to be achieved. Will it be a general political program or non-ideologized expert program? Or something else? Or discussion for the sake of discussion can be the goal of the dialogue. Such things must be defined and formulated accurately. This is what I would like to understand first of all. Because only after that I can see my possibilities and suggest something, and as a whole - understand the expediency of my participation in this dialogue.

- What are the purposes that personally you, as a participant of the dialogue, consider the most adequate, necessary, and actual?

- First, it is to work out not a political, but expert program. It is necessary to try to depart from general slogans about what Belarus must be. There should be experts who without any ideological tunnel thinking have to write concrete programs on separate sectors. By the way, it also has to do with the problem of the identity of the participants of the dialogue - when, for example, a participant of a working group cannot understand who he/she is: a representative of a political party or an expert in a certain area?

The second purpose does not contradict the first one - it is to involve as many experts as possible from different groups. There should be communication within the framework of the expert groups, as much as possible deprived of political underlying reasons and political contradictions.

- If you are speaking about independent expert conclusions, then, will representatives of the power be able to be experts who are independent from the current state policy of Belarus?

- We do understand that state employees basically cannot publicly express any independent evaluations. But we do not need to force them to reveal their personal points of view, which, in their majority, will coincide with ours. The most important thing is communication that, first, will help to fill discussions with more realistic information about the state of affairs in Belarus’ economy and, second, will spur the decrease of unfriendliness in relations between representatives of state structures and civil society. Therefore, it is necessary to eliminate the barriers, which do not let these people take part in the teamwork.

“I am a participant of this slapstick comedy, too”

- You have already said who defines the purposes within the scope of the dialogue, “... it goes without saying that the initiative concerning the definition of the purposes should be shown by Belarusan participants ... Their proposals are to be discussed according to the procedures, which are clear to everybody, at sessions of the thematic working groups and of the Coordination Council of the European Dialogue and also according to the clear procedures (for example, by voting) there should be a selection of these proposals. After the program purposes are defined by the experts participating in the program, the EU, as an organizer and facilitator of the European dialogue, should declare that these purposes are official ones. After that the program will receive a purposeful character understood by everybody”. Who and how can and should organize such work in order to define the purposes? Can you offer a procedure of such coordination? Have you offered it to the participants of the dialogue, the Coordination Council, the participants of your group or other groups?

- Here, the format of the procedure is not so important - the main thing is to have such a procedure at all. For now, it simply does not exist. For me, everything that happened during the sessions of the working groups looked like a slapstick comedy where everyone speaks about something that has nothing to do with the main topic. It is impossible to work when there are no rules of this work, outlined from the very beginning.

- You mainly express your attitude to the technical components of the dialogue and estimate it from the point of view of its procedures and mechanisms. Do you find it constructive? Do you see any prospects within the framework of the dialogue from the point of view of an expert?

- If the same slapstick comedy continues, then it is not clear to me how in such conditions it is possible to speak about any prospects and constructiveness. Therefore, it seems to me that any process needs to be started with the coordination of its technical components, and already then - to build its substantial work.

- You have used several times the term "slapstick comedy" in relation to the previous working meetings within the scope of the dialogue. The fact that you are a participant of the so-called buffoonery looks a bit strange. That is, you consider yourself a participant of this raree show?

- Naturally, I do. If I come to the meeting and I do not understand how it works, where there are no elaborated norms and procedures, then I am a participant of this gaff, too. And if it continues like this, then there is a question whether there is any sense in general to participate in this tomfoolery.

- Do you see any possibilities to affect the situation and to foster the development of the most reasonable formats of the dialogue?

 - This is my main task - to adjust a normal working process. It will allow all participants of the dialogue to feel better and more comfortable.

“Mistrust hampers development”

- In your publication, you mention the National Platform of Civil Society and warn that there is a threat of the transformation of the European Dialogue on Modernization “in one more National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum”. What do you mean?

- I have been observing with interest for a long time the development of the National Platform; I do respect the majority of its participants. But the things, which have been taking place there recently, just make me stuporous. When some people have to leave sessions in protest ... And it is not a question of petty bickers or who was right or wrong in this or that situation. For me, it is important to never have such fights again. So that there would be no such group, which throughout several years has been telling everyone that it is only this group that does know what and how must be done. Thus, during the same several years, all the other participants cannot understand at all what exactly this very group knows.

- You, by the way, have written about it the following, “There is a group of people there, which during 4 years has been trying to convince everybody that it knows how with the help of the National Platform to come to cardinal changes in the country. Also, there is another group of participants, which during the same four years cannot understand in any way what exactly is known to the first group...” Is it possible to name these groups by name? Who are these people or organizations? Also, what is offered by the first group and what doesn’t the second group understand?

- I shall underline that it has nothing to do with evaluations of these groups. But it is not a secret that in our civil society there is certain mistrust to each other. The group around the Assembly of NGOs and some other organizations mistrust the “EuroBelarus” leaders. And it does not matter in this situation who is more objective if in general there may be any objectivity at all. I personally, by the way, have questions to both groups. But the main thing is that while there is mistrust between these groups, civil society will be of no interest to a common citizen or European partners; it will not influence the situation in the country at all. Within the framework of the European Dialogue on Modernization with Belarusan society, I would like to exclude such situations.