The Eastern Partnership
Programme envisages four thematic platforms which briefly could be formulated
as follows: democratization, economic integration, energy security, communication
between people. Documents adopted in Prague on
7 May in the course of the inauguration Summit of
the Eastern Partnership as well promote the idea of the creation of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Eastern Partnership (“EURO-NEST PA”) and Civil Society Forum.
One of the most important platforms for Belarus out
of the four mentioned above is “Democracy, good governance and stability”.
What are the
prospects for development in this field, whether the Belarusian authorities are
prepared for sincere, open and transparent cooperation with Europe? Whether the
authorities have indeed chosen the path of liberalization? These issues will be
come the Topic of the month in May.
The first week
that followed after the Summit in Prague was rich on various
analysis by politicians of different level and orientation and the mass media,
and sometimes the assessment of the situation differed as extreme opposites. The
society seemed to divide into so-called “euro-optimists” and “euro-skeptics”. The
Eastern Partnership received different nicknames: “Eastern Poseur-ship”, “Eastern
Partnership: seven pages of insanity” (actually, the latter characteristics of
the documents adopted in Prague was made by an
influential American newspaper “The Wall Street Journal”).
Whether there
are any perspectives for cooperation between Belarus and the European Union
countries within the platform “Democracy, good governance and stability”?
Anatoly
Lebedko: “The glass is yet half-empty rather than half-full”
The Co-Chairman
of the United Democratic Forces of Belarus, the Chairman of the United Civic
Party Anatoly Lebedko assessed this issue in the following way:
“If one
imagines the Eastern Partnership being a glass and is tasked to assess whether
it is half-empty or half-full, then as for myself today I would have said that
the glass is half-empty. There is a glass per se, there is a shell and there
are certain boundaries, however what all that would be filled in with and how,
there is no answer to this question neither in Minsk nor in Brussels itself. Everything will
depend on, firstly, whether working groups will be created for each of the
platforms and whether detailed content will be elaborated for each direction,
including the instruments for implementation of what this platform will be
filled in with. Also a lot will depend on whether the representatives of the
opposition and of the civil society of Belarus will be included into
these working groups along with the representatives of the authorities. It is
only when such political decision would be made regarding the necessity of
organizing such working groups and that the latter would be formed based on the
equal representation principle and would include experts from Europe and from
Belarus from both authorities and the opposition, only then one would be able
to talk about something concrete. Perhaps, in that case there is a chance to
hope for some positive changes. If that would not be the case, then most likely
the European bureaucrats will follow the shortest path: they will apply today the
same instruments as those used for the TACIS Programme. It means that the
authorities will be granted with initiative. In the end it would signify one
thing only: conservation as opposite of changes”.
Miroslav
Kobasa: “A lot depends on the Belarusian authorities”
The Chairman of
the Belarusian civil organization Lev Sapega Foundation, Miroslav Kobasa, noted
that official authorities in Belarus have a very cautious attitude
towards the third sector, towards initiatives of the civil society, while they
do not tolerate the opposition at all. In the course of the past ten years
these issues have only deteriorated. The authorities have no habit of
cooperation or working openly and pay attention to various opinions, just as
well they are not used to provide with information. If the current trend
continues in the future, one of the four platforms, namely, “Democracy, good
governance and stability” which is all about good and quality governance, may
be under the threat of failure while considered in the framework of cooperation
with Belarus.
“It might
happen and it would not come as a surprise for me. This is yet another sign of
the existing problems that have been there for a while: non-transparent actions
and decisions of the authorities and lack of desire to maintain a dialogue. It
is all – an outcome of the centralized authoritarian system. Our Lev Sapega
Foundation has been dealing with the issues of local governance and
self-governance for 17 years by now. Local governance is not an attribute of
the system of the government. There are issues to work on in this regard.
However many things depend on Belarusian authorities, on their desire to agree
to an open and sincere dialogue with the civil society. Many things as well depend
on how strong and principal the position of the European Union is, and whether
the EU will demand from the Belarusian authorities to fulfill all its demands”.
