Uladzimir MATSKEVICH: Current place and purpose of the Public Advisory Councils.

The subject of my research concerns apart from the Public Advisory Council under the auspices of the Presidential Administration also other similar councils: on the country's image, on the media and perhaps to a lesser extent it applies to the newly created Council on Morality.

To start with, in my opinion, the establishment of such councils in recent years has certainly been a positive symptom. The authorities de facto acknowledge that in the third sector there are people worth to consult with on key issues of the development of the country, meaning that there are specialists and experts who poses knowledge, that there is another position different from the officially adopted, and that this position should be taken into account. That is how I feel about the establishment of such councils. However, the recognition of informal expert knowledge and of the position different from the officially adopted in fact did not change the official rhetoric and did not affect the official ideology. 

Moreover, famous people of Belarus were invited to these councils. What ‘famous’ means in this regard? It means they often appear in the press, public space and their positions, they are well known, those who are interested. None of these people try to conceal their knowledge and their position and there is no reason to believe that they poses a kind of secret, sacred knowledge, which can be «fished out from them» only in particularly special circumstances, for instance, via an invitation to sit in the high assembly. If the authorities require their knowledge to make decisions, or to adjust the official position, then there is nothing easier than to simply study and consider all these people have written over the years. Apparently, something else is expected from these councils. What would that be? The obvious answer to this question was offered immediately, as soon as these councils were created: it is a camouflage, a «Potemkin village», creating visibility of liberalization. I myself have expressed such an opinion. However a philosopher or any thinking person is inclined to doubt his/her own inferences. One’s opinion and position should be reviewed. Six months have passed since the establishment of these councils and more sound conclusions could be made based on the collected information during this period. Without going into details, we can say that semi-annual practice has only confirmed the initial assumptions. The effect of the existence of these councils equals to Zero. They do not hold together as ‘advisory councils’. I am prepared to take into account the criticism that six months is not enough time-frame bearing in mind that the issues brought to these councils are too complicated in order see benefits from them instantly. Granted, one can wait a while, though I think that the prevailing attitudes can change nothing.

Moreover, I see that the role and purpose of these councils are not in their consulting function. For consulting it is not necessary to refer to these public boards, no need to report on their meetings in the media. That is not the way the consulting is done. Look at the media coverage of the activities of Lord Bell. In addition, there is no doubt that Stanislav Bogdankevich is a good expert on banking. However his advice may only be of a framework character, he had not worked in the National Bank for a while, therefore he does not possess the current information that is available only to Board of Directors. It would be silly to expect him to advise on what to do every day. Even if today he is again appointed as the central banker of the country, he would have to take some time to enter into the course of affairs to ‘dive’ into his office. The same rule is applied to all the other experts and consultants. A consultant can not substitute an official. Nothing prevents the Belarusian officials from studying what Bogdankevich (and others) wrote and said.

However the core issue is different: Belarusian officials are inert and indecisive. However if each of the officials knew that outside the public sector there are experts and specialists not having some other knowledge, but that at any moment these experts and specialists could replace him/her in the office, his/her attitude to other kind of knowledge, to different ideas would have been quite different. But the Belarusian officials are convinced that this would not be the case that the principles of personnel policy do not allow for it. Bureaucratic places are occupied not based on the criteria of competence and efficiency, rather on loyalty and obedience.

The primary function of the Public Advisory Council:

The most important purpose of the creation of such boards is that through them competent and efficient professionals could be identified and attracted for promotion to key positions in government. However in their current form, these councils can not perform such function. Here's why.

Firstly, it is not declared at the official level that the current stage of development of the country, weighed down by the global economic crisis, requires new knowledge, ideas and approaches. The official rhetoric continues with its old song that the Belarusian way is the best and the most effective. If this is indeed the state of affairs, inviting experts from the third sector does not make any sense.

Secondly, the activities of councils are almost not covered in the press, the problems are not articulated, competitive and alternative proposals do not become a subject of extensive discussion. Neither the officials nor the population understand the meaning of these boards, even those who know about their existence, perceive them as a place for discussion, rather than a place for actions. It just reminds of regular seminars and conferences.

Thirdly, the created boards and their members have no connection with the general public, with civil society. Members of these councils see themselves as guests on the boards on the basis of personal reputation and merit, and not as representatives of the civil society. These councils have not earned trust from the side of the civil society and board members do not feel the need in such trust, in establishing comprehensive relations with the civil society.

Fourthly, the meeting rules do not imply any other forms of activities, except for speaking and submitting written proposals. The Council has no feedback mechanisms, monitoring and implementation stages, has no authority to change the course of action.

One of the main consequences of the authoritarian regimes is the suppression of initiative, activity and responsibility at all levels of public life. Initially, it manifested itself only in the centralized power, however in the course of 15 years this practice of suppressed initiative has expanded onto other areas. This applies to business and entrepreneurship, as well as to science and the third sector.

The second function of the Public Advisory Council:

It is revitalization of initiative, enterprise and initiative of the society. Without being active and initiative, no country, no nation can cope with difficulties and crises. Even if a government transfers into authoritarian forms of government in order to overcome the consequences of crisis, it is carried out through activism, through the inclusion of broad segments of the society into the construction of an authoritarian government. Mr. Lukashenko always refers to this particular trend, when he tells about the people's support for his presidency. Lukashenko was able to win in 1994 also because the society turned against the regime of Kebich and administrative resources did not work.

Revitalization of initiative and enterprise - that is liberalization. This is not democratization. The authorities are afraid of democratization, because it threatens the stability of the regime. This can be understood. But we should also understand that without democratization liberalization can not be implemented. One cannot become proactive and an entrepreneur by order. Liberalization can start from the top, however without being backed by democratization - the movement from below, it would quickly fizzle.

Actually, these hearings represent a movement from below in support of liberalization initiated from the above. Started de facto, but modestly silenced in the public discourse.

The third function of the Public Advisory Councils:

It serves as a mediator between the government and the civil society, a mediator of a social dialogue. In order that seeking for new ideas and approaches essential in the present stage of the development of the Belarusian nation and state has brought some results, there is a need for moving towards one another by the authorities and by the civil society. It should be a real movement, not demagoguery about the people's support, and other quasi-nationalistic rhetoric. The civil society is not the whole nation, and can never represent the whole nation. However, this is the most active and initiative part of the society. The civil society does not identify itself with the power and the state. That is why it is independent and has initiative. However the presence of the civil society in the country makes a false thesis of popular support for government. Regardless of the broadness of the support of the population of the authorities, it is limited by the discordant voices and pluralism of the civil society - the most active and initiative part of the people.

Now I purposely do not quote any positions of the civil society, nor those I agree with and promote myself, or those I know about and consider important, though different from mine. Anyone who is interested can easily find out about my position from my publications. I only talk about the formal place and purpose of such phenomena as the Public Advisory Councils, their place in public communication, in a dialogue between the government and the society.

I regret to note that neither the Public Advisory Council, which as given an impetus to these hearings, nor other created councils, perform all the listed above functions. However, most importantly, I have not seen any willingness on the part of any councils or members of these councils to move towards a dialogue, to engage in communication.

I would be glad to be wrong – through actions, activities and results rather than through words or assurances of a sincere desire.

Uladzimir Matskevich
July 20, 2009

[email protected]