Public consultations, dialogue and democracy in "Belarusian way”

A new round of relations with Europe, "liberalization" and other changes in the modern Belarusian life made the subject of public consultations, the inclusion of civil society in a dialogue with the authorities and so on relevant again. Let's try to understand the grounds on which procedures of such communications are set up. Modern Belarusian elite, politicians and ideologues were formed in the Soviet times, they absorbed the Soviet views and ideals. Following a brief period of relative democracy 1991-1994 they continue to implement these ideas and ideals in the political and  public life of the independent Belarus.

Soviet democracy

 

In the period of acute ideological crisis of the late 80th early 90's the Soviet system was opposed to democracy and the rule of law. It was assumed that the Soviet social system was the antithesis of the democracy. For the ideological battles such representation is sufficient, however if one seeks for deeper understanding, analysis of the reality and the foundation of the Soviet social system, it should remembered that the democracy was always used by the Soviet ideologists in relation with the Soviet regime and social system in the USSR. It was argued that it were the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party who established and maintained the true democracy, and the rule of the people. This does not refute characterization of the Soviet regime as a dictatorship, but requires a detailed analysis of the Soviet perceptions of democracy and public government.

 

Almost all of the ideologists of Bolshevism were self-taught and had no systematic education. They were inspired by the naive and archaic ideas, not referring them to the realities of social organization of the early twentieth century. Yet in 1905 the Bolsheviks opposed to the class and bureaucratic systems to the local government organized on the principle of direct people’s democracy. In the councils of workers' deputies of that period the decisions were made by the "lower classes". Later, Lenin formulated the ideal of the direct democracy, in the following phrase: "any housewife should be able to run the state”.

 

Without going into the history and genesis of modern democracy, we should recognize that the Soviet regime and modern democratic institutions in Europe and America come from the same roots, i.e. out of direct democracy of ancient and medieval city-states, communities and communes. However modern Western democracy is the result of a long evolution, in which, while preserving the ancient democratic ideals institutional forms of implementation of the completeness of these ideals were developed. In addition, it has absorbed the evolution of ideas of a man and of knowledge, ability to make judgments and estimates. The Soviet system denied all the achievements of civilization development, and tried to revive the ideals of direct democracy in the “newly created” society. However, direct democracy is possible only in small communities and communes, where it is possible to collect everyone to a general meeting and make a decision based on votes of each one who would be affected by the decision. With the growth of communities and the increase of population, the direct democracy, in one way or another, becomes representative. Thus representative institutions are established and supported by traditions. If these institutions, mechanisms and traditions are neglected, then, based on direct democracy, one or another form of dictatorship or tyranny is formed. There were numerous examples of this in ancient and medieval times. The same happened with the Soviet system.

 

The Soviet power had a multi-level organization: from rural and village level to the Supreme Council of People's Deputies. All of these councils scrupulously adhered to the rules of representation. Proportionally to the composition of the population, deputies of all socio-demographic categories, occupations and professions, ethnic and national identity were represented in the councils, ignoring confessional structure only. Referring to the completeness of representation the Soviet ideologists argued that this was how the democracy was realized. As a result, the decisions regarding complex, and simple issues were made based on votes by incompetent and unprepared representatives. Members of councils at all levels for several days in a year broke away from their machines in the fields or collective farms or from scientific studies, or whatever they were doing. They gathered in conference rooms, where they faced a heap of documents and decisions which they were supposed to vote. Even if they had time to read these documents, they have not been able to either deal with them and to analyze or make proper examination and consult with experts. With this organization of the councils of workers the competence of all the deputies and academician was brought to the same level with farmers and proved to be equally incompetent. While in the 20s and 30s of the XX century there were some discussions and debates during meetings of the boards of various levels, several decades of such practices popular "representations" from MPs formed the habit of only voting and always in favor.

 

Everyone realized the imitative nature of the Council and the fact that they only legitimized the decisions worked out and adopted by the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy was considered responsible for any errors, and all positive solutions and achievements were attributed to the leadership of the Communist Party. The Party itself set the tasks for the bureaucracy, monitored its activities and punished bureaucrats for errors. Thus the direct democracy has degenerated into a complete dictatorship of the Communist Party. Within the party itself similar processes were taking place and the party itself was under the dictatorial management of the party nomenklatura.

 

In the late 80s such situation became intolerable. The first attempts to remedy this situation, called "perestroika", were to return to the original ideals of direct democracy. In the history of this period there were revolutionary transformations of the Soviet system in the direction of civilized forms of social organization, as well as to the ugly forms appearing from time to time.

 

Belarusian forms of democracy - the Referendum, All-Belarusian Meeting…

 

In the first three years of the presidency of Alexander Lukashenko, there was a comeback from the unsettled civilized norms of governance, to the archaic forms of direct democracy. The first president was trying to resolve the immediate challenges the independent Belarus faced not through alignment with representative bodies however via appealing directly to the will of the people and relying on popular support of the decisions. Referenda were introduced to the public administration practices. A very typical example was a referendum to change the Constitution in 1996, when the text of the proposed changes and amendments to the Constitution was published only a week after the beginning of the early voting for these changes. The people voted very much the same as the Soviet deputies, relying entirely on those bureaucrats who developed a solution. The President made attempts to remove or replace the institution of Parliament via gathering All-Belarusian people meetings. The composition of these meetings was also to reflect the structure of the Belarusian society. The decisions of these meetings Lukashenko was setting off against the Parliament and the political opposition.

 

The lack of Parliamentary traditions, the weakness of Belarusian social and human sciences, total legal illiteracy of the population led to the fact that the Belarusian society did not notice the institutional and procedural differences between the Parliament and the National Assembly. As a result, the Parliament itself has lost its features of a representative branch of power of modern democracy and was reduced to the status of the National Assembly.

 

The difference between these bodies, which Belarusians failed to grasp, was not so much in the structure of representation rather in the procedures and mechanisms for their formation and organization of work. A Parliament is not possible without politics, without competition, and set procedures for mediation and election monitoring. Today the National Assembly of Belarus (House of Representatives and the Council of the Republic) are formed without a political struggle and competition in elections. In the activities of the Belarusian parliament there is a lack of political component, there are no parties, no factions, no debate, and parliamentary committees do not enjoy the advice of experts and community groups. The Parliament operates as an appendage of the government, yielding to the government on the competence and expertise of the issues that it works on. Modern social system of Belarus and place of the civil society in it is built on the ground of implementation of these principles of direct democracy.

 

The schematic form of democracy and people’s will “in Belarusian way” looks as follows follows:

 

1. People are an entity, one and indivisible.

2. Because the integrity and indivisibility of the people is contrary to the common sense and empirical reality, it is considered that the people equals to the majority. Accordingly, all those who do not share the majority’s view are different from it and are not regarded as people.

3. Authorities in Belarus, speaking on behalf of the people and for the people, therefore, obliged to consult with the people.

4. Communication of the authorities with the people is either unilateral (government asks the people reply), or irrational - the authorities guess about people's opinion and express it on its behalf.

5. While asking for the opinion of the people the authorities have to provide the people with speakers in order to voice the people's opinion, i.e. of the majority. All statements dissenting from the majority opinion shall not be considered, and received as not coming from the people.

6. in order for this communication to be continuous, there should be a permanent separation or secession between the people with whom the authorities seek for advice from non-people or so-called anti-national elements.

7. Non-people or anti-national elements of power are those who violate the order of adoption of unilateral communication. Anyone who is not a representative of the government, however assumes the initiative in communication (ask the government first) is excluded from the definition of people. Similarly, it is considered anti-national when one is making attempts to guess the opinions of the people and speak on behalf of all those who are not included in the highest echelons of power.

 

This pattern of communication may use phraseology, sounding the same in the rhetoric of the Belarusian government and in the rhetoric of the democratic West. For example, categories such as "people", "dialogue", "public opinion", "society". However in the Western democratic tradition the category "people" knows no exceptions, and the people are not considered as something whole and indivisible, it is regarded originally as something plural and diverse. It is inconceivable to consider someone as non-people. A dialogue assumes equality of members: any member of the dialogue can ask and are entitled to receive an answer. In many cases, the democratic tradition requires obligatory response of the government. The authorities must be accountable to the people for their actions and decisions, regardless of whether the representatives of the people inquiring represent the majority or minority. This common and apparent similarity of the categories and concepts leads to constant misunderstandings in interactions with the Belarusian authorities of the Western countries. As well this apparent similarity of concepts opens up the possibility for the Belarusian regime to simulate democratic processes and reforms.

 

Civil society in Belarus started shaping in the years of perestroika and developed in the first years of independence and democracy. After the coup of 1996 and return to the simplified forms of the Soviet regime the civil society in Belarus has managed to survive and remains a factor affecting the social processes. The civil society in Belarus mostly exists through the support of Europe and the United States, as well as by the general democratization and liberalization in the post-Soviet space. Since small country Belarus is very dependent on external economic factors and on international policy, the Belarusian state in one form or another is compelled to reckon with the international standards. As a member of many international organizations, engaging in bilateral relations, Belarusian authorities are obliged to involve the public, non-government structures to implement programmes in which they are interested. However the very nature of the Belarusian dictatorship, dating back to Soviet-style attitudes and ideological orientation of state establishment, opposes the implementation of modern democratic mechanisms. Therefore, being forced to reckon with the European standards and norms with regard to civic participation, Belarusian State simulates civic participation, or creates quasi-civil structures, presented to the international observers and partners as civil society, or by manipulating the real structures of a weak civil society. This manipulation of civil society and public opinion, until recently, was relatively successful because of the weakness and the lack of competence of the civil society.

 

Precedents of public dialogue or simulations of civic participation in Belarus

 

Social and political dialogue in 1999-2000.

 

By 1999, the Belarusian regime had practically completed the construction of the state’s vertical of power and realized the order and organization of public life. However international institutions and the majority of The European countries and other OSCE participating States did not recognize Belarusian regime as legitimate. The OSCE and Council of Europe recognized the legitimate Parliament: Supreme Council elected in 1995 in accordance with the Constitution of 1994. However the real power in the country's parliament was bicameral National Assembly, lower house of which was made up of loyal members of the Supreme Council, and the upper house was almost entirely appointed by the President. In the tradition of the Western democracy, this situation was recognized as unacceptable, however completely fit into the notion of democracy of the Belarusian regime as described above. The OSCE Istanbul Summit, which was attended by the President Lukashenko and passed a resolution, 22 point of which obliged the Belarusian authorities, recognized de facto, to start a dialogue with the representatives of the Supreme Council, who were considered by the OSCE as the legitimate Parliament. Given that the deputies of the Supreme Council were deprived of the real mechanisms of power, their supporters, opposition parties and civil society were to participate in the dialogue. The dialogue was organized through the mediation of the OSCE mission in Belarus. The main topic of the dialogue related to the constitutional contradictions or differences between versions of the Constitution of 1994 and 1996. In preparation and during the dialogue the archaic perceptions and understanding of the authorities, and their unwillingness to have a dialogue with the political opposition and civil society became apparent.

 

The government drew into a dialogue representatives of the "majority" - foresters, war and labor veterans, etc., which they regarded as representatives of the people and the society. These representatives fully approved the position of the authorities, which was intended - "there were no contradictions". Representatives of the opposition and the "minority" of civil society have ignored the situation of dialogue, considering that it would not take place. Two months later, participants in the dialogue simply stopped gathering not achieving any results.

 

The Belarusian authorities have not refused to implement the resolution of the OSCE Istanbul Summit. They even made an effort to organize a dialogue and inviting participants in accordance with their perception of who are the people of Belarus they were willing to engage in "dialogue" or consult with. To the OSCE Mission objections that there were no alternative positions presented in the course of the dialogue, the authorities responded in the traditional way - this position was not reflecting the opinions of the people, however individuals only. Points of views of separate individuals do not need to be taken into account. The authorities demanded the OSCE to take into account the choice of the people. Persistence of the OSCE and individual leaders of the opposition the Belarusian authorities declared as interference in the internal affairs of Belarus.

 

European programmes on economy and safety issues, Chernobyl programmes.

 

Experience in implementation of assistance programmes carried out by the developed countries to the Third World countries shows that the allocated funds are spent in recipient countries for other purposes and lead to corruption and settle in the informal sector economy. Therefore for a long time technical assistance programmes, as well as other targeted programmes financed by the First World countries, provide for public oversight and participation in these programmes not only by the states but also by businesses and NGOs. Being interested in the Western aid, a state of the Third World is forced to make concessions, facilitating the creation and registration of NGOs, improving the business environment. However in some cases, dictatorships are on a different path. They create corrupt businesses and mock-governmental organizations, so-called government-organized NGOs (quangos). Then quangos are presented as members of civil society for implementation of joint programs with the West, sometimes entirely replacing one or another sphere of the real social organization.

 

In Belarus the most obviously this phenomenon can be observed with the regards to Chernobyl funds. Developed countries have actively participated in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. In the era of perestroika and the early years of the independence of Western aid has helped raising public activity and the emergence of environmental organizations, specialized social organizations solving individual problems, the distribution of humanitarian assistance for victims, rehabilitation of children and the population of the contaminated territories. In the years of economic decline the programme of the Western technical and humanitarian assistance to the affected regions seemed like a very large income source in general given a poor background. The money was received and disbursed not through governmental channels. Since 1994, the Belarusian regime refused to accept it. Attempts were made to redirect the technical and humanitarian assistance from the third sector to the state. In those cases where the authorities have not reached success, they started limiting the freedom of public funds and organizations, and sometimes directly prosecuting these organizations or their leaders. To replace these organizations the Western donors were offered artificially created quangos. In some cases, they looked as more professional and effective partners for donors. The Western foundations and the organizations easily agreed to cooperate with them for this reason. This ultimately led to a complete nationalization of programmes of assistance to the victims of the Chernobyl disaster.

 

Similar processes have been taking place in other spheres of activity. In programs that affect the competence of law enforcement agencies, such as border management, the prohibition and elimination of certain types of weapons, the fight against trafficking in persons and drugs, etc. the government had not stood on ceremonies and viewed participation NGOs simply as a technical condition for the allocation of money for these programmes. Therefore, creating fictitious organizations, existing only on paper, but these fictitious NGO representatives were appointed by state officials. Similar schemes of decision making existed in business and entrepreneurship area. Belarusian government actually established a different kind of self-association and association of manufacturers of various goods and services, employers' associations or consumer protection. As a result, many organizations, public de jure, are in fact parts of ministries and departments.

 

Doubling of public organizations.

 

Organizations and associations, formally considered as non-state existed in the Soviet Union. These were all sorts of peace committees, DOSAAF, organization of cultural monuments or nature, etc. Notable among them is the concept of creative unions - the Union of writers, cinematographers, composers, architects, and so on. Some of these unions have become active participants in processes of democratization in the years of perestroika, for example, the Union of Cinematographers, the Union of Writers. Others were either indifferent, or vice versa, is very conservative. Democratically-minded professionals, not being able to reform the conservative and stagnant organization of this kind were leaving them and creating new ones. Thus, for example, was created BAJ (Belarussian Association of Journalists), since the current Union of Journalists does not participate in the development of the democratic media, or in the protection the freedom of speech, or in the protection of the persecuted journalists. The government took advantage of the existing precedent of "doubling" of some organizations and started encouraging this process. A clear precedent was the "doubling" of the Union of Writers. The reason for creating pro-governmental Writers 'Union was not only the intransigence of the leadership and the majority of its members, their democratic aspirations, but also property belonging to the Writers' Union since the Soviet era. Real estate in the center of Minsk, the house of creativity, near Minsk – all were attractive from a commercial point of view. This property was expropriated from the Union of Writers however it has not made writers agreeable and dependent people. The authorities have initiated a split of the organization of writers and the creation of a "new" Union of Writers. Similarly, the authorities acted with the recalcitrant Union of Poles.

 

The presence of double associations and unions can efficiently and effectively consult and dialogue with civil society, respecting all the requirements of the formal democratic society.

 

Public Advisory Councils

 

The first thematic or departmental public advisory councils arose in areas where the European aid programmes were unfolding. They were considered by the authorities as the technical elements of these programmes. In some cases, civil society organizations tried to benefit from these boards and in the interests of the civil society. For example, this happened with the environmental council. However there were almost none positive precedents of departmental public advisory boards.

 

A new period in the history of this form was opened with the establishment in January 2009, of the Public Advisory Council at the Presidential Administration. The scope of its jurisdiction is very broad and affects virtually all vestiges of the civil society in Belarus. Its creation and themes that are brought to its meetings attract greater public attention. The same attention receive the public councils, which were created later, because it is the establishment of the Public Advisory Council at the Presidential Administration and the nature of his work that clearly highlights the simulation. Now questions of public activity and public scrutiny and dialogue are not confined to the individual programmes of the Western aid or local and private matters. They are placed within the Eastern Partnership. When the need for reform is recognized not only in the opposition and civil society, however also in the higher echelons of power, to simulate the democratic reforms and the dialog is still possible, but the simulation does not bring the dividends to the authorities as before. The regime still tries not to act, "pretend", not to conduct reforms, but to simulate them. However in the past as a prize for the simulation mode was the weakening of criticism and gained time. That was enough for the authorities. Now they need something else: not just an image, but loans and investments, not merely the absence of criticism, and the lifting of sanctions, not just the exchange of visits and delegations, but free trade and new markets.

 

Until now, the Belarusian regime succeeded in fooling political opponents inside the country, Europe and even Russia. On this basis, many observers believe that now the President could also do the same with the EU and the Eastern Partnership, adding several imitations of democratic institutions and structures as partners. Actions and deeds of some Western politicians and institutions make such fears justified. For example, the OSCE mission in Minsk in the recent years easily takes the counterfeiting instead of real deeds.

 

However it seems that after all the times have changed and with all the reluctance to conduct business honestly, it will have to do so, and will have to start with a real dialogue, not its imitation.

 

Vladimir Matskevich