Uladzimir Matskevich' Appeal to the Organizers of the Conference on November, 14th

Appeal to the organizers of the conference on November, 14th

Matskevich Uladzimir,
citizen of the Republic of Belarus,
member and adviser of several
public organizations and associations

I have several principled theses of what should be during November, 14th, at the conference where many representatives of civil society and NGOs are offered to participate.

1. About the status and format of the conference

The conference has no special name, but only a description - "The national conference on the results of studies of the Civil Society Index in Belarus". In the information on the conference placed on the web-site http://civilsociety.blog.tut.by/?page_id=55, it is said about the purposes and tasks which are put before participants. In the same place it is said that, "The conference is carried out within the scope of the OSCE project "Development of the potential for interaction of public and state-run organizations in Belarus" and according to the CIVICUS methodology “Civil Society Index” (http://civilsociety.blog.tut.by/?p=62 ).

According to the CIVICUS methodology, the place of a national conference is presented in the following scheme:

 

The scheme defines such a conference as step №11. If we look at the CIVICUS methodology, we shall see what should be at such a conference:

"Step 11: National Workshop
The CSI will only fulfil its ultimate objective of promoting social change, if the programme findings are properly and effectively disseminated and discussed broadly. This is done initially through the national workshop, which aims to bring together a broad range of civil society actors and partners from government, the business community, the media, the donor community and academia to discuss the CSI findings. This workshop is also to identify the strengths and weaknesses of civil society and plan appropriate strengthening initiatives as a result. Given the broad scope of the national workshop, the invitation list should be comprehensive. It should include those involved in the research process, including several representatives from each of the regional focus group meetings, and a diverse set of stakeholders from government, the private sector, academia and donor communities. Ultimately the workshop should have an ideal combination of 75% civil society and 25% non-civil society, as well as representation from a diversity of sectors, types of organisation, gender, ethnicity and geography among the civil society contingent. The workshop should have 75 to 200 participants, depending on the size of civil society and interest in the CSI in the country of implementation. Ideally, the national workshop should take place over two days. The agenda places priority on discussing the strengths and weaknesses of civil society, as well as to devising an action plan for strengthening civil society."

It is quite easy to notice that the format and procedure of the preparation and implementation of the conference according to the CIVICUS methodology and the conference we have been invited at, strongly differ among themselves.

Then it is reasonable to ask, Is this a conference within the scope of the CIVICUS project "CIVIL SOCIETY INDEX IN THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS", or is it something else?

If this is a conference within the scope of the project and according to the CIVICUS methodology, then "the national workshop should take place over two days. The agenda places priority on discussing the strengths and weaknesses of civil society, as well as to devising an action plan for strengthening civil society".

If this is a conference within the scope of the project, then it cannot solve the tasks of building platforms etc.

If this is some other conference, then it has nothing to do with everything which is provided by CIVICUS methodology, and such tasks are relevant. Thus, the document http://civilsociety.blog.tut.by/? p=62 mentions some other project - "Development of the potential for interaction of public and state-run organizations", in which the so-called "French, or Cyprian model" was born, and the origin of this model has nothing to do with the CIVICUS methodology.

In any case, the participants of the conference should know and understand in what kind of an event they take part. The same also concerns the OSCE and CIVICUS.

No way, within the scope of studies of the civil society index, can the conference be "constituent" for platforms and "the French model".

2. About the models of the organization of interaction of civil society and the state

"For productive development of the Belarusan nation, there is a need in a real movement towards each other, both on the part of the authorities and on the part of civil society" (http://civilsociety.blog.tut.by/? p=62). This statement of mine, quoted in the report on the Index of civil society development, is the basis for an attitude to the process of the organization of interaction of the state and civil society. The real movement towards each other assumes real proposals from both parties, as well as their respectful and mindful attitude to these proposals. At the previous meeting with the members of the Public Coordination Council in "Zialony Bor", a number of representatives of civil society expressed their proposal, but meanwhile it is being ignored.

The scheme of interaction suggested by Mr. Yu. Zagumenov, which is called "the French model", is raw, not worked out, and not thought over. This model which has already started to be implemented by creating thematic platforms, cannot satisfy a considerable part of civil society of Belarus. First of all, that part who during the latest years has been working to consolidate civil society and persistently achieving a dialogue with the state, working according an essentially other model. We conditionally call this other model a "Scandinavian" one. Lithuania can be considered to be the nearest analog of the implementation of such a model [1].

Considering the fact that in civil society there is no monopoly to define development policies and programs, it is necessary to take into account both models and to search for points of tangency and compromises during wide discussions between supporters of the alternative models.

It takes much time, and it is impossible to achieve any mutual understanding not only within several hours, but even during several events. There is a need not only in wide discussions in a free format, but also in expert consultations, negotiations of supporters of the alternative models, and training seminars. A wide discussion in the mass media is needed as well.

3. About the conference agenda

The conference is organized in such a way that the participants of the conference happen to be absolutely unprepared to work on the topic of the conference - neither to discuss the civil society index, nor to discuss the model of interaction of the state and civil society. Neither dialogue, nor negotiations, nor exchange of expert opinions are envisaged in the agenda. Knowing that among the organizers of the conference there are highly skilled people who are experienced in carrying out a slew of conferences, meetings, and different public events, I do not concede that the format of this conference is not elaborated. However, in this case, the conference plan differs strongly from the declared purposes and tasks.

I propose other regulations and agenda. I have variants, but these variants are pertinent only if the conference status about which I said in the first thesis, is defined.

The agenda should be different if:

• This is a conference within the scope of the OSCE project «Development of the potential for interaction of state-run and public organizations»;
• This is a conference according to the CIVICUS methodology following the results of studies of the Civil Society Index in Belarus;
• This is a constituent conference to create platforms of NGOs;

It is better to define the status of this conference as follows: The Conference to preliminarily acquaint representatives of civil society and NGOs with models of organizing a dialogue of the state and civil society in Belarus. Only in this case, will everything fall into place, and only in this case, is it possible to constructively work and not to have confrontation or manipulation of the public opinion.

____________________

1. In Lithuania, with which we have much in common, where development of civil society began in the conditions practically identical to ours in the early 1990s, the process of creation of civil coalitions and the national platform lasted for several years.

In a separate attachment, I can submit a presentation of the Lithuanian platform of this topic. Here, I underline the most principled place - on December 16th, 2009, the basic national coalitions of NGOs working in Lithuania, signed an agreement concerning their joint efforts in strengthening of the third sector, development of democracy and civil society.

This agreement is one of the purposes of the strategic plan to unite Lithuanian NGOs.

The agreement which can be found at the NISC web-site www.nisc.lt, is signed by the associations listed below:

• Coalition of non-governmental nature protection organizations;
• Association of cultural organizations MENOrama;
• Coalition «I Can Live» (Galiu gyventi);
• Lithuanian council of youth organizations;
• Lithuanian forum to protect the rights of the disabled;
• Lithuanian association of adult education;
• Lithuanian female lobbying organization;
• National network of organizations to struggle against poverty;
• National platform of organizations of cooperation for development;
• National confederation of consumers;
• Center of information and support of Lithuanian NGOs (secretariat);
• Confederation of NGOs for children;
• Forum on economy of knowledge.