Andrei Yahorau: "Political situation before the Second EaP Civil Society Forum"
16.11.2010 | Publications
Political situation before the Second EaP Civil Society Forum
Andrei Yahorau,
Center for European Transformation
European calendar
The Civil Society Forum in Berlin will be held on 18-19 November amid
several significant processes and events in European Union. Thus the
evaluation process of a five-year period realization of European
Neighborhood Policy is in progress. Virtually, these days EU is revising
and redefining the priorities of its foreign policy. The agenda
includes the efficiency of the previous ENP period, major successes and
failures identification, working out short-term and long-term plans of
actions. The process is not over yet, but will be completed within the
next 2-3 months. The logic end of the revision will be designated by
termination of the foreign-policy services of EU rearrangement into the
integrated European External Action Service under the authority of the
Vice-President of the European Commission and the High Representative
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton. The Treaty of
Lisbon also has changed the role and significance of the countries’
presidency at EU. Today, country that holds EU presidency (and the
“Troika”) has much less power in influence on EU foreign policy and its
definition. Though it can be assumed that during the current structure
and ideology rearrangement the residing in 2011 Hungary and Poland
(during EU Presedency) will still be weighty in foreign-policy agenda
formulation. One of the important examinations for the renewed EU
foreign-policy system will be the Eastern Partnership Warsaw Summit in
May 2011. In view of manifold revisions and transformations, the agenda
of the mentioned summit will also remain undefined, but obviously the
state of things will not be continuous.
Belarusian autumn
In view of current European situation, CSF becomes a good platform for promotion of new ideas into the context of EU foreign policy. In fact, this explains the attempts of the official Belarusian party which lacks channels of communication with EU, to alter the composition of civil society representation, having included into it members of the Public Advisory Council at the Administration of the President of the Republic of Belarus [1]. Belarus needs to rapidly demonstrate its success in liberalization and democratization of the country to the EU representatives who frequent Belarus before the elections. Along with obvious reluctance to make some changes towards the electoral system transparency and the general level of political freedom, the authority needs to demonstrate at least any progress. Dialogue with civil society is one of the possible ways of this demonstration. But again, the problem is that not the dialogue itself is needed, but only its semblance.During the recent months, large-scale decorations were installed for playing the performance of the authority reconciliation with civil society. The centralized process of civil society platforms developing for interaction with the state has been in progress since September. Platforms on education, culture, human rights, social security, business etc. (total 12 platforms) are being created; the completion of the process must be signified by creation of the Nation-wide NGO platform under the patronage of the Public Advisory Council at the Administration of the President of the Republic of Belarus [2]. The final integration of the platform was to be completed by 14th November, just before the arrival of the EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy Štefan Fühle.
Customers, contractors, and executors
While there is a strong desire to pose the current process of civil society platforms multiplying as civil society self-organization, the centralized approach to the construction is evident. The first announcements of A. Shatsko (Public Advisory Council member, deputy of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus, Permanent Committee on education, culture, science and technical progress of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly vice-chairman, Republican Public Association “Belaya Rus” vice-chairman), who can hardly be referred to the representatives of civil society, reports the creation of the platform on education initiated by the Ministry of Education [3]. The doubts about the independent initiative were cleared away by the statement of A.Shatsko about the fact that it was exactly the Public Advisory Council who “works out the platforms” [4]. The absence of independence in the Public Advisory Council activity is undoubted, that is why it can be supposed that the immediate ordering customer of the fake platforms is the Administration of Belarus President.
The order is carried out by the Public Association “SCAF” (Support Centre for Associations and Foundations)” chairperson, Public Advisory Council member – Yuri Zagoumennov in the framework of OSCE project "Development of the potential for interaction between State and Non-governmental Organizations" and international alliance project CIVICUS “Civil society index in Belarus”. Both projects were commenced about a year ago, and caused doubts of civil society representatives about the “contract” character of the actions of Yu. Zagoumennov [5]. Nevertheless, a part of civil society organizations are sincerely involved into the process of the platforms creation, hoping for cooperation and dialogue with the state authority. Mainly, these are social and cultural organizations, which traditionally are less involved into general political processes (and less understanding their essence). This process was perceived in a different way by civil society organizations which are consolidated around The National civil society platform of the Eastern partnership. From their view, the process of the speeded up construction of “dialogue platforms” a) has obvious manipulative and simulative nature, b) is aimed at exclusion of real civil society organizations from the processes of European-Belarusian cooperation.
The complicacy of the situation is that the nature of civil society presupposes the variety of opinions and positions, and none organizations can monopolize the right to speak on behalf of civil society in whole or to forbid anyone to do anything. From the first sight, all the events of the recent three months can be interpreted differently. For instance, everything can be interpreted as a dissension among civil society organizations, which are not able to come to an agreement with each other; or as confrontation between politicized civil society organizations and social organizations which are far from politics; as a real process of dialogue structuring or as manipulative game of the state with civil society.
Deep into the process
The doubts about the sincerity of intentions of Public Advisory Council representatives, and particularly Yu. Zagoumennov, to develop a real dialogue between civil society and the state are caused by the following facts:- Process transience. The whole process of the subject platforms construction and creation of the Nation-wide platform has taken slightly more than 2 months. It took a year and a half of efforts and more than ten events to develop the National civil society platform of the Eastern partnership.
- Unarticulated role of Public Advisory Council. In public, Yu. Zagoumennov acts as a coordinator of OSCE and CIVICUS projects and as an independent figure. On the other hand, it is not clear how the mentioned statement of A. Shatsko should be considered.
- Contents substitution of the conducted events. Concerning the final conference on 14 November, it is unclear what is happening: a conference in the scope of OSCE project “Development of the potential for interaction between State and Non-governmental Organizations”, a conference on CIVICUS methodology on the results of the Civil society index in Belarus research, or a constituent conference on NGO platforms creation. According to the obtained information, neither OSCE nor CIVICUS is in the picture of the contradictions caused by the creation of the platforms within civil society of Belarus. Moreover, the CIVICUS methodology of research of the Civil society index in Belarus does not presuppose construction of any platforms, as it includes only consulting and discussion of the issues of civil society development.
- Name duplication. The Nation-wide civil society platform which is being created at the moment can hardly be distinguished aurally from already created National civil society platform (Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum), and subject platforms somehow duplicate already existing in civil society platforms (“Human Rights Organizations Forum”, “Civil Education Association”, “Green Network” etc.). This reminds of the habitual state tactic of addition of public structure with their quasi-public analogues (two writers unions, two pole’s unions and so on).
- Unclear status of Yu. Zagoumennov’s power as an initiator of the platforms creation. What and whom does he represent? Public Advisory Council? CIVICUS? OSCE project? Himself?
- The ordering customer of the CIVICUS Civil society index research is not ready to create platforms, if it causes the split in civil society of Belarus; but CIVICUS was not able to gain the decision to postpone the process of platforms creation from the project coordinator Yu. Zagoumennov.
- OSCE in the ambassador expressed support of the processes of dialogue and civil society, but “in connection with certain circumstances of the current processes, the ambassador has some bewilderment, which can be discredited only in further communication with Yu. Zagoumennov who was absent at the conference and with the structures on behalf of which he is empowered to act, in particularly SACF, coordinators of CIVICUS program, and the OSCE office in Minsk itself.” [6].
- The head of the Administration of Belarus President of the Public Advisory Council Vladimir Makey, and consequently SACF as a structure are not involved into the initiative of Yu. Zagoumennov [7].
- The analysis of the Civil society index in Belarus research results which was carried out by the experts of the Center for European Transformation and BISS, shows that “the submitted document does not reflect the result of index changes: the document does not include the necessary and sufficient materials on civil society status change (public opinion poll, external experts survey, public organizations survey). On the ground of the submitted data there is no possibility to carry out a valid analysis of civil society status, reveal its problems, make conclusions and work out proposals on development; the formulated conclusions do not correlate with the information about the results of the survey represented in the document. This does not give the possibility to evaluate their validity” [8].
Structure of expectations
It is difficult to distinguish real initiatives of civil society from simulative ones, and it is almost impossible to distinguish NGO from GONGO by objective criteria. The only possibility for civil society in Belarus to hold out in attempts to simulate the dialogue is to gain the potential and activity also in negotiations with the state. All the initiative of creation of the platforms would have hardly been possible if civil society organizations involved into the Eastern partnership initiative had been more active in the period after the First Forum. The success of the First Forum created an appropriate context and a high structure of expectations from the leading organizations of civil society. However throughout a year the intensity of work has abated and the majority of the formulated objectives [12] were not achieved or were achieved only partially. It has its objective reasons, but the essence is that the prolonged pause in activity and information slackening on the initiatives of civil society enabled the simulative process.
Today, the situation can be radically influenced only by success of Belarusian civil society on the Second Forum. It is expected from the Belarusian who demonstrated solidarity and clear understanding of the strategies the last time. The Forum itself continues to be perceived in two different ways. On the one hand, it is a ritual structure for civil society which does not have any real influence on the Eastern partnership process, and mainly it was created like that. But on the other hand, as all a potential structure of lobbying and influence on political decisions of EU regarding the region of the Eastern partnership, which is also rather probable. For the present, not many of serious actors in EU are ready to stake at the Eastern partnership Civil Society Forum, but many of them already watch the actions in this field. The structure of expectation is ever more high and possibilities are available. At the Second Eastern partnership Civil Society Forum, the national delegation of Belarus is to take action!
__________________________________
1. http://moladz.by/analityka/554-aficyjny-mensk-sprabue-nya-kiem-dyk-palkayu-patrapic-u-tryeci-syektar-usxodnyaga-partnyerstva.html
2. A scheme. Organizational structure of interaction between governmental and non-governmental organizations on the example of the social security system of Belarus. // http://civilsociety.blog.tut.by/?page_id=11
3. Public associations suggest creating a consulting council on education development in Belarus. BelTA, 18.09.2010 // http://www.belta.by/ru/all_news/society/Obschestvennye-objedinenija-predlagajut-sozdat-konsultativnyj-sovet-po-voprosam-razvitija-obrazovanija-v-Belarusi_i_524944.html
4. Members of the Public Advisory Council at the Administration of Belarus President are actively working out civil platforms on education, culture, medicine, sports. 09.11.2010 // http://www.pravo.by/showtext.asp?1289298652308
5. V. Matskevitch. Potyomkin’s seizure or raider villages. // http://worvik.livejournal.com/115081.html; M. Byanko, Is there a state order for the third sector examination? // http://nmnby.eu/news/analytics/1982.html
6. Meeting of the representatives if civil society with the head of the OSCE Minsk office. // http://eurobelarus.info/content/view/5496/21/
7. http://worvik.livejournal.com/189135.html
8. O. Shelest, T. Vodolazhskaya, V. Silitski. Examination of the Civil society index in Belarus research results // http://eurobelarus.info/content/view/5546/78/
9. http://worvik.livejournal.com/189135.html
10. Statement of Belarusian human rights organizations from 11 November 2010. Minsk, 11 November 2010 // http://eurobelarus.info/content/view/5446/21/
11. http://civilsociety.blog.tut.by/?p=126
12. Strategic proposals on the activity of CSOs within Civil Society Forum // http://eurobelarus.info/content/view/3611/53/
-
03.01
-
07.10
-
22.09
-
17.08
-
12.08
-
30.09
