Uladzimir Matskevich: People, who are you with?

What is the reason of different reactions of politicians and civil society representatives on government statements about a possible dialogue? On this issue the Information service of "EUROBELARUS" asked a philosopher and methodologist Uladzimir Matskevich.

Uladzimir Matskevich: I have been recently reminded about the proverbial "prisoner's dilemma". It lies in the fact that for people who consider their rational behavior, but have no ability to negotiate with other prisoners, it is advantageous to betray those. Then they get a definite advantage at the expense of others. Although, if they coordinate their actions, they can get a much bigger win for everyone. Something similar happens in our country. Lukashenko is interested that we do not communicate with each other, that we have no contact, that everyone implement his own goals without regard to the others. And then he will easily handle with us. To date, the regime while proposing concrete scripted moves, finds easily those eager to play along with him; whether they want to or do not want. Today already there have revealed a few people willing to play along with Lukashenko, sincerely believing that they are doing a good deed. This is Sergey Kalyakin, ready to play by the rules proposed by Lukashenko and to negotiate without exposing any conditions, with absolutely no understanding the scenario of the strategic situation. This is Anatoly Levkovich, who voiced the same position on the pages of newspaper Sovetskaya Belorussia. This is Belarusian Helsinki Committee Chairman Oleg Gulak, who says the same thing within the Public Advisory Council under the Administration of the President, and several other people.

There are people with different views. They are totally against any negotiations, saying that it is immoral to negotiate with criminals. They soothe their own conscience and, as a result, do nothing. This inaction contributes to their enemies’ victory. Here a longtime principle of Edmund Burke works, which states: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Anyone who is calling to do nothing is playing into the hands of those who have chosen betrayal, according to the "prisoner's dilemma". After all, the one who betrays is also acting. Well, there are those who have not defined yet and who are doubting.

And now the whole problem lies in the choice and self-determination. People, who are you with?

There are two ethical systems. The first is characteristic of a democratic and developing society, the second – for a conservative and stagnant one. The second ethical system is characterized by the fact that any compromise, any dialogue and negotiation for it is considered evil. But the uncompromising struggle has alternatives: either victory or death. As it turns out, modern people are not willing to die for ideals. For the sake of the homeland, justice, democracy and so on. But then, what the hell are you shouting about winning , complete and uncompromising, if you're not willing to pay for it with your lives? Stop playing virtual war to a victorious end. Go to the negotiations. In the end, round table, discussions must lead to a change of the government, may be not though at the first stage.

We do not pose a condition for the negotiations - release of political prisoners. We say that the release of political prisoners is the condition of possibility of the negotiations.

But the negotiations must go on and be won. Of course, the gain can not be without some concessions which are possible. Idealistic radicalism and romanticism must always be complemented by pragmatism and realism. Set realistic goals and achieve them!

 

Information service of "EUROBELARUS"