Two days before the dissolution of the Public Advisory Council at the Presidential Administration

Have taken place the debates between Yuri Zisser and Uladzimir Matskevich about the Public Advisory Council at the Presidential Administration of Belarus (the PAC), held on the base of the Y. Zisser’s blog on the eve of the PAC dissolution.

Yuri Zisser, businessman, CEO of UP Nadezhnye programmy (eng. Secure Programs),
owner of Internet portal TUT.BY, a member of the PAC.

 

Uladzimir Matskevich, methodologist, head of the Humanitarian Technologies Agency,
Member of the International Consortium "EUROBELARUS".

 

 

 

On September, the 21st Yuri Zisser posted in his blog in Facebook a reference on a message, published on the collective website of the members of the PAC: "The Action Team of the PAC proposes to amend the rules".

A discussion between the owner of the blog and U.Matskevich appeared in comments on this post, it was as follows:

 

Uladzimir Matskevich: Yuri, when the PAC is going to begin to take independent steps, not those allowed by Makei [1]?

When the PAC (its Action Team) is going to remember that there is civil society in the country? And it ex parte is very interested in the actions of the PAC, while sometimes seeing the danger in its actions, sometimes servility, conciliation and other vices. When are you going to start talking to those whose interests you would have to represent in front of the Presidential Administration, regardless of whether those people are good or those of no effect?

And when it will be possible to discuss the key issues related to the PAC, on air of TUT.BY seriously, with no politeness and equivoques and the framework under which it operates?

 

Yuri Zisser: Uladzimir, I’ll try to answer in order.

The steps not allowed by Makey, we, as members of the PAC, are not going to undertake, as far as Makei is the Head of the PAC. I hope you would greatly mind if someone of your subordinates or board members of your company will act despite your ban.
We know that there is interest towards the actions of the PAC, that’s why we have posted this news, and we suppose to do that systematically in the sequel.
I don’t understand, whom you referred to by asking, "When are you going to start talking to those whose interests you would have to represent?" Whom do you mean by the pronoun "those": the KGB, the state, the people, the opposition, the media, or someone else?

As for the ether, we’ll see, whether there will be need for this, as far as the Action Team of the PAC is working not for its own PR, but for the end result, and doesn’t actually need access to the airwaves. By the way, the Action Team of the PAC (like the PAC as a whole), as opposed to "the civil society representatives", has never had access to the ether of TUT.BY.

And what concerns the danger to democracy, supposedly coming from the PAC. The PAC is not a substitute for civil society, but is only one of its instruments and actors, while being quite ordinary one. We have no goal to drive off the civil society representatives, while replacing them with ourselves, as certain people have decided. Of course, we have been appointed but not elected. But then again not all the representatives of civil society have been elected.
I do not actually understand why the PAC is often considered to be - including here - an instrument as to serve the interests of those who hate it. You would not believe it, but we have plans to face other, more urgent issues for the country.

 

Uladzimir Matskevich: Facebook is not the best instrument for serious communication. But it would be a sin not to use it, for absence of anything better. So I’ll try:

“The steps not allowed by Makey, we, as members of the PAC, are not going to undertake, as far as Makey is the Head of the PAC. I hope you would greatly mind if someone of your subordinates or board members of your company will act despite your ban”.

You see, Yuri, it is a very characteristic quote, as you (intentionally or not) have done with it some very important confessions:

1. The members of the PAC are subordinates of Makei.

2. Everything that is done by the members of the PAC, is agreed with or sanctioned by Makei.

I understand it, and I’ve known it at that time already when we were fighting with fraud of Zagoumennov [2]. I’ve spoken directly to Makey, but without meeting with him, through the members of the PAC as his subordinates - that is, people with no own will, not having the right of taking decisions.

In civil society there are no subordinates. A letter "P" in the abbreviation "PAC" refers specifically to the PUBLIC (SOCIETY), and not to an abstract, but to the CIVIL one. And that's what part of the PUBLIC Council [of the PAC] is interesting to me and to many people in civil society. But being simply an ADVISORY Council, composed of subordinates of Makey, the PAC is interesting to nobody. To me, at leas.

 

Yury Zisser: Uladzimir, you're actually quite right (although, we are not subordinates of Makei, but  the society representatives; me, at least, for sure). I’m just asking you to take into account that we operate in the network of the situation and we can’t extract of it more than it can give all of us. We believe that along with what you are doing, we are doing the right thing also, as far as it possible (and allowed and coordinated with - oh, horrors! - Makei). From the fact that Literaturnaya Gazeta (eng. Literary Newspaper) was not prosecuted in 1970-80ss, as Andrei Sakharov, it didn’t become worse and less helpful for the future of the country.

Please, try to understand: the PAC is a different genre, and do not try to evaluate it in terms of NGOs. The PAC is like the election of public organizations at the U.S.S.R. I Congress of People's Deputies, when the Communists carried on the districts and all the Democrats (Sakharov, Likhachev, Ulyanov, Klimov, etc.) gained exclusively while passing through NGOs. It's a pity that we live in such conditions when many of the appointed members of public organizations are more democratic than many of the elected ones, but c’est la vie.

 

Uladzimir Matskevich: You are asking:

“I don’t understand, whom you referred to by asking, "When are you going to start talking to those whose interests you would have to represent?" Whom do you mean by the pronoun "those": the KGB, the state, the people, the opposition, the media, or someone else?”

My answer is Society. Belarusian society. Civil society.

Makei is selling the PAC in Europe, exactly as a council, consisting of 3 types of members:

1. Representatives of the authorities.

2. Experts and specialists, competent and authoritative, but representatives of no one, except themselves.

3. Members of the society, of the general Belarusian society.

With the first type everything is clear. Everything is clear with the people of this type in the PAC. Their names and positions are well-known, as well.

But with the other two types there is a complete ambush.

As for you, what type do you belong to: the second or the third one? Are you an expert and specialist? If so, in what area? How much authoritative are you?

I understand that almost all the members of the PAC that are not in power, tend to identify themselves to the second type. But who is there, in a PUBLIC council, who represents the SOCIETY?

It seemed to me that you, in particular, would have to represent the society, even if a part of it, not entirely. Business community, for example. You could represent my interests there, also. I also feel myself part of society. And the business itself is no stranger to me. But for you (or someone else) could represent in PAC interests of mine or any other public interests, it would be worth TALKING ABOUT THIS and MAKING AN AGREEMENT. But there is nothing similar to this. Therefore, the PAC is not a thing, for what it is passed for by Makey. And that's what I’m talking about as an expert.

Later, you are writing:

“As for the ether, we’ll see, whether there will be need for this, as far as the Action Team of the PAC is working not for its own PR, but for the end result, and doesn’t actually need access to the airwaves. By the way, the Action Team of the PAC (like the PAC as a whole), as opposed to “the civil society representatives”, has never had access to the ether of TUT.BY”.

This is sad. Without the ether and the media you do not have any PR - Public Relations. So what's the sense in your activity, or rather, since there is no activity, in your existence? Here, again, I’m saying it as an expert.

 

Yuri Zisser: I formally (as deputy director of Belinfocom) and actually consider myself belonging to the third type, even though I have been appointed, not elected. However, Uladzimir, you haven’t been elected or promoted by civil society as well. In this issue we are completely equal. Currently, you represent my interests in the NGO-movement and you don’t ask me on what do I expect from you, while acting as an expert and a methodologist. I’m acting in the same way.

Uladzimir Matskevich: You write:

“You would not believe it, but we have plans to face other, more urgent issues for the country”.

I’ll believe it, why not. But to believe or not to believe one can only in a thing he’s already familiar with, or, at least, he’s been talking about to. You do not have a broadcast and you do not need it. Well, what should we believe in?

Next. The country is currently faced, indeed, to very URGENT and sensitive issues. Without addressing these issues, there is nothing to begin with other, even the smaller ones. And these issues are not many. Yet, they are posed. Though, I’ve never heard the PAC in a whole, or its Action Team, or someone from the PAC - members discussing these issues aloud or expressing to them oneself’ attitude.

Yury Zisser: Uladzimir, you're absolutely right! However, you and me are acting in a completely different field conditions. You are free to say whatever you think, but you have no power. Worse yet, everything pronounced by the NGOs, all your "urgent and very sensitive issues" the deaf power automatically refers to as unacceptable, and all of you considers the enemies.

We assume that there is no sense of speaking to deaf people and we are trying instead to use the power of the Presidential Administration for promotion of the initiatives which it would agree on. Yes, these are half-hearted. Yes, these are not too radical. But what you are doing, and what we're going to do, are both equally important things.

As for discussions on air, I hope, these will take place, we’ll come gradually to it. As for me, for instance, I couldn’t update the PAC-website for two years...

 

Uladzimir Matskevich: Yuri! I'm talking too loudly at times. And I come to you, in the TUT.BY office, to talk and to discuss different issues with the audience. And you can always read and see [in my blog] what things I’m advocating, in particular, on your behalf. For all my actions and my deeds (public, not private ones, of course) I’m always ready to report back. And in front of you, as well. This is the main and obligatory principle of the social activity, rather than election.
As for you, I can’t say the same thing. There is no feedback. You did not respond to my appeals to the PAC, and to me (as to one of the public information users) you have never told what, in what way and with what success have you been doing and have you done.
I have never made any claims on the point of your non-election, but appointment. On the contrary, I’ve been standing up for the PAC-members flawed by critics, as for authoritative people. I criticized the appointment in another sense: you have accepted the appointment PERSONALLY. You - all the current members of the PAC - PERSONALLY, not having entered into communication with whom you SHOULD have agreed on representation of interests.
Yuri! That’s why I NEED YOU SO MUCH. Are you familiar with “The strategy "From the dialogue within the democratic forces towards the dialogue with the regime", which I’m implementing?
And what concerns the fact that they [the authorities] are deaf and can not hear, that’s not true. They do hear and do respond. Yet, they react in a stupid and rude way. This is a structured dialogue, and, believe me, all the remarks are heard by all the participants of the dialogue and are not gone unheeded. Although sometimes they hardly pretend not to hear. And you (the PAC) play up to them.

 

Yuri Zisser: I hope, in the PAC we’ll be able, too, after some time to make a report to the general public. The problem is that till now there was actually nothing to report back to. As for me, however, at the moment I am reporting to the Facebook community in fact that I dared to accept the invitation to enter the PAC without the approval of the NGOs. Yes, I dared to, and I think that I did the right thing. This is my personal civil deed.

Bagdankevich, by the way, has entered also. And Leonid Zaika has entered. Milinkevich had been invited, and he was ready to join, but he said that he would be out of town, and asked to be represented by someone else, but Makey answered that the membership was private ne and couldn’t be transferred. Because of this, Milinkevich passed over.
And you are free, of course, to give this all your own assessment. But I do not think us to have committed a sin while entering. It is like considering a sin of conscience to study in school or university just because there is a mustachioed portrait in a lecture room and you have to stand the lectures of ideology.
Your appeal to the PAC, really, we have totally ignored: firstly, until this time it is not us who defines the agenda and the topic of sessions, although we are approaching to this; and secondly, as I’ve said, we are working exclusively with practicable things, and acceptance of your proposals would automatically mean dissolution or paralysis of the PAC. Banging head against the wall is not our principle.
Dear Uladzimir! At the moment there is no dialogue. There is a dialogue when the parties hear each other. But so far I see nothing but a mutual animosity and confrontation of the NGOs and the state. We believe a dialogue to be what now is trying to make the Action Team of the PAC within the state bodies and NGOs.

However, I understand that you, like many others, would disagree with this, so please consider this statement being my subjective personal opinion.

Also, may be you’ll explain me the following. I’ve been only once, a year ago, at the meeting of Belarusian participants of the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership of the IBB[3], where me and my colleagues in the PAC were massively insulted and humiliated by the people whom I had never seen before and who had knew in advance that I was the enemy, who had encroached on their grants and was trying to divert the Eastern Partnership attention towards my person, while driving them back.
So now please tell me: how can I relate to these people, some of whom are just humanly unpleasant to me? Was it the dialogue?? Well, and who are them - the Democrats???

 

Uladzimir Matskevich: Yuri! I can be nasty and evil. In the first six months of the PAC existence, I have been writing about it as an expert. I have been writing about its functions, which it should have in a normal democratic society and state. But the PAC creation in early 2009 was exactly a demonstration step towards normalization and democratization. And this expert opinion of mine shouldn’t have been ignored, since it was qualified and met the European standards, which Makey wanted to correspond to, also, while creating the PAC! But the PAC has ignored this expert opinion, as well.

I am not only evil and nasty, I'm also enduring, I can bide my time. I bided for half a year. All the while I was hinting and openly saying that the PAC should be presented to the general public and it should be talked about this step towards the normalization of the public life and democracy. Still, I didn’t succeed.
Then I have organized hearings on the PAC on my own. So what? 5 persons came. Even since, they didn’t come to talk, but to defend themselves (to defend - in the sense of Freud, it is very wrong action, while covering the opportunity to listen and to hear). The conversation did not occur. But you were not there. Maybe you would succeed?
Then it was even worse. Makey wanted to put up an act between Fule [4] and the European Commission. I had to thwart this attempt. And what should I do? To watch Zagumennov fooling all of us, and Grinyuk [5] - manipulating? No! It's not in my nature.
Even now I need to talk with you (the PAC and the Action Team) in a structured dialogue network. Seriously. Otherwise ... Well, as I’ve already said, I'm evil, nasty and enduring. Am I communicating clearly?

Yuri Zisser: You write:

"And you (the PAC) play up to them".

What are we playing up to? Just maybe to the very fact of participation in the PAC. But as I’ve already written above, I do not consider it dishonorable - see about studying at university. Otherwise it turns out that if someone believes, for example, the President to be illegitimate, he must considered illegitimate all the state machinery (appointed by the President ) and must ignore it and do not use anything public. So, according to this, a consistent human rights defender must give up all the public services.

Uladzimir Matskevich: You are playing up to them in a fact that you let them pretend not to hear or understand us. While, they do hear and understand us. But they use you to show that they do not hear and do not understand.

Yuri Zisser: Still, we all are going to meet on September, the 26^th in the hotel "Europe". Yet, I don’t remember any invitation to the hearings as for the PAC. And I do not really understand why did we have to come and report back to you, even if we have received the invitation.

In any normal country the PAC simply should not exist, for that aim there is the Parliament and society.

As for the drawing, I’m not informed. Makey on the PAC-meeting voiced his desire the PAC to be presented along with NGOs, not instead them. This is what I have heard with my own ears. Me and all the members of the PAC also wanted this.
To put up an act with Fule? It's funny. How is it possible to play him out? As a result of a slander, the West refers to the PAC worse than ever. Here is a dialogue like a dialogue.
And they [the authorities] do not hear and do not understand anything for 17 years already without any PAC, and in their non-listening and non-understanding they have absolutely no link to the PAC.

 

Uladzimir Matskevich: Yuri, I understand you. I understand also why did you enter the PAC. (I personally would not. But it’s me, you are different person, you have different position. I do not tend to judge people’s actions according to my own point of view). Moreover, I commend your action and your position. I would like only you to treat with understanding my position and my actions. Let us not copy and demand such copying from each other. I‘ve been finding myself alone against all the people, well of very many, much more times in my life than you. And I understand what it's like to be among the people who do not understand you, consider you an enemy or someone else. But it must be taken for granted and be understood.

The people have another position, other motivation, they actively disapprove some things. But them and you are one nation (another name of our Strategy is "We are one people!"). And we can not scatter and divide the country into parts. So, we need to negotiate.

You came to the Conference, whose members had been working out their attitude to you (the PAC) for half a year, having never talked before, never discussed; while knowing little about you and not approving even the little. So what did you want?

But I suggested you to talk! I'd proposed hearings on the PAC not on a whim! Not on a whim, but basing on understanding the norms of public communication, the basics of the PR. There was no need to go to a fortune-teller as to predict what would happen. And what did you think? Did you think that you would be loved only because you were a nice person to communicate with? No, it does not happen like this! If you do not want to feud, then try to talk, to explain! And do not squeak when the conversation turns out to be unpleasant and hard. This is a communication in the country divided for a long time into two warring camps, stubbornly unwilling to talk to each other. Reality must be taken for what it is and changed in the direction it should be.

I am glad that we are meeting on the 26^th. Well, then they do really hear us. And respond to the proposal of the EC.

 

Yury Zisser: I absolutely agree with you! You are right. Well, we will communicate more in the sequel.

As far as I know, this is exactly the EC, basing on the proposal of our NGOs, didn’t want the PAC to exist, but at the last moment they changed their mind, for some reason. Meanwhile, the Belarusian part of the Eastern Partnership crossed out the PAC members out of all submitted lists, not just didn’t invite them. I hope that this situation will soon change, at least selectively, personally. Why should we invite people whom we do not like? But we can’t disapprove all the people. 

 

Uladzimir Matskevich: The PAC can not be represented at the EaP Civil Society Forum. For the same reason, that Belarus is not represented in the EURONEST. And we have clearly explained this to Stefan Fule. But Makey did not understand anything, and until recently was trying to deceive Fule. It was not slander at all. And your task now is to explain to the regime, why Europe will never recognize the Parliament in Belarus in the form it is now. Without any slanders.

And - no, Yuri, no one crosses out the PAC and more - its members - out of  lists. Excuse me, but some things you do not want to understand. I hope this is a temporary situation. We need to talk. And in a form, that differs from the Facebook one.

 

Yuri Zisser: What I saw the last year, was just an attempt of the PAC to become one of the organizations represented at the Forum. But this year, in summer - so where does the regime come? As I was represented at the Forum as deputy chairman of the "Belinfocom" while offering to monitor the Belarusian Internet as to manage the human rights -related issues in Bynet and in other "Internets" of the EaP-countries? Is somebody in the EaP now dealing with these issues and understands them better than me? Nevertheless, I was crossed out, and were appointed people, unknown in the country; they represent nobody but themselves.

 

Uladzimir Matskevich: Ok. There was a voting and it was biased. But do not rush with such estimations, "were appointed people, unknown in the country; they represent nobody but themselves". If you don’t know someone, this does not automatically mean that this person is unknown to anybody. You think you are known by everybody? Or other members of the PAC? Alas!

 

Yuri Zisser: Uladzimir, but when did the voting take place: before the total meeting of the NGOs (the Conference, I think) or during it?

 

Uladzimir Matskevich: Right during the Conference. Each participant pointed out five of the appealed organizations (without the names of people). It was a rating vote.

 

Yuri Zisser: Thank you! The procedure was, indeed, democratic. The point, however, is that on the Conference of all the appealed members of the PAC only Oleg Trusov was invited (he had applied three times in previous years and with no success). He finally got in cherished lists of the Forum. We (the Action Team) have made a conclusion from this fact that the results had been defined at least a couple of days before the Conference. How did it happen?

 

Uladzimir Matskevich: I do not know. I need more details, apparently. By the way, my organization “HTA” [Humanitarian Technologies Agency] has never been selected from appealed organizations, the last time we got among the three organizations in the reserve list. Actually, the selecting procedure for the first Forum took place in Brussels. It's exactly the Belarusian delegation who had made changes to the format of the Forum. And the procedure for selecting delegates in the very country was our initiative, as well as the establishment of National Platforms. We are not heard by our own state, but the EC does hear us. And though with difficulty, but we manage to persuade them and to pursue our goals.