The house arrest

The Belarusian authorities’ revengefulness and meanness has been implemented yet in another form of reality, - in a "house arrest" measure application against the active part of our society; in fact, taking place without any legal grounds for that.

The Belarusian authorities’ revengefulness and meanness has been implemented yet in another form of reality, - in a "house arrest" measure application against the active part of our society; in fact, taking place without any legal grounds for that.

Instead of working for the national interests of the country and acting for the urgent aftermath elimination of the diplomatic conflict provoked by the very authorities, restoring the Western direction of the country’s notorious multidirectionality, the regime representatives are persistently and deliberately aggravating the situation by continuing to operate on the "tit-for-tat" principle.

The Belarusian government took this step consciously; its motivation and arguments are easy to reconstruct:

• There’s need to definitely demonstrate to politicians and bureaucrats of the European Union its ability of retaliatory response to the so-called "sanctions"; it’s the classical behavior of the Cold War era. In fact, the power shifts the responsibility for the EU actions against the ruling elite onto the Belarusian opposition and civil society representatives. Thus, there are no "retaliatory sanctions" against the EU; the regime corresponds instead with the restriction of the rights and freedoms of its citizens, whose interests and rights, according to the warrant, it is designed to protect.

• Selective and gradual application of the travel ban to the opposition and Belarusian civil society leaders are to create a situation in which the atmosphere of uncertainty and suspicion, profitable for power, will arise in the independent part of the society: who is still allowed to leave the country, and who isn’t? And for what reason? Aren’t those who are still allowed to leave, cooperating with the regime? It is definitely with this purpose that we aren’t told the exact list of those "restricted to travel abroad", but we are made intense hints at the existence of a broad list, which contains as many as 108 names.

• An additional advantage of the "house arrest" introduction is the expectation of rather sluggish society response to such a move. Well, those are not put in jail; they are just deprived of the right to move! In a country where most citizens are still quite passive in their mode of life and relatively rarely travel outside the country, such kind of "retaliatory sanctions" will not meet resistance or a significant upheaval, which will force the authorities to do something.

• Closeness of the western boundary for those "stained" in human rights violations in Belarus has turned out to be a more sensitive punishment than one might have thought. And if so, they should take revenge on "agitators", to show who the boss is. We are denied the EU entry - we will respond with the restriction to travel outside the country to representatives of this "hateful and corrupt opposition". There is no such law? Nothing, it's just a matter of time. In the coming weeks there will appear quite "legitimate" grounds for the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens of the Republic of Belarus. The cruelty of irony and cynicism of these actions can be assessed, if we recall that just in a few days our country will celebrate Constitution Day.

Speaking about the Constitution. I think it will not be superfluous to address some of its articles of direct relevance to the topic. Thus:

Article 4. Democracy in the Republic of Belarus shall be exercised on the basis of diversity of political institutions, ideologies and opinions.
The ideology of political parties, religious or other public associations, social groups may not be made mandatory for citizens.

Article 23. Restriction of personal rights and freedoms shall be permitted only in the instances specified by law, in the interests of national security, public order, protection of the morals and health of the population as well as rights and freedoms of other persons.
No one may enjoy advantages and privileges that are contrary to law.

Article 30. The citizens of the Republic of Belarus shall have the right to move freely and choose their place of residence within the Republic of Belarus, to leave it and to return thereto without hindrance.

Thus, it is clear that the government and civil society have fundamentally different comprehension of the cornerstones of the social order: we have different (if not directly opposed) definitions of the "law", "national security", "public order", "right”, etc. So who of us uses these terms in quotes?

The precedents of restrictions to travel abroad (Lebedko, Kalyakin, Stefanovic, etc.) known for today even now clearly show that the "house arrest" is used against the opponents of the current regime in a heap without binding to the opinions those politics or civil society leaders have expressed on the EU sanctions against the Belarusian regime. As Uladzimir Matskewich has previously noted in its publications, there is no official political parties’ or NGOs’ appeal, which would contain a demand or even a proposal to impose economic sanctions.

The members of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum in a recent statement have given a definite assessment of the diplomatic conflict that has arisen, and have urged the authorities to refrain from actions on the "tit-for-tat" principle for the sake of the national interests. But it seems that the Belarusian regime doesn’t give a damn about that!