Uladzimir Matskevich: We need companions
Only broad debate, even propaganda, if you like, or promotion, as modern marketing calls it, are able to give impulse to the European Dialogue on modernization of Belarus.
This opinion shared the head of the Board of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus”, Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (EaP CSF) Uladzimir Matskevich, summing up the already passed organization and activity game (OAG) on “Policy and innovation potential of the “European Dialogue on modernization of Belarus”: challenges, problems, possibilities”.
We need to indicate the sides of the dialogue
One of the statements that was voiced during the last OAG was that currently the European Dialogue on modernization hasn’t been a dialogue in the full sense of the word.
“Dialogue is the most universal form of people’s interaction, - notes Uladzimir Matskevich. – But, for instance, the dialogue of the infant who was taught a couple of words with his parents – this is one thing, the dialog of a teacher with his students in different classes - these are different things as well. The dialog between equal partners interested in common actions is one kind of dialogue, and the dialogue, say, between the opponents who have different viewpoints is absolutely different thing. And for us to assume that the European Dialogue on modernization got off the ground we need to realize our self-determination as to who we are in this dialogue. And when a person comes and says “I’m just a citizen of Belarus, I do not represent anyone, I’m just and expert”, so how can he enter into the dialogue with the European Commission, the supranational body, which manages the affairs of the whole EU? Because the scales are incommensurable. We should at least make our positions level in this dialogue. Now the dialogue is conducted without the participation of the Belarusan state, and who is participating in the dialogue from the side of the opponents of the existing regime? And in result, the dialogue turns out to be the hope for monologue: “European Commission, tell us what to do? Ask us what you still don’t know and we will answer you as experts”. Thus, the situation is completely inert. The other part of the dialogue from the Belarusan side hasn’t yet shaped. And we suggest marking this side, to work out common position on problems raised in the dialogue, even if one only for every subject group. We need to formulate common theses which at least will bring us into the dialogue with the European Union. And it is then when we will be able to insist on participation of the Belarusan state in the dialogue”.
We need to take the lead
According to Uladzimir Matskevich, one of the main problems of the European Dialogue on modernization in its current state is that nobody takes upon himself the initiative to speak on behalf of the wide community: “From the Belarusan side in this dialogue everybody still represents himself. Everybody can tell something on his own behalf, but nobody speaks of behalf of Belarus in this dialogue. And when everybody speaks on his own behalf, then the questions appear: are we nation at all? Are we civil society? How come it to be a civil society if no one trusts no one within it? And it turns out that there are people who are very willing to come and tell the European Commission about their provincial, local problems, calling it dialogue. And what can the European Union do in Žodzina? Nothing. As Žodzina is under the jurisdiction of Minsk, not Brussels. So we should have a dialogue between Minsk and Brussels, and for that one needs to formulate the position of Minsk. These things are so obvious, that I am uncomfortable about explaining them constantly”.
But as it turned out, not everyone is willing to understand even such obvious things. “Consortium “EuroBelarus” needs companions. The more significant the public or political structure in our country is, the more we need it as interlocutor. And all our counteragents and opponents have completely different problems, they do not need neither companions nor the dialogue”, - assumes Uladzimir Matskevich.
According to his words, it happens so that in this case the opponents have an idea of actions for themselves and are ready to be content with that: “For them the area of their activity is their own organizations, their own target groups, but not the whole country. What EuroBelarus suggests now as concept, programs, strategies presuppose wide public actions that give full play to the activity of very many organizations and active citizens. That is why we need to enter the dialogue, and those who want mere development of their own work within their limited actions don’t need dialogue and companions. Because of this difference we gather people and experts for discussion of some problems all the time, but many organizations are not very willing to gather. And even if they come, then they come to discuss their own problems, no the problems of the whole country. Under this discrepancy of interests and suggestions we should evaluate success or failure of these or that events”.
We need to concentrate forces
“We managed to gather a lot of people interested for communication on concrete subject. We invited everyone who represents the party in interest and could introduce their suggestions for organization of common actions within the EDM international initiative”, - notes Uladzimir Matskevich, summing up the organization and activity game that has already taken place.
But still, it turned out that “there are no other suggestions apart from ours”: “That is why we had to bring our own suggestions up for discussion, to submit them for criticism. And it happened so that during the last game we received added evidence that our suggestions are right. But added evidence in this sense doesn’t make success for us. Yes, we have one more time seen, one more time discussed, one more time measured so that to cut at last. But the problem lies in that independently, i.e. with the efforts of the Consortium EuroBelarus or with a number of organizations which are part of the National Platform we are not able to cut. Much bigger concentration of forces than we have at our disposal today is required. So we can think: yes, the program of cultural policy brought up for discussion in the game has stood up to the criticism and it is good. But this is only relatively good. Until our Program becomes the program for the actions of wide sections of the civil society in Belarus we can’t consider our activity to be successful”.
One of the goals of the game was the elaboration of program suggestions on the development of the European Dialogue on modernization. Uladzimir Matskevich believes that this goal was somewhat solved: “Our Cultured Politics Program is a strategy that requires concretization in every single moment of time. It should meet the challenge of the time. And the suggested schemes for the dialogue development are the basis for us at the next meeting of the Coordination Committee of the National Platform to adopt a document with which we will be able to turn to the European Commission Representative Office in Minsk – with our fairly clear idea of the perspectives of the European Dialogue on modernization. But we shouldn’t forget that life is a game. We play through certain things in game for understanding, and all the decisions are taken only in real life”.
-
03.01
-
07.10
-
22.09
-
17.08
-
12.08
-
30.09
