Pal Tamas: Belarus has many opponents of radical reforms due to the imaginary stability

photo Zautra.by

The leading European expert on social and political transformation in the post-Soviet area spoke on the pros and cons that affect the development of Belarus and the future of the Eastern Partnership.

Giving a public lecture organized as a part of the “European Cafe” project in Minsk (Belarus), Pal Tamas, Professor at Corvinus University of Budapest (Hungary), defined several positive and negative factors that one needs to keep in mind when planning reforms, including those performed in the framework of the “European dialogue on modernization with Belarus” programme.

“The country making at least a few improvements used to be considered a state making gradual progress, as it should be. But then the time of a rapid breakthrough in Taiwan and Singapore came and it became clear that the progress can sometimes be undulating, even after years of stagnation”.

Prospects of Belarus?

While analysing the prospects for Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova (BUM), European social scientists consider Belarus’ highly educate population as a positive factor.

“Despite the critique of the modern education system, citizens’ dream is to have a high school diploma and, while pursuing it, they are ready to spend much money”.

Among the positive factors, the expert named the framework of social institutions and programs that had been preserved from the Soviet era:

“People know that they can count on health care and free secondary education. Of course, these institutions deal with a lot of problems, but the fact that they exist significantly would simplify the future modernisation – at least there is a space for improvement, meaning there is no need to build new schools and hospitals”.

Another significant factor is maintaining the contact with diasporas in Europe and Moscow. In this aspect, Ukraine and Moldova are more successful than Belarus.

“You can blame the scholarship holders who have not returned home after their studies abroad, but they remain the “gold reserves” of the nation. As soon as the conditions are favourable, they will return home and will be a powerful force behind reforms. In the meantime, they are the bridge between the BUM countries and the larger world – Europe, the U.S. and Russia”.

“Belarusians are not aware what a dramatic change really means”

Considering the negative factors, Pal drew our attention to the problem of corruption, which has already become a kind of life style, and the “imperial syndrome”, which is typical for countries that had been under the influence of greater powers for a long time, and now are reluctant to integrate for fear of losing their independence.

According to Tamas, in Belarus the nationalist factor is much weaker in comparison with Ukraine and Moldova. In addition, Belarusians have no illusions that they are eagerly awaited in the EU. The specificity of the country are reforms that have been dragging on for decades.

“Belarusians are not aware what a dramatic change really means. They have not experienced any shock modernisation, when thousands of people stay jobless for years. Although at a first glance this seems a positive thing, it will play a low down trick later.

Belarus has a lot of opponents of radical reforms, supported by the imaginary stability. People are not really hungry and still have jobs. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine a drastic change of the regime – not in a political sense, but at a social level. Time has shown that the society of Belarus differs from others, so we cannot use Czech or Polish scenarios in this case”.

The Eastern Partnership is a pearl already thrown in the trash

Answering the question on the prospective relations between Belarus and the European Union, Pal Tamas was critical about the Eastern Partnership programme:

“The Eastern Partnership is a pearl thrown in the trash. Initially, this programme gathering a regional community was created to consolidate the position of Poland in the Eastern Partnership and to reassure Ukraine that it is wanted to join the EU. At that point, the key question was whether to expand or to strengthen the core of EU. Conceptually, the EU has chosen the second option, and follows this scenario. Maybe in 10-15 years, the expansion will get more supporters, and the question of accession of new countries to the EU will become more relevant”.

Eastbook.eu