In Search of One Voice

Change in Belarus will only become possible with the full participation of the civil society in national decision-making.

But getting to this point is not an easy task. It requires civil society organisations to consolidate and become a respectable counterpart to the national authorities and external actors.

This article was first published in the Polish magazine "New Eastern Europe", №1(X), 2014, pp. 99-104.

Year after year, Belarus receives the lowest scores on various indices measuring different dimensions of democracy, despite all the efforts and resources that western countries invest in democratisation. The absence of any positive dynamics leads some to say that Belarus is not only a backward country, but an incurable case and it is hopeless to influence the situation.

In our opinion, we adhere to the opposite point of view, which may seem provocative: Belarus is one of the most modern countries in the world. By this provocative point, we mean that Belarus is far from being backward. On the contrary, the fact that Belarus appears on the bottom of indices concerning rights and freedoms, corruption and economic reforms (but at the same time remains surprisingly sustainable) shows that the Belarusan regime represents the most advanced challenge for the international community. Consequently, it means that there are no pre-made models available to solve the problems in Belarus. Furthermore, it is impossible to approach Belarus as a well-known and easily understandable case. Only innovative solutions should be applied to the Belarusan situation.

Two strategies

In the Eastern Partnership region, Belarus is the least developed country in almost all indices of Europeanisation and democracy development. Even according to technical criteria, Belarus is the furthest country from the European Union among the six partners. The EU and Belarus have not signed the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. Belarus does not participate in the bilateral dimension of the Eastern Partnership programme and there are no negotiations on visa liberalisation. The case of EU-Belarus relations reveals the weaknesses of European policy in the region, which are partly masked by democratic "overtures" in other countries. The European Neighbourhood Policy stands on the same grounds as its enlargement policy does, where the "more for more" principle implicitly means the interest of the partner countries in cooperation, democratic reforms and integration with the EU.

However, there is no unconditional European orientation among the Eastern Partnership countries, as opposed to the countries that entered the EU in 2004. EU-Belarus relations most vividly demonstrate that the European Neighbourhood Policy approach is not well adapted to the political situation in the region. The "failures" of European integration in other countries (selective justice and the Tymoshenko case in Ukraine; relations between Armenia and the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan; ambivalent development trends in the Southern neighbourhood) prove just that.

Regarding the indices of rights, freedoms and democracy in Belarus, the absence of any positive dynamic means that the Belarusan government does not use the results of such rankings for "error correction" - there are no reforms implemented to improve the situation in these spheres. According to the CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index, in 2013 Belarus ranked 93 out of 109 countries. The CIVICUS Index shows that the main problems of the civil society in Belarus lay in the sphere of its relations with the government. Belarus ranked 107 in governance where such things as civil society infrastructure, policy dialogue, political rights and freedoms, media freedom, freedom of association, legal framework for NGOs, the rule of law etc. are taken into consideration.

The deplorable level of democracy and conditions of the civil society in Belarus are well known both by external actors working in Belarus and by Belarusans themselves. However the stakeholders choose different strategies to approach the situation. Among civil society organisations in Belarus two main strategies dominate: the "grassroots strategy" and the "structural reforms strategy". Supporters of both approaches agree that the status quo is unacceptable, but the grassroots strategy is based on the principle that "constant dropping wears away a stone" and trust that small concrete improvements will finally lead to large-scale changes.

Organisations acting in this paradigm most often have concrete beneficiaries who even can be known personally: these are small groups of people (or even individuals) who received any kind of help - problems solved with housing and public utilities, improvement of infrastructure in their neighbourhood, organisation of any awareness-raising or educational events etc. The grassroots strategy solves problems of individual people, but it does not challenge systemic issues or address the reason why such problems arise. It only makes adjustments to the imbalances in the functioning of Alexander Lukashenko's authoritarian regime. Ideologically, however, it states that such activities in the long term will contribute to a change in political culture and by consequence erode the grounds on which the regime stands. It should be mentioned that such an approach dominates among international organisations, in the offices of the European development programmes, in the approaches of main donors and, absolutely, the majority of Belarusan civil society organisations.

The strategy of the International Consortium "EuroBelarus" is very different from the approach described above. It is based on the understanding that the solution of any problems existing to date in Belarusan society is only possible when the framework for civil society is altered. As for changing the framework, it only becomes possible with the full participation of civil society in national decision-making where its counterpart is the government. Certainly, we understand that the Belarusan government is not interested in democratisation and will not introduce democratic standards and extend civil society participation on its own. In a sense, the Belarusan government has to be forced to do so under social pressure and via public dialogue. Therefore, in our work we tend to emancipate civil society: it has to get out of its subordinate situation and has to be cured of its deformation. Civil society needs to take its equal place in the development of Belarus along with the national authorities and external development actors.

Consolidation

Accordingly, with such a strategy it is accepted that every organisation works in its specific field - the rights of people with disabilities, women’s rights, rights of employers and employees, informal education, the protection of environment etc. However, its activities have to be directed in such a way that it not only affects official policy by the government, but transforms its particular field according to the standards to which the organisation adheres. In Belarus, the government has a monopoly almost everywhere and our task should be to de-monopolise life.

In order to achieve our goals, our efforts have to be carried out at both the national and international levels. In Belarus, the consolidation of civil society, which would allow it to become a respectable counterpart in the dialogue, is the passport to success. The creation of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum was an important step towards this consolidation. The National Platform has been established as a communication space to coordinate the efforts of dozens of civil society organisations and to build a common position in order for Belarusan civil society to speak with one voice inside the country and on the international level. Certainly, this has not eliminated conflicts, contradictions or discords between its varied members on the further development of the platform. Nevertheless, the National Platform has entrenched itself as a legitimate nationwide space to initiate actions, defend common interests of civil society groups in Belarus and influence important political decisions.

Obviously, where there is brutal oppression of any form of independent civic activities, the place for a national platform is limited. Building this space, however, has been a huge step for Belarusan civil society. It has opened new perspectives for the development and the extension of influence on new issues. In principle, the national platform has led to overcoming the exclusion of the civil society and citizens from political decision-making.

The tasks for civil society on the international level arise from the same statement that Belarusan authorities are not interested in democratic reforms. Consequently, the democratisation of Belarus cannot be performed via bilateral dialogue between donors (the EU, the US, Poland, Sweden, Germany, etc.) on one side and the Belarusan government on the other. More than 15 years of unsuccessful attempts to do so prove this. In order to make this process successful, to make it respond to the interests of society, Belarus’ international relations should be "de-statised". According to the principles fixed in the Paris Declaration (2005), the Accra Agenda for Action (2008) and the Busan Agreement (2011), international relations must involve national non-state actors - the parliament, local authorities and civil society organisations. Only together will these stakeholders have the right and ability to define national development strategies.

Certain obstacles

One of the main fields we focus our efforts on is the Eastern Policy of the European Union and European countries, since these are the donors most actively contributing to the development of Belarus. Recently, the European Neighbourhood Policy has been giving more and more opportunities to civil society. Still, there is a long way to go before reaching a full-fledged multi-stakeholder dialogue. In order to implement this model, we have to overcome certain obstacles such as the narrow-mindedness of European politicians, counter-measures by the Belarusan government and the unwillingness of many Belarusan organisations to participate in the dialogue.

New and unprecedented opportunities for the civil society became available in 2009 when the EU launched the Eastern Partnership programme. Unlike the institutional framework of the Neighbourhood Policy, the Eastern Partnership includes a number of parallel platforms for cooperation among different stakeholders: Summits at the governmental level; ministerial meetings; thematic platforms for high-level official meetings; Euronest for the parliaments; CORLEAP for the local authorities, etc.

Following this logic, the civil societies of the partner countries have its own special space - the Civil Society Forum. Originally, it was designed for horizontal thematic cooperation and organised in four thematic groups according to four thematic platforms of intergovernmental cooperation. But already during the first Forum in 2009 in Brussels, the need arose to institute the national dimension by creating national platforms for each partner country. The initial resistance to the idea of national platforms by the European Commission and the governments of some partner countries was alleviated by 2011. Relying on the national platforms, the Civil Society Forum has become more sustainable and has received more political influence within the Eastern Partnership programme. As for Belarusan civil society, it creates an institutionalised voice regarding European policy towards our country through the Forum and the National Platform.

The Belarusan authorities have undertaken a number of attempts to substitute true civil society in the framework of the Eastern Partnership by fictitious structures controlled by the government. In 2009-2010 the Belarusan National Platform had to resist attempts made to substitute it with the "public consultative council" and so-called "Nation-wide Platform of NGOs" under the auspices of the presidential administration. In fact, the authorities tried to build a vertical hierarchy of all civil society in Belarus and deprive it of its initiative at national level. The National Platform member organisations by their consolidated actions were not only able to defend their independence, but also block any further attempts of such simulation.

In 2012, Štefan Füle, the Commissioner for EU Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy, launched a new initiative called European Dialogue on Modernisation with Belarusan Society. This initiative is completely in line with the multi-stakeholder dialogue model. It is a platform for a round-table dialogue between representatives of the Belarusan authorities (under the condition of the release and rehabilitation of all political prisoners), the opposition, the civil society and the EU. Understanding the huge potential of the Dialogue on Modernisation since the very beginning, we have been making every effort to turn it into an efficient tool to modernise Belarus.

However, the Dialogue has become an exercise for experts rather than a format for cooperation between different socio-political forces. There are two main reasons why this is the case. Firstly it was the insistence of the European Commission and the European External Action Service that governmental experts be involved in the dialogue at the technical level. According to this thinking, it was assumed that any alternative political forces would not support the participation of the government, even at the technical level. Therefore, it would be better to eliminate the political level of the Dialogue and keep interactions between experts free from politics. Secondly, the Belarusan civil society and political opposition have shown that they are not a consolidated actor and could not lobby a consistent position regarding the development of the Dialogue on Modernisation. The efforts of the National Platform acting alone to transform the institutional framework of the Dialogue had not been sufficient and could not stop the trend to limit the Dialogue to just an expert panel.

Much work has been done and some improvements have taken place for Belarusan civil society. We still have a long way to go, however, to achieve any real change in the country. The transformation of Belarus, like any closed society, is not an easy task and its success depends on the open-mindedness and creativity of all stakeholders involved.

About author:

Alena Zuikova is Master of Political Science (European Affairs), analyst at Centre for European Transformation; representative to Brussels of the International Consortium "EuroBelarus".