Andrei Kazakevich: The activity of the Parliament depends on the Lukashenko’s will

Deputies

Three days before the main ballot day of the current election campaign there was no intrigue on who will get to the Parliament. The list of deputies's been known back at the moment of registration.

The EuroBelarus Information Service inquired the director of the Institute for Policy Studies Palіtychnaya Sphera (Political Sphere) Andrei Kazakevich about the reason why civil servants go to the House of Representatives, whether we should wait a discussion in a new Parliament and who is responsible for the lack of initiative from the side of the Belarusan deputies.

- One can hear more often now that the parliamentary deputies are assigned and not chosen. Not only have representatives of the political parties talked about it, but the voters as well. What do you think: if the mechanism of the assignment of the state-affiliated candidates actually exists? If so, what achievements are they assigned for?

- The practice of the last years has shown that the list of people who will represent power is being formed before the elections. And this list is fully validated by election committees afterwards. Therefore, deputies are actually being assigned. To work in the Parliament for them means to have a possibility to get a pension of honor and to finish their political career. It is specifically obvious for the running House of Representatives if we start analyzing the social structure of the deputies. Just for the minor part of the deputies, the work in the Parliament implies the possibility to lobby for certain interests.

- In an interview to the TV-channel “Belsat” you noted that a competition between the state-affiliated groups in the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the forth convocation took place. What do you think: will such a tendency still last in the Parliament of the fifth convocation? Is it worth waiting for the real change in the work of the new Parliament?

- This competition concerns not only deputies but the political elite of Belarus on the whole. There exist two opinions on what the Parliament should look like – whether to be bureaucratized or have stronger political relevance. It is very difficult to speak about the confrontation in the today’s Belarusan Parliament. It does not exist in the public sense. The level of the political discussion is fairly low. I connect it with the fact that most of the deputies realize that the Parliament practically implements the subfunctions in the state system of drafting bills. And they simply work in this corridor. This corridor can be expanded, but it depends on the political will of the President or his administration. In this case one will find deputies who will use the parliamentary tribune for the realization of their ambitions. But in order to make life in Parliament more active, political will of the executive power is required. Whether it will happen, it is hard to say. For the debate on the political relevance and functions of the Parliament has been held from the mid-2000s. It can even be found regularly in the official papers, but over the period absolutely nothing has changed. Vice versa, the Parliament became more bureaucratized. One should bear in mind that the higher political role of the Parliament will run the risks for the model established over the last decade.

- In the course of the agitation campaign, the leaders of the opposition parties and movements claimed that we should head for a parliamentary republic. What do you think, is it the right time to say about it? Are there preconditions for such changes?

- It is next to impossible, to check the preconditions, as the political process in Belarus is non-transparent; besides, the public opinion is largely distorted by the presence of the authoritarian power and manipulation from the mass media side. The parliamentary republic potential can be evaluated under the democratic government. The very idea of the parliamentary republic seems sensible to me. It guarantees the existence of the democratic statehood. And the experience of almost all post-Soviet and post-Communist countries testifies to the fact that the countries that have chosen the presidential republic, slide into the authoritarianism. The situation in Ukraine after Yanukovich was elected president demonstrates it terrifically. The main advantage of the parliamentary model is that it guarantees democratic standards. The main disadvantage is that one cannot predict how much will be the possibility to form sustained coalitions that will hold power after the democratic elections. We cannot assert that the parties that will get most of the votes will find mutual understanding. The risks of the parliamentary republic is that the authorities can be unstable, can decay, there will be no reliable majority of this or that political power. It will lead to the political crises and political instability on the whole. Eventually it will not allow pursuing a consistent economic policy which may result in destabilization.

- The candidates from the Liberal Democratic Party during their speeches concentrated on the fact that it has come time to switch to the mixed electoral system. The leaders of the “Belaya Rus” claimed about the formation of the party. Can we perceive these signals as the electorate preparation to the change of the electoral system?

- Debates on the subject have been run for a long time. It is not a new idea to form a state-controlled party. And according to the plan, “Belaya Rus” should have turned into the party before the current elections. Then it was admitted that neither the organization nor the society en masse are ready. But one should understand that this is a large-scale political game. Part of the political elite is interested in it as it will allow them to self-actualize, to have greater influence, to decentralize the power. They lobby in different ways for exactly this scenario: formation of the state-affiliated party and several loyal opposition parties, and it all resembles the Russian model. The other part of the elite is absolutely uninterested in it, as they will lose a lot. And the main resistance there is shown by the bureaucracy as formation of the state party that will have representations in each town means the formation of a parallel political structure. Now everything is decided by the line of command, but after the changes there will exist at least two lines of command. Accordingly, it implies a certain movement of political views away the government. It is obvious that the regime is not interested in it. One more factor that determinates the balance between these two groups is the question of political risks and instability. Any political reform may lead to unexpected political consequences. Today’s regime is largely afraid of it and it is delaying this moment, especially now, when we have serious economic problems.

- From the speeches of the state-run candidates, several program points were said that did not correspond to the functions of a parliamentary deputy: regulation of the public transport in Minsk, building of the cultural and sport objects in some areas of the capital, and so on. Can we call it a deliberate populism in order to attract voters or today’s candidates are really unaware of the real role of a parliamentary deputy?

- In the majority of cases these are attempts to draw attention. Candidates use the slogans which are comprehensible for the constituency. The best way to show that you can do something for people is to say about minor, urgent problems.

- The analysts of the BAJ [Belarusan Association of Journalists – EuroBelarus] who were involved in mass media monitoring came to the conclusion that state media deliberately ignored the elections and minimized the information about the parliamentary campaign so as not to provoke discussion and political discourse in the society. Do you share the thesis that the topic of the elections is suppressed by the state mass media?

- As I see it the information was provided limitedly. It was important for the state media not to go beyond the level of the politicization and not to allow the mobilization of the population. Mass media kept an information corridor narrow for people to know that the elections were taking place, but didn’t give too much attention to that, particularly for the voters not to impose the existing problems on this election campaign.

- The experience of the neighboring countries shows that together with the development of information technologies, candidates make themselves known in the Internet, gathering the supporters in social networks. As a result, new persons who were not politically committed before appear. Take for instance the newly appeared businessman and professional poker player Maxim Kats in Russia. Is it possible that such persons will appear in the Belarusan political field?

- If we consider political history of Belarus, we’ll see that each election, especially the presidential one, always leads to the recruitment: new activists, political and civil structures appear. It is clear that the role of the electronic media and social networks is increasing. But the appearance of such persons as Maxim Kats is impossible in Belarus, as the control after these things in particular is very consistent and tough. This strategy has been chosen by the authorities back in the 90s. It aims at depriving the opposition and civil structures of any sources of the inner funding. That is why if such people will appear and speak their ambitions in public they will not carry on long. They will lose their business very quickly. It will be good if it won’t end up with the imprisonment and repressions.