Iryna Zhyhar: State should value people’s initiative

The state should learn to see partner to a dialog in the civil society, while the dialog itself should be a public discussion.

This opinion in the talk with the EuroBelarus Information Service shared Iryna Zhyhar, the chairperson of the Republican Public Association "Belorussian Organization of Working Women" (BOWW).

Let us recall that during the International seminar “From acting to influencing: enhancing projects of civil society in Belarus” that took place in Vilnius, Andrei Yahorau, political scientist and the head of the Centre for European Transformation, noted that the actors of the Belarusan civil society and political opposition are divided into three groups on the basis of the strategy they prefer to use in order to change the situation in Belarus. The first group prefers to establish dialog with the Belarusan regime; second group is for the public dialog similar to the roundtable in Poland, and the third group believes that only revolution can change situation in Belarus.

Iryna Zhyhar shared her own vision of the differences between the first variant, which is a nomenclature dialog, and the second, public one.

On the drawbacks of the nomenclature dialog:

- For me, nomenclature dialog and the public dialog represent closed and open discussion. The problem of closed discussion is the problem of single-handed decisions as well as single-handed responsibility. When the state organizes balance of interests it is erroneous to think that one can make a well-reasoned decision without independent expertise and public discussion with all the parties interested.

Although dialog with the Belarusan regime has such pros as quick decision-making process, it also has high rate of mistakes, as each decision requires additional decisions for adjusting the previous decision. Thus, constant correction of mistakes that could be avoided if public dialog is organized is going on all the time.

On the public dialog:

- All the parties, including opponents, are present in the public dialog. Public dialog for me exists not only for identifying mistakes, but also for sharing responsibility. Of course, when you delegate responsibility, you run a risk that people may not cope with the work. And after that you feel that “we’d better do it ourselves”.

State is participating in both the dialogs; it is an obligatory actor. However, in a nomenclature dialog with the EU interest groups are excluded, whereas in the public dialog they are present, as it is a structured dialog. Of course, interest groups delegate their representatives, and the state has to respect that only when coming to an agreement with the representatives, the state could negotiate with the group.

On the reforms and attendant unfavourable information:

- Any reform means changes, want we that or not. People are very conservative, they are afraid and the force of habit is great. Any change has negative response, as people have to make an effort to form new habit and new model.

But who will remove this negative response? It is the awareness of the negative reaction why the state doesn’t want to introduce any change. The goal of the state is to create conditions to find the balance of different interests. And only public dialog can manage to consider all the interests and work with different groups.

On the importance of the civil society as the party for a dialog:

- I still can’t understand why the state believes that civil society consists of amateurs, not actors for negotiations. As all that we want is to share with the state the responsibility for the quality of our own life and the lives of those whose interests we represent. I believe that the state should value people’s initiative.

Of course, we don’t have the possibility to track the situation in every area, as we don’t have the Council of Ministers that the officials have; we see only our local part. But let’s sit and talk! I am sure that we have what to say to the state and offer something that is worth to be discussed. I am convinced that we can make our contribution to the development of the country, but it is impossible without the public dialog.