- It is not only a surface impression – it is true, - noted Uladzimir Matskevich in the talk with the EuroBelarus Information Service. – On the one hand, the reason for such an impression is because we are comparing this Conference with the previous one, which aroused hot discussions and debates. On the other hand, all the problems which were the subject-matter of the discussion haven’t been resolved yet. One of the reasons for it is that opponents wander from solving problems, while the core leaders and several active organizations within the National Platform have good understanding of what they do, pursue consistent policy and defend their stance.
According to Uladzimir Matskevich, the decision to retire from the discussion of the dissenters “is a typical Belarusian way to solve debatable issues –never talking with the opponent, never trying to reason and revise the viewpoint”.
- When the disagreement is recorded, they merely stop taking part in the discussion and get on to their own business. That is why the role of the civil society and political opposition is being weakened instead of urgently needed consolidation. Unfortunately, the standards of discussion are very low, as well as the ability for consolidation. However, the Conference is aimed at strengthening and improving the work of the National Platform. It is only a stage where National Platform continues its development; and no pompousness should have been expected.
The head of the Board of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus” believes that the recent Human Rights Forum and Forum of Ecological Organizations together with the Conference of the National Platform demonstrate adherence to the old problems. And the roots of these problems lie in “rather outmoded, primitive and simplified understanding of democracy”.
- When the vote of every participant, every organization is equal to the vote of any other organization or participant, it is the contents and relevance of everyone’s opinion which are suffering, as some participants are prepared better than the others. And for now, unfortunately, the influence of the competent smart leaders on the general meeting and mutual opinion is very low; and suggestions and initiatives of a poor quality appear, as, for instance, the so-called “Strategy-2015” suggested by Eugene Boiko. Such initiatives damage those initiatives which are really well-thought and well-reasoned. And for now it is qualitative growth and serious reasoning of problems lying before the civil society on the one hand, and withdrawal of all unreasonable offers on the other hand that is required. Civil society reminds of a political kindergarten, as often the desire to implement all initiatives, even the weirdest ones, prevails over the desire to look deep into reasonableness of this or that initiative. But in result of such indiscrimination civil society wastes itself on petty projects, without resolving actual problems. And that only pulls us deeper into the stagnation mire.