Andrei Kazakevich: Broad concepts won’t work; the future is made of fragments and compromise

New utopia or a new “project” has no sense in practice. It may be interesting for intellectuals as a game; but there are few chances that it’ll affect the socio-political processes.

How to make the project about Belarus a success? What will contribute to the unification of Belarusans or are they really that fatally divided? “EuroBelarus” Information Service asked Doctor of Political Sciences Andrei Kazakevich, the director of the Institute for Policy Studies Palіtychnaya Sphera (Political Sphere) about it.

- Do you agree with the opinion that the Belarusan society is extremely apathetic now? Another election with predictable result took place; no changes in any part of Belarusan life are visible…

- I would agree with that, though I usually speak about “tiredness” – ideological and emotional. It has been seven years that the economic crisis is ruling in our country; it has been two years since armed danger was set in our region. This year refugees, Syria, and terrorist attacks added to the existing problems. It’s not a one-time event, but a seven-year period, an epoch with its heroes, ideas, and texts that hasn’t finished yet. But the fact that it isn’t finishing with something positive is making Belarusans even more tired – they lose faith, guidelines, and illusions.

The majority of those who believed in Eurasian “bright future” feel that it doesn’t work out the way they’ve expected.

At the same time, the appeal of the European idea has weakened a lot; Europe itself is undergoing a wave of Euroscepticism.

There is also a complicated Ukraine’s example, where the univocal European choice that seemed to be the solution few years ago turned out to be useless when it came to the problems that have been piling up in the society.

When ideas don’t work out and projects are ruined, it, of course, causes tiredness and apathy.

- Can it be that the Belarusan projects that have been realized for a century now are useless in the wide sense? Can we say that if we repeat one and the same mistake for many years in a row, it’s not a mistake anymore, but a sign of infantilism and disease? There is also an opinion that the Belarusan nation hasn’t been formed yet – if so, is there any sense to build some concepts of the future?

- I have a totally different view on the matter. First, Belarusan nation is formed, though, probably, not as someone wanted to. Secondly, the fact that all projects of Belarusan nation building failed or had no result is nonsense. The discussion is as old as the hills; and there are dozens of intellectuals who used to write (and still do) that we are making the same mistakes and so on. But if we really compare the state of the Belarusan issue in the beginning of the 20^th century and now – these are two complete differences. Of course, each project didn’t fully reach what it planned to reach – neither the Belarusan People's Republic nor the BSSR. Belarusan nation is the result of cooperation, fighting, and mutual disdain of these projects, not the result of some mistakes.

The formation of the Belarusan nation is not the work of one party or movement. Even if we talk about the political level, it touched upon a wide range of issues both in the early twentieth century and in the 1990s. However, it was even more complicated at the level of culture and society. It's just wrong to focus on some narrow segment, nominating it as the sole spokesman of the process.

- But for all that, it seems to me that the Belarusan society is clearly split into two parts starting from the basic symbols – the flag and coat of arms. I think that we can’t call Belarusans a consolidated nation when it comes to anything. Can any of the future projects be a success with such almost opposite orientations?

- It's a good clarification. But, first, we shouldn’t exaggerate unification and consolidation of modern nations in general. There are very different examples. Italy is clearly divided on a geographical basis; Belgium is balancing on the verge of a split; the United States has plenty of ethnic and racial problems. Even such monolithic countries like France or Greece sometimes experience radical polarization. We can also recall the surge of separatist movements in Catalonia, Scotland, the Basque Country...

Such non-integrity is, rather, an attribute of modern nations. The nation is the coexistence of differences, - political, social, and cultural. Of course, I admit that Belarusans are divided; there are different visions of what Belarus should be; but it doesn’t challenge the very idea of the Belarusan nation.

Apart from that, we should also take into account dynamics: for example, the difference between those who were focused on a national project and those focused on a Soviet one was much bigger 25 years ago than it is now.

- But still, how can we implement the project Belarus that would be both successful and consolidating? There were too many of these concepts before.

- I think that the broad intellectual concepts fail. And now from the practical point of view it makes no sense to invent a new utopia or a new large-scale "project". This could be interesting for intellectuals as a game, and perhaps something of that will be left in the intellectual history, but there are few chances that it will affect the socio-political processes. A new era of "universal projects" might come some day; but this won’t happen any time soon.

I believe that the near future will be created evolutionary, without a strategy; it will be created in parts, pieces, and fragments. And it is in these fragments that the real Belarusan compromise will lie, because I think that there are no other options. The victory of one flow won’t be constructive. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on some specific, perhaps even local things – not on large-scale intelligent projects.

- But we still have to get out of apathy...

- Of course, now we have less faith in some rescue tools, but it doesn’t have to be a source of apathy and pessimism. I think that a mere detailed understanding of this condition as a period or an era shows certain way-outs. So, there’s no use waiting or artificially causing some regular euphoria, seeking a way-out in a miraculous cure or idea. There must be an understanding of what can be done and what we can have an influence on in such a situation. We shouldn’t dream of a global utopia or rapid changes, but should consistently work in our sphere. Fundamental, not romantic work should be brought to the forefront.