How productive was 2013 for the civil society of Belarus and why?

Belarusan civil society was developing slowly, and according to the results of 2013 no outstanding achievements were reached.

This statement in the interview with the EuroBelarus Information Service made Andrei Yahorau, the Country Facilitator for Belarus of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum, the Director of Centre for European Transformation.

— How productive was 2013 for the civil society of Belarus? Was it successful or not, and why?

— The old year for the civil society turned out to be ordinary and full of work, which actually means there were no significant achievements.

When we presented the results of the program monitoring “Situation and development of Belarusan civil society” we have noted that over the last years growth temperature of the Belarusan civil society is low. All independent structures are burdened with unsolved tasks, the main of which is the change of working conditions, or, if you will, the change of political regime in the country. It is only for the civil society to get more independence, liberal conditions for its development and possibilities to solve nation-wide problems; but, unfortunately, civil society is not prepared for it.

We don’t have any achievements; and I would rather not discuss our failures.

— What was the year like for the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum?

— It was the same for the civil society and for the Belarusan National Platform of the EaP CSF: we were involved in solving current problems. National Platform didn’t manage to fulfil its consolidation function for the active players within the civil society, so it returned to the problems of its inner strengthening and development.

On the threshold of political season of 2014-2015 National Platform missed its time for active work and failed to create an active political player for the new political game. But what is worse, nobody succeeded in it. So the country lacks alternative players that could seriously influence political environment in the upcoming elections.

— Summit in Vilnius was one of the topical events for the Belarusan National Platform in 2013. What influence did it have on the activity of the civil society on the whole and National Platform in particular?

— I would rather characterise the Summit and the situation around it as a challenge for the Eastern Partnership program. However, this challenge wasn’t accepted; and despite the decision of Armenia and Ukraine to turn to the East, it failed to become a reference point for the EaP. Basically, all the problems were frozen and put aside for the future period; for now the former framework is preserved.

We can’t ignore geopolitics and inner political problems in the EaP countries — and we don’t solve anything by signing declarations and agreements. EU is not ready to reconsider its framework for policy; but the newly elected European Commission and European Parliament will face the same problems.

Thus, this Summit didn’t change anything for the National Platforms. However, civil society still has some time to reconsider the format of the partnership in the future.

— Ukraine’s refusal to sign the Association Agreement with the EU is a threat to the whole region to turn from European direction to the East, from democratic values to the authoritarian tendencies. What do Belarusan analysts think about the consequences of such geopolitical about-turn?

— There is nothing good for the civil society in it. Belarusan authoritarian practice sprawls all over the region: many restrictive elements for the civil society actions that have appeared in Belarus 5-10 years ago are being introduced in Russia and Azerbaijan now. But what is worst, there are no sources of development in this new union of Eurasian authoritarian states.

— The basis of the Ukrainian Euromaidan is the civil society; opposition is the mouthpiece that brings the demands of the Euromaidan to the notice of the authorities. Whereas Belarusan civil society remains inactive and doesn’t have any possibility to influence the situation in the country. Can such situation be changed?

— Euromaidan is, in fact, the phenomenon of the Ukrainian civil society. It was initiated by the journalists and civil society activists and from the very beginning it has been distanced from the political opposition and is self-governed by the civil society. However spontaneous Euromaidan is, Ukrainians turned out to be ready for such solidarity.

Something similar happened in 1996-1997 in our country; however, it is hard to imagine such situation now. We can, of course, change the situation; but in a completely different way. The sources of change lie in restoration of positive solidarity and the beginning of a broad public movement. Civil society should somehow restore its moral authorities for the people to follow them.

— All attempts to turn National Platform into a driving force of the public processes in Belarus turned to be unsuccessful. What is the National Platform’s strategy for the future actions?

— The strategy remains the same, and tactically it’s high time to involve into inner development, into what is called “organizational development”. We should be ready when the time to act comes.