Who could have thought in the 1990s that situation in the country would suggest analogies with the Soviet Union when Brezhnev was ruling the country.

Ulad Vialichka, the member of the Coordination Committee of the Belarusan National Platform of the EaP CSF and the chairman of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus”, in the interview with the EuroBelarus Information Service says that such analogy is not an exaggeration.

— If we talk about our inner Belarusan situation, about the third sector, the strengthening of the civil society, its reconsideration and reformatting, I believe that 2013 was rather fruitful and productive, — Ulad Vialichka believes. — It is during the last months of 2013 that the most significant events in our sphere have happened, such as the Third Human Rights Forum, which took place in Vilnius, Forum of Environmental Organizations of Belarus, and Citizenship.By Campaign. It was a certain review of several segments of the civil society in today’s situation, which I find quite useful. Being a part of these events, I noticed certain progress, certain growth, and maturity; different groups of organizations understand their role and place in these processes, even though we all are far from desirable results.

— What about the work of the Consortium during the last year?

— This year was of particular importance, as our three-year development program has been finished. For me personally and for “EuroBelarus” on the whole this year was a search of new formats, new approaches to the work with the Belarusan society, though I can’t say that we made a revolution.

We have also set forth a certain pool of leaders in 2013, who invest their energy, means, and contacts in order to change Belarusan life to the better.

And I believe that this switch to the things that are not directly linked with the political calendar, but are always high on the agenda, is the main result of 2013.

— How would you assess the last year in the nation-wide context?

— I have an ambiguous feeling about that. I would call this year a year of unfulfilled, even though modest, hopes. On the one hand, we all hoped that the situation will become easier and certain barriers are removed, by which I mean the release of the political prisoners. Unfortunately, these hopes remained unfulfilled. And I think that the fact that people with different beliefs are behind the bars now is but typical for stagnation. Though Belarus now is more open country in comparison with the late 1970s, psychological feeling remains the same.

In this situation Eastern Partnership program occupies a special place. We had hopes that the Summit in Vilnius would move Belarus-EU relations from a standstill. But the results of the Summit for us basically came to the statement about the readiness of Belarus to start negotiations about the simplification of the visa regime. And it is a poor show, as the country that talks about development and is facing the future can’t limit its expectations with these questions. So I would emphasize that the last year is the year of unfulfilled hopes.

— The end of the year was devoted to Euromaidan. Are there any similarities with Belarus or is it another story?

— Ukrainian situation is very important both for Ukraine and for our inner political life, the life of the whole region. But we should assess the situation in Ukraine rationally — neither romanticize it too much nor be too critical about it. But I think that the reality is absolutely different than it seems to be. On the one hand, the importance of Euromaidan cannot be overestimated: people were really protesting against the policy pursued in Ukraine, which is a very significant civic act unachievable for Belarus at the moment. On the other hand, we should understand that Ukrainians are mostly protesting against the inner politics, i.e. the decision not to sign the Association Agreement with the EU was the real reason why people went on strike. Though Maidan is a very important element of protest reaction, Ukrainian society is not ready to suggest the alterative in a constructive way, and I think that it hasn’t gone far from Belarus in it. In this sense — when it comes to alternative – we are in the same boat.

— Are the ideas of the civil in demand in today’s Belarus?

— It is almost twenty years that Belarus doesn’t have normal social relations, which means that it is very hard to articulate your point and communicate with other interested parties. Accordingly, Belarusans got used to thinking that civil society is not an instrument for decision making. Civil society faces the same problems that political parties are facing — it is marginalized, alienated and isolated from ordinary people. To solve the problem Belarusans would rather go the authorities than to some public structures; it means that in Belarus we miss certain stage of civil society development.

However, there is one thing that comforts me — as soon as the moment to return to the normal path of development comes, the role and the place of the civil society will be restored. No country in the world has managed to escape that; and I hope that it will happen in our country and people who gave the enormous part of their lives to establish the civil society will see that these years have passed not for nothing.

There is one more factor that prevents the development of the civil society. Humanitarian component of our life is overshadowed by material part; i.e. for contemporary Belarusan the quality of life from the material side is much more important than his values. People protest only when the state tries to slip its hand into their pockets. Of course, the number of active people is growing, but with time young people can put material values before humanitarian ones. And this, I believe, is the task of the civil society – to increase the priority of humanitarian problems, values, tasks in the society. People today define the humanitarian part of their life as charity, but fail to put in order the decision-making mechanism itself.

But even in the most unfavorable circumstances, civil society always has what to do and what to struggle for.